Guest Workers 1AC
1AC
1AC – Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should implement a renewable,
uncapped, portable guest worker visa for agricultural workers from Mexico.
1AC – Agriculture Advantage
Advantage __ – Agriculture
Massive ag labor shortage now – immigration enforcement only makes it worse
Elias 13
(Thomas, masters in journalism from Stanford, “Farm labor shortages may drive immigration changes”
Sandiego Source, newspaper, May 10, pg online at
http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?SourceCode=20130510tza&Commentary_ID=109&_t=F
arm+labor+shortages+may+drive+immigration+changes#.Ucypofkphsk//sd)
There has been some dispute over whether the labor shortages California farmers reported over the
last few years are real. It turns out they are very real, but that doesn’t quiet the skeptics. “We are told that unless we allow
criminals, illegal aliens [the] freedom to take American jobs, our agriculture will be destroyed,” wrote conservative blogger Steve Frank, former
president of the California Republican Assembly, last year. “Like most other statements of the lamestream media, that is a downright lie.” He
used the fact that this state’s farm profits were up in 2011 — from $11.1 billion the previous year to $16.1 billion — to call the reported
shortage “phony.” Those profit numbers came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But the USDA also reports on crop production and
some of those numbers tell a different story, while also implying that the added profits may have been a result of smaller supplies. For example,
California growers produced 1.5 million tons of raisin grapes last year, compared with 1.8 million in
2011, causing prices to increase while grape-harvesting expenses dropped. Prices were also up for table grapes
from $306 per ton to $358 and the price of canned apricots went from $330 to $419 per ton, while production was down. So there’s
more to the farm profit picture than just the bottom line. The price per pound or ton also counts for a lot. And both
wholesale prices and profits rose last year, making it an outstanding year for agriculture. With 2011-12 a relatively wet winter and prices at
or near peaks for almost all crops, there was only one reason for production to be down last year: a
shortage of labor. This was caused in part by stricter enforcement of immigration laws, with the
Obama administration already having deported more illegal immigrants than the George W. Bush
administration did in its full eight years. Farm labor problems persisted in 2012, although they’ve sometimes
been hard to quantify. The Western Growers Association said last fall that its members were reporting 20 percent fewer
laborers available than the year before. At the same time, the California Farm Bureau Federation put the
shortage between 30 per cent and 40 percent of the workforce needed. Those numbers are not official, but the
group said U.S. workers were not taking the vacant jobs. That was consistent with the results of an
experiment conducted several years ago by Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who had every Employment Development
Department office in the state list farm jobs as available. Fewer than 10 unemployed U.S. citizens applied for that
work, even though it paid well over the state’s hourly minimum wage. One Santa Barbara County farmer with crops
as varied as lemons and strawberries reported that he had to leave some of his produce to rot in the field last summer and fall. Similar waste
occurred in Kern, Butte and Riverside counties, among others. One reason: A
high percentage of California fruit and
vegetable pickers are illegal immigrants. Farm bureau organizations in other states report similar labor shortages. So
farmers want any immigration changes coming from Washington, D.C. this year to include a guest-worker
program.
US food production is on the brink of collapse – a guest worker program is key to
keeping US agriculture competitive
Barlow 2013, June 8, Ag Industry needs Immigration Reform, H.H Barlow: was a member of the U.S
Board for International Food and Agriculture Development, http://www.newsgraphic.com/opinion/columnists/article_2bc51520-cfb7-11e2-8a20-0019bb2963f4.html
That’s why I support the passage of meaningful immigration reform through in Congress.As the owner of Barlu Farms in Cave City and former presidential appointee
to the U.S. Board for International Food and Agriculture Development, I
see the economic consequences of our broken
immigration system every day. My fellow dairymen and I have great difficulty in hiring people to work on our
farms. Kentuckians often don’t want these jobs, but immigrants do. Unfortunately, we simply do not have enough of these
hard-working immigrants consistently available to work. This labor shortage affects dairy farms, as
well as beef, horse, chicken, and tobacco farms. The negative impacts of a broken immigration system
not only affect my business personally but our state and ultimately national economy. If we are not able to pass meaningful
immigration reform this year, food production across the US will be harmed. It’s time to overhaul our outdated
system and bring it into the 21st Century to make alleviate the pressure on our farms and remain
economically competitive with the rest of the world.A recent study in another agriculture-heavy state, North Carolina, showed just
how important immigrant labor can be to the overall economy. The study — done by the Center for Agriculture Development and the Partnership for a New
American Economy — found that every 3-5 foreign farm workers the U.S. allows in creates one additional American job. Fixing our immigration system enhances
our economy and breeds more opportunity for American workers.Fortunately, many of our elected leaders in Washington are beginning to get the message. Getting
Republicans and Democrats to work together often seems impossible, but we are seeing some bipartisan cooperation on this issue. Four Republicans and fo ur
Democrats (the “Gang of 8”) are working to reform our broken immigration system and have a bill headed to the floor of the U.S. Senate very soon.
Guest workers are key to the whole industry – US ag will collapse without the plan
Clemens 13 [Michael A. Clemens; INTERNATIONAL HARVEST: A Case Study of How Foreign Workers Help American Farms Grow Crops
– and the Economy; Clemens has a PHD from Harvard in Economics and is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development where he leads
the Migration and Development initiative; http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/nc-agr-report-05-2013.pdf; May 2013]
The data show this is not a case of farmers preferring foreign labor because they can pay foreign workers less; no matter how bad the economy
turned, there were still very few native workers who were willing to take farm jobs. The picture is clear: farms
will not get the labor
they need from natives alone. Without foreign seasonal workers, whole subsectors of agriculture
would not exist in North Carolina today. The example of the North Carolina Growers Association affirms how
deeply American farms depend on foreign labor, and how fundamental foreign labor is to making the
agriculture industry run. Immigration policies can and should protect native employment, but should also not ignore economic reality.
About two-thirds of hired farm workers in America today are foreigners, and America’s farms are
depending steadily more on hired help and less on family members: according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, paid
employees made up about 60 percent of all farm workers, a substantial rise from the 40 percent share they made up in the 1990s
(correspondingly, unpaid family members constituted 60 percent of farm workers nationally in the 1990s but only 40 percent today). The
same survey also showed that Americans are also demanding more fresh produce over time, which
relies more heavily on manual labor to harvest, and demand for these labor-intensive crops is only
expected to increase. These trends mean that the role of foreign labor on American farms will only
grow larger in the coming years, and we need to make sure our immigration policies are equipped to
get us the workers we need.
US agriculture is key to global food security
FarmJournal Foundation, 2010, "Farmers Feeding the World U.S. Agriculture," Farmers Feeding
The World,
http://www.agweb.com/farmersfeedingtheworld/farmers_feeding_the_world_agriculture1.aspx
An unprecedented challenge lies before global agriculture: producing 70 percent more food than it
does today in order to feed an expected world population of 9 billion people in 2050. In addition to the
sheer number of people to feed, agriculture will have to meet this extraordinary demand sustainably,
on essentially the same amount of land, and with diminishing natural resources. As the most prolific
food producer in the world, great responsibility falls on the American farmer and U.S. agriculture to
lead the global community in its fight to feed a hungry world. Why should responsibility fall to the
American farmer? Because U.S. agriculture is blessed with abundant natural resources, significant
investment in private and public agricultural research, and the most advanced agricultural technology
in the world, placing it in the best position to drive total global food supply.
American ag industry key to support global food markets
Bertini and Glickman, ’13. Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, World Food Program,
United Nations. Dan Glickman, Former Secretary, US Department of Agriculture May 2013. “Advancing
Global Food Security: THE POWER OF SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS.” report issued by an
independent Advisory group on global Agricultural development. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global
issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning.
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/2013_Advancing_Glob
al_Food_Security.pdf - clawan
The United States has before it the opportunity to be a catalyst to advance global food security. The
blueprint put forward in this report calls for the US government to lead an international effort to mobilize science,
increase trade, and leverage the strengths of business to advance global agricultural development as a
means to increase food security. The United States has proven it can provide international leadership in the quest
toward global food security and encourage others to act on this issue. It has the expertise, institutions, and experience to energize this effort. What is required is the
vision and commitment of American governmental, university, research, and business leaders working alongside their international counterparts. The
recommendations in this report, if implemented and sustained, will
help lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty
over the next two decades and help ensure sustainable food and nutrition security for future
generations to come. They will also guard the world’s natural resource base, make agriculture more
resilient to climate change, and contribute to economic growth and social stability in regions of the world that are
key to US interests. If the United States fails to form a strategy, or if attempts to meet future food demand would falter, progress toward
reducing global poverty may halt, and America’s domestic and international interests may be put at risk. Hunger
would sow more conflict and political unrest in parts of the world that are vitally important to US
interests. The number of those living in chronic hunger would increase. The United States could miss the opportunity to cultivate new markets in developing
countries. The American farm belt—one of the strongest parts of the economy—could lose export
opportunities and see its future prospects dim.THE CHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL AFFAIRS 5
European policies fail – too export-oriented
GPF, 6/27/13. Global Policy Forum is an independent policy watchdog that monitors the work of the
United Nations and scrutinizes global policymaking. We promote accountability and citizen participation
in decisions on peace and security, social justice and international law. “EU Agricultural Reform Misses
Opportunity.” http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/217-hunger/52432-euagricultural-reform-misses-opportunity.html
According to the German NGOs Brot für die Welt and WWF Germany, the preliminary agreement reached on the reform of the European Union’s
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) remains far behind its formulated goals. In particular, it does not take
into account the effect it has on economic development in countries of the global South, given that it
leaves out both sustainability as well as justice. “The EU continues to ignore any possible external implications of its agricultural policy”,
commented Stig Tanzmann, agricultural expert from Brot für die Welt. Particularly disappointing is the fact that the EU was not even able to
come to an agreement with regard to export subsidies, which have been going on for decades now,
but whose cancellation is utterly overdue. The EU’s milk quota will run out in 2015, at which point the EU will receive a lot of calls
demanding export subsidies to make up for the lost domestic revenues. Therefore, Tanzman worries that “successful milk producers in developing countries such as
Zambia or Kenya will once again have to compete with cheap EU milk, which will marginalize local production.” The
new agreement further fails
to account for the damage being done by EU imports, which have equally detrimental implications. The
production of soy beans which are imported from South America into the European Union is taking up 30 million hectares of farmland. In turn, this land cannot be
used by developing countries themselves in order to provide food security for their populations. Thus, the
CAP is also a matter of land
grabbing. Moreover, the soy bean imports enable large-scale poultry exports from the EU to African countries, which amount to more than 450,000 tons a
year. The new CAP regulations are still lacking a complaint mechanism for producers who are affected
by cheap EU exports. However, instead of facing the problems caused by European agricultural policies,
the new CAP simply purports a new green look, without changing its old export-oriented nature.
Ag decline makes the US a net food importer – triggers global food shortages,
recession, mass die-offs, and nuclear conflict
Andrew McKillop, former chief policy analyst @ European Commission, 8-4-2011, “The Food Crisis
War Endgame,” Market Oracle, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article29666.html
We know all to well that "food is a weapon". This is what we can call FoodWar-1, dating from the 1970s and before. Food supply was then only a blunt instrument in the foreign policy of food
exporter countries - which were traditionally led by the USA, the biggest exporter, but that is changing fast. In commercial terms, the
balance on its food trade by value, the USA will likely become a net food importer by or before 2017. Other major food
exporters are as small in number as the number of world net creditor nations - that is countries whose debts are lower than their credits, and which usually run net trade surpluses with the rest
of the world. More than 150 nations run a deficit on their food trade - they import more food than export it. The food deficit is worse than the oil deficit, measured by global food import dependence. The so-called "food weapon"
in fact exhibits, yet again, the wall-to-wall schizophrenia that is not second nature, but the primary nature of our crisis prone and dangeroulsy incompetent ruling political and corporate elites. They want food shortage, to exercise
the growing population
will eat up the food surpluses - and neither a worker nor a consumer of T-shirts and cellphones is much use when they do not have enought to eat. Food shortage is driven by population growth:
political and commercial power, and they also want population growth, for cheap labor and growing markets - but refuse to understand this is a zero sum game. Literally,
anybody who wants to deny that by calling it fascistminded can take a look at how agribusiness operates, from Monsanto, Dow, Bayer and McDonalds to the Bill Gates Foundation. Their game is trashing the environment for
decades or centuries ahead and making profits right now - - while just about being able to feed 6.1 billion persons on Earth. The other 900 million suffer permanent food shortage. That is one-in-seven of world population. The
number of underfed is growing by around 4% to 6% per year - far ahead of the population growth rate, and the average rate of global economic growth. And one thing is sure: in global economic recession the underfed will grow
food
prices stay high and dangerous. They can, could or might even continue rising in global economic recession, drastically multiplying
the social stress and damage from recession. The cards and dice are stacked and rolling that way. We can be 100% certain that any abandonment of pesticides-and-ferilizer,
even faster, unless food prices behave like "other commodities" and tank in recession - which is no longer certain. This is the danger: recession will come. Oil prices will drop, even gold edges down a little - maybe - but
monocrop, irrigation-based "farming", that is agribusiness, will firstly result in a large net fall in world total food supply. Any attempt at a rapid phase-out of agribusiness would move us up to say 1300 million persons who suffer
permanent day in and day out food shortage - and anybody saying we need to control population is still a fascist, right ? The shift to sustainable low-input agriculture, ask Bill Gates, is a nice slogan but doing it will soon be a lot
more necessary than only talking about it. This is an epochal shift and a change of civilization, which Gates doesn't mention too often - it will be bad for profits - and the change that is coming will be basically open-ended.
Population control will be high up the list. GETTING WORRIED Just occasionally, our ruling elites get worried about their gameplan of food undersupply-population oversupply. Being fascist minded when pushed, they have all kinds
of fallback ideas and plans for wiping out a billion persons here, a billion persons there: this isnt Norway designer massacre stuff ! But until they have to pull the plug on the human race - and being schizophrenic - they have to keep
the party going with profits flowing from growing populations and for corporate cronies who make everything from fertilizers and pesticides to nerve gas and bioweapons. In fact, these 3 last-cited business activities are all closelinked and related: check the story of the organophosphate pesticides like TEPP, which started their commercial lives as ultra-powerful, ultralethal nerve gases and chem-bio weapons. Spraying them around in the country is called
"farming". Monocrop high yield agribusiness, with its oil-pesticides-fertilizer mantra, to which you need to add irrigation (78 percent of world water is used in farming), is the only thing that separates us all from a decades-long food
crisis. Our elites musing in private on how to get rid of 1 billion here and 1 billion there would have their musings fulfilled - and more. But their one-only choice of agribusiness, and their refusal to act against overpopulation means
the unwinding of the coming global food crisis is completely out of their hands. Just like the sovereign debt crisis. Back as 1974 Henry Kissinger, who is often accused of war crimes but not FoodWar crime, mused in secret that
Hungry people will do anything for food". Those who control food supply can use it as leverage. This revelation
for Kissinger coincided with the USA learning about oil shortage, but his argument was that food shortage can be used to induce political change including forced birth control. This musing from 1974 is now revealed, in a previously classified US National Security Study Memorandum, No. 200: "Implications of Worldwide Population
"
Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests". Kissinger advocated various tactics but had no real strategy. Food supplies on one hand could be used to force family planning, and they could also be used as a blunt instrument of
foreign policy but only against countries in dire straits. The use of "the food weapon" was not taken up at the time by US deciders, for the simple reason that the US food trade surplus was so important for helping trim the USA's
already growing overseas debts and rising trade deficits. What happened since the 1970s is easy to summarize. The facts speak for themselves: through 1970- 2010 the world's population doubled from 3.5 billion to 7 billion. It
grew by over 11 times the population of the USA today. If it could or might have been possible to feed the 3.5 billion in 1970, which wasn't the case, it will be even less possible to feed the 7 billion od today, growing at 65 million a
year. This is a simple fact. Forgot about your "knowledge based agro-revolution" and Third World farmers with cellphones finding the best price for their products in the nearest market. Our ruling elites know all this, but being
schizoid, they panic about ageing Baby Boomer populations and insufficient birth numbers of future consumers and future taxpayers to help pay the wild, fantastic sovereign debts they also cooked up through their one-only wait-
The Kissinger food war strategy was far away
only really works on nations and territories enduring economic collapse and with few or no food stocks and resources for food
production. The "peace dividend" for FoodWar is like the peace dividend in Afghanistan: zero. The
country or countries wracked by famine and food shortage will certainly not bounce back into virile economic growth,
then-panic operating mode for running the economy. So they want population growth but they fear population growth - which they should. OUT OF TIME
from being a subtle thing: it
because solving food shortage - with growing populations - is not an easy thing. This is basically why Kissinger's 1974 strategy (in fact tactics) were put on the back burner. As a result, and because the world's population "just
happened to double", the world's environment has been ransacked and continent-sized ecosystems have been dangerously weakened, often right to the brink. We have a whole new FoodWar, operating right now, worldwide,
uncontrollable.We can call it FoodWar-2, and it's an endgame. Everybody loses, we have no choice. We can call FoodWar-2 more subtle because it is multiform, dangerous and permanent, unlike the outlyer food panics of the
1960s and 1970s - which were supposedly "solved forever" by the Green Revolution, which in fact was nothing but the good old mantra of oil-fertilizers-pesticides-irrigation, and nothing else. FoodWar-2 is also different because it
On present population growth trends, with present urban-rural population patterns, with the same
the countdown to dependence on food imports for nearly all present major food exporters in the OECD group - like the
USA, France and Spain - is fast and sure. It may happen by 2020, perhaps a little later, perhaps sooner. No Einstein is needed to tell you, it is not possible to have a
world made up of countries all of which are net food importers. This is the endgame and it is coming. There are so few exceptions to the list of large
is engaged against every country on Earth - including the food game controllers.
economic system as we have now,
food exporters in the OECD Old Rich-New Poor group of countries which will not soon become importers, that we can name them: Australia and New Zealand. We can be sure and certain these 2 countries can't feed the world, and
have already maxxed out in agroproduction.
By 2017 on current trends, the USA will be running a net trade deficit on food and
agricultural products. The European Union is proud of its agribusiness forcing strategy, the Common Agriculture Policy, taking over 60 percent of all European Commission spending but if those subsidies are stripped away, Europe's
27 countries become instant food deficit. Without subsidies and good old agribusiness, Europe is a food importing group of countries, and has been that way for decades. Japan has the most oil-intensive food production system in
the world, using an incredible 10 barrels of oil per hectare, each year in its rice farming, but even with this, it remains a huge food importer country. Both China and India are large and growing net food importers, having to spend
there are only two ways out of the food shortage and overpopulation threat: increase food
supply or reduce population. This has been known for decades - but nothing happened. Making this even worse, FoodWar-2 operates a multifaceted attack on anything and everything to do with
more and more on food subsidies.. Like we know,
food. This ranges from what is outright biological warfare against natural species and natural ecosystems - called agribusiness and producing the food you eat - to people's physical, as well as commercial and economic access to
food. In other words, what Kissinger advocated 37 years ago has spiralled out, grown in scale and complexity, getting so expansive and wide ranging that it is almost surely and certainly out of control. The game controllers
themselves got trapped by their own refusal to treat the real problems - and when they are in trouble, watch out ! AGRIBUSINESS KILLS Global agribusiness is very comparable to, and dependent on global banking. Through massive
corporate consolidation in agriculture, food and farming, coordinated and convergent global food regulations, and chaff dollars euro and yen thrown on the gaming play tables of unrestrained food commodity speculation,
agribusiness creates food shortage, and has a vested interest in food price explosions. To be sure, we wont expect the agribusiness players to say that ! Commodity-oriented agribusiness is a corporate profit tool, but farmers net
few or no gains from this. Farmers are low-tech debt-serfs in the low income countries, and are high-tech debt-serfs in the high income countries. Agribusiness is lethal to the planet and to our future. It wreaks chemical damage,
genetic modification and systematic damage right across the food web, both locally and across continents. It punches deep holes in the very base of biosystem and ecosystem operation - for example by almost wiping out bee
populations in dozens of countries, cutting their numbers by as much as 75% since 2005 in some cases. We have constant, sad and shameful proof of the damage dome by agribusiness, in the shape of collateral dead natural
systems, right across the planet. The seven seas, for example, have been so ruthlessly predated by deep sea and inshore fishing, that large and ever-growing numbers of food fish species will take decades or even centuries to
recoup numbers - or die out entirely. We have lost the resource. Aquaculture and mariculture run on the business mantra of oil-antibiotics-insecticidesfungicides, in case you didnt know, meaning we replace the good with the
harmful and unsustainable. This is progress ! We are feeding about 6-in-7 of the world's population: Rejoice ! On top of real shortage,
FoodWar 2 brings manipulated and
unpredictable food shortages, and underlines what this new war really means: this war targets the general population everywhere. We are all targeted. The bottom line is simple and you can see it in your local shop: It means high food prices and also the increasingly sombre and real threat of
straight physical shortage. The Olde Worlde term for this is: famine. We therefore need to understand the strategy and tactics in order to fight back against them: this war is produced by the exact same elites who have
destroyed our economic and monetary systems, but the damage done to natural ecosystems and living species is not going to be changed overnight through a stroke of the pen. Debts could or might be treated that way, even
though debt conflicts often lead to war. But the damage from FoodWar-2 will need decades and decades of massive change to stop the Death Machine. Food shortage is not going to run away and disappear because the economy
got a little less bad. Also and unfortunately, like so many other crises we heard too much about but which never happened, nobody will believe in this one until it hits them - in the stomach. YOU THOUGHT FOOD PRICES ARE RISING
? Crippling food price inflation, by 2008, had caused deadly riots in at least 40 countries. Today in 2011, food commodity prices are as high, in some cases higher than they were in 2008 - and world population has risen by another
200 million since 2008, or two-thirds of the USA's total population today. Through June 2010-June 2011, the UN FAO's world food price index rose by 39 percent. Food price inflation now affects every corner of the globe, to be sure
with the poorest countries most exposed and feeling the worst hunger pangs. All and every country experiencing the Arab Spring revolt, and its trend to linked civil war, is we can note totally dependent on food imports for all basic
foods. The world's three-largest wheat importes by rank are Egypt, Algeria and Saudi Arabia. Street protest might be nice, and is surely needed to overthrow dictators and tyrants - backed or tolerated by the western democracies
for decades - but
food shortage is almost guaranteed to turn democracy protests into civil war, even faster and more surely. Exactly
like oil prices, food commodity prices rise not only through physical shortage, but also because of the naked decline of the US dollar used to pay for them, causing a flight to "real resources". Factors like extreme weather damage,
tsunami damage in Japan, and plant or livestock diseases and pathogen outbreaks - often linked to chemical and genetic manipulation of crop plant and livestock species - can at any time radically cut supplies and increase food
prices in a few days hectic trading. The arm of food shortage and high prices, to be sure, can still be wielded in blunt weapon FoodWar-1 style, on already down-and-out countries. The endless negotiations with North Korea are
basically a nuclear threat and food game, where Pyongyang holds a nuclear gun to the West's head in exchange for food. Pirate Somalia, when it was last a country and not a fuzzy and starving no-mans-land of feudal chiefdoms,
was food self-sufficient until the 1970s. It is a "failed state" because of food shortage or food shortage helps keep it locked down as a failed state. Like we can guess, the Peace Dividend in either of these cases will be almost zero,
but deliberately intensifying the food crises in North Korea and Somalia yet again underlines the schizoid but vicious nature of our ruling elites. More important, FoodWar-2 needs no political trigger-pull, the process is in global
operation now, 24/7, and will only keep going. The measuring rod of this is rising food prices. Food War 2 is worldwide and multiform, but has one single end result: food prices will rise. Trapped in a web of regulations restricting
food freedom in all ways, starting with what farmers are allowed to produce, to protect the agribusiness cartel which controls the basic building blocks of food, from the molecular level up and through the entire system, the
potential for change is low. Raising global food output through changing the methods and techniques utilised, including a shift back to traditional farming, is practically impossible, even in the midterm. There is no short-term way
out, nor midterm way out. Food prices could "go on rising forever", but just like other fetish symbols and needs of the consumer society - oil in particular - when we have a constantly rising price, the economic and social systems
get flakier, faster. This will go on a certain time, depending on wealth and spending capabilities in different countries, depending how much inflation middle class voters can absorb with their McDonalds - but the process will not go
on forever. BLOWBACK TIME The elites took a look at runaway population growth in the 1970s and stepped back: they linked it with controlled and manipulated food production, and made a weapon out of it. The weapon was
People who are hungry and out of a job are
the stuff of which dictatorships are made." They also make revolutions, Mr Roosevelt. The same elites who cooked up FoodWar 2 have destroyed the economy of dozens of
remodeled and refined over the decades, while population kept on growing. Today, the words of Roosevelt are acid-tinged: "
countries - especially their own countries - since 2008. In Europe's debtwracked PIIGS, adult unemployment is often 20 percent, and youth unemployment 40 percent. Rising food prices can easily help the generally placid, inert and
egoist, consumption crazy populations of Old Rich-New Poor countries to get a lot less inert and a lot more more political. Food War2 comes at a particularly bad time for our ruling elites - so if they chose to aggravate and intensify
FoodWar-2 this is yet another proof of their stupidity. Out in the killing fields, that is agribusiness fields, the damage keeps on growing. The biosystem damage reducing future bioproductivity - the ability of living systems to provide
us food - continues 24/7. Agribusiness employs a host of methods and tactics which make this certain, like destroying biodiversity to the point where only GM seeds for crops totally dependent on pesticides and fertilisers can grow
in near-sterile, compacted, degraded and eroded soils, called "fields". But agribusiness has no strategy - or if it does have one it has no sense at all - because it is zero sum and total loss. This blowback is known and proven by what
we have now. More is coming and exactly the same applies to overpopulation. Refusal to apply population controls 40 years ago has in that time allowed another 3.5 billion persons to need food, now and every day, but
The growth in numbers of those who dont eat - around 4 to 6 percent a year - vastly
outstrips either economic growth or the growth rate of global population - around 0.9 percent a year. Agribusiness and overpopulation
are two proven loser strategies. When the ruling elites get a handle on this they will panic , as ever. In semi-secret cabals and clubs like the Club of Madrid and
agribusiness denies food to more than 900 million persons, today and every day.
the WorldShift Network, for at least 4 years, agenda items include present world food shortage and the coming shortage of medecines, fertilizers, genetic materials for agribusiness crops, livestock pathogen outbreaks - and a string
of other tell-tale items. Also figuring,
to be sure, is the "potential" for nuclear catastrophes, in the plural. We can perhaps get a little satisfaction
from knowing that FoodWar 2 was almost certainly never planned as a global strategy. It emerged from a nexus of never treating simple problems with clear and courageous action, but to always use two-faced muddling through with panic afterwards. Cynics can of course say the elites acted like that with the economy - they muddle through with bigger and bigger debts - so its no surprise they do the same with food and population. But as we have said
many times in this article, the lasting damage to the environment from agribusiness, even if we stopped it dead in its bulldozer tracks, would take decades to heal. And between times how do we produce the food needed for 7 or 8
billion persons, assuming that population control goes serious, and world population peaks out at 8 billion ? FoodWar-2 happened because it was unplanned. It was only a reaction to short-term corporate needs for making profit
out of hunger, but the agribusiness weapon that was used is now killing the planet. FoodWar-2 goes far beyond so-called "economic and military security" - and concerns our basic ability to eat. This ultra basic need is now
systemically compromised, worldwide:
FoodWar 2 has gone critical.
Food shortages kill billions and spark global wars – comparatively outweighs other
impacts
Julian Cribb, principal of JCA, fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and
Engineering, 2010, The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tv0zXxbQ7toC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+coming+famine&hl=e
n&sa=X&ei=RR_mT7OYFKeq2gXP5tHZCQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20coming%20fami
ne&f=false
The character of human conflict has also changed: since the early 1990S, more wars have been triggered by disputes over
food, land, and water than over mere political or ethnic differences. This should not surprise US: people have
fought over the means of survival for most of history. But in the abbreviated reports on the nightly media, and even in the
rarefied realms of government policy, the focus is almost invariably on the players—the warring national, ethnic, or religious factions—rather
than on the play, the deeper subplots building the tensions that ignite conflict. Caught
up in these are groups of ordinary,
desperate people fearful that there is no longer sufficient food, land, and water to feed their
children—and believing that they must fight ‘the others” to secure them. At the same time, the number of
refugees in the world doubled, many of them escaping from conflicts and famines precipitated by food and resource shortages. Governments in
troubled regions tottered and fell. The
coming famine is planetary because it involves both the immediate
effects of hunger on directly affected populations in heavily populated regions of the world in the
next forty years—and also the impacts of war, government failure, refugee crises, shortages, and food
price spikes that will affect all human beings, no matter who they are or where they live. It is an
emergency because unless it is solved, billions will experience great hardship, and not only in the
poorer regions. Mike Murphy, one of the world’s most progressive dairy farmers, with operations in Ireland, New Zealand, and North and
South America, succinctly summed it all up: “Global warming gets all the publicity but the real imminent threat to the human race is starvation
on a massive scale. Taking a 10—30 year view, I believe that food
shortages, famine and huge social unrest are probably
the greatest threat the human race has ever faced. I believe future food shortages are a far bigger world threat than global
warming.”2° The coming famine is also complex, because it is driven not by one or two, or even a half dozen, factors but rather by the
confluence of many large and profoundly intractable causes that tend to amplify one another. This means that it cannot easily be remedied by
“silver bullets” in the form of technology, subsidies, or single-country policy changes, because of the synergetic character of the things that
power it.
1AC – Illegal Immigration Advantage
Advantage __ – Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigration from Mexico to the US is massively increasing and sucking up
border patrol resources – don’t buy the neg’s statistics
La Jeunesse, 13 (William La Jeunesse, journalist since 1998 for FOX News, graduate from Syracuse
University, “Stats show surge in illegal immigrant border traffic despite Napolitano claims”, April 5 2013,
FoxNews.com, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/05/stats-show-surge-in-illegal-immigrantborder-traffic-despite-napolitano-claims/, //nikp)
Newly released arrest numbers show a significant increase in illegal immigrants crossing along the
southwest border, despite claims as recently as Thursday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano that the border is more secure. "I can tell you having worked that border for 20 years, it is more secure now than it
has ever been. Illegal apprehensions are at 40-year lows," Napolitano told reporters this week in Houston. But figures released Thursday
by Customs and Border Protection to Fox News tell a different story. Arrests are actually up 13 percent
compared with the same time last year. The number was 170,223 in 2012, and is 192,298 this year.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, reacting to those numbers, questioned Napolitano's insistence that the border is
becoming more secure. "There is no statistic, metric or evidence that the border is more secure than ever. I
went out there for a couple days and found multiple spots where you can see trails of people coming in.
They were still apprehending massive amounts of drugs out there, this is a very porous border," Chaffetz
said. The numbers back up anecdotal claims that Texas is seeing a marked surge in traffic. The increase
comes as Congress prepares to debate immigration legislation, which in its draft form is expected to
include a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already here. Some have expressed
concern this provision could entice illegal immigrants to cross over. The stats show that in Texas, arrests in
the last six months are up 53 percent in the Rio Grande Valley; up 22 percent in Laredo; and up 24 percent in
El Paso. While arrest figures can be interpreted in different ways, the administration generally has seen
lower numbers as a sign of better security. For the last five years, the administration claimed the border
was more secure because arrest numbers declined as the economy tanked. Would-be illegal immigrants
from Mexico either stayed home or went home. Now, however, arrests are actually up by 25,000. That
means more traffic, and more immigrants actually getting through. According to the Government
Accountability Office, up to 40 percent of those who make it over the southwest border never get
caught. But a new radar drone, called "VADER," showed during a three-month test in Arizona that agents are catching fewer than 50 percent
of those who successfully cross the border and then disappear into the mountains, valleys and deserts. Administration sources say, however,
the system is still in a testing phase, the 50 percent figure is inaccurate and VADER alone offers an incomplete picture. Customs
and
Border Protection says they are using all the resources they can to crack down on the problem areas.
"Under this administration, DHS has dedicated historic levels of personnel, technology, and resources to the
Southwest border. CBP has more than doubled the size of the U.S. Border Patrol since 2004. In FY (Fiscal
Year) 2012, CBP employed over 21,300 Border Patrol agents, keeping staffing levels along the border at
an all-time high.
Guest worker program for Mexico increases legal immigration and reduces incentives
for illegal immigration – status quo approaches fail
Bier, 5/31 - David Bier is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. His publications are often posted on the Huffington Post
(“Senate Bill Won’t Stop Illegal Immigration Without More Work Visas”, 5/31/13, http://www.openmarket.org/2013/05/31/senate-bill-wontstop-illegal-immigration-without-more-work-visas)
Cards When the Senate “Gang
of 8” released their immigration reform principles earlier this year, they made an important
admission: that drastic restrictions on low-skilled work visas incentivizes illegal immigration. The
principles called for “a humane and effective system” for the “overwhelming majority of the 327,000 illegal entrants” apprehended in 2011 “to
prevent future waves of illegal immigration.” Unfortunately, although
the Gang’s bill improves legal immigration
options, it clearly doesn’t live up to this principle. The Senate legislation deletes one option while creating two new ones—
one for agricultural work and another for non-agricultural work. It allocates 112,333 ag visas (W-2/W-3 visas) per year for the first five years.
But it replaces the H-2A farm visa program that already brought in around 80,000/year. This means the new ag visa program initially adds at
most just 32,333 net visas each year. For other employment (W-1 visas), the bill grants just 46,250/year over the first four years—meaning, the
government would issue up to (no guarantees!) 78,583 new visas per year for the next four years. In other words, the bill’s quotas are 250,000
below what the Gang claimed was necessary just a few months ago. Worse still, the
actual shortfall is much greater than this
because the Gang’s estimate of visa demand 1) excluded demand from would-be legal immigrants and
2) only included “apprehended” entrants 3) from a single year and 4) from a single border region. 1)
Many more would-be legal immigrants would want to come if legal options open up; 2) the apprehension
figure ignores all those avoided detection (about 350,000/year during the 2000s); 3) FY2011 had extraordinary few apprehensions—even in
2008 the number was twice as high (475,000/year over last five years); 4) these
visas might primarily go to immigrants from
Mexico and central America, the primary sending nations for border crossers, but other nations would
also compete for the limited supply; 5) finally, the calculation ignores how increasing the availability of work visas to new sectors
(dairy, meatpacking, etc.) and new job categories (employment longer than a year) might affect U.S. employer demand. After the fifth year,
the quota for farm workers would be set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in “consultation with” the
Department of Labor (DOL) based on a variety of “market-based” factors—a “demonstrated shortage,” unemployment of U.S.
farm workers, visas sought by employers in the previous year, etc. The end product of this calculation is discretionary and
could result in many more or many less visas depending on what USDA and DOL negotiate and the politics of the next president. Unfortunately,
the initial quota level might act as a starting point for the USDA, keeping the total number of new visas relatively low. For non-farm workers,
the annual quota after year five could increase up to 200,000 plus up to 20,000 more for meat cutters. Unfortunately, the actual quota will be
calculated by a political appointee based on an undefined “methodology.” If historical precedent is any guide, regulatory agencies tend to like
to regulate rather than deregulate, and such open-ended authority might ultimately keep numbers far below this level. Consider the current H2A Ag visa program already has no numerical limit, but still has never issued more than 80,000 visas in a given year—it is open in theory, closed
in practice. Over the
next five years, based on the number border crossers—apprehended and not—in recent years
are at least 740,000 short of the Gang’s goal to stop attempted illegal
(~825,000), guest work visas
entries. After that, the shortage might drop, optimistically, to 490,000 or so. A final consideration is the time-constraints for these workers.
These low-skilled visas are good for three years and only can be renewed once. After that, all must leave. But the
incentives to overstay are huge, particularly given the uncertainty of being able to secure another
visa. We know that almost half of the unauthorized population did not cross the border illegally, but simply ignored visa time-constraints.
Therefore, if the Senate bill is serious about eliminating illegal immigration, it should implement two
reasonable guest worker reforms: Permit work renewals (assuming their employers remain eligible for a worker) indefinitely, but
withhold a certain percentage of guest workers’ income to be returned upon departure—if they fail to return after losing employment, take a
certain percentage each month they stay without working at a registered employer. Include
the level of illegal immigration
into the “market-based” factors for increasing the quotas. We already know that robust guest worker
programs can dramatically reduce illegal immigration. The 1960s Bracero work visa program proved
that beyond any doubt. It is good that in principle, the Gang of 8 recognizes this, but their proposal fails to meet their principle. Congress must
amend this bill to head off another wave of illegal immigration.
Removing quotas is key to stop illegal immigration – status quo approaches won’t
remedy the problem
Jacoby 6-11 - Tamar Jacoby is known primarily for her writing on immigration-related issues. She is also president and CEO of
ImmigrationWorks USA (“Guest Workers Are the Best Border Security”, 6/11/13, WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324634304578535823045836956.html)
With the Senate beginning debate this week on the immigration reform bill, border security will be one of the most contentious issues. Sen. Marco Rubio (R.,
Fla.) argues at every opportunity that "immigration
reform hinges on border security," and he isn't wrong. But physical control of the
least as important is finding a way for immigrants to work
here legally. That's where a guest-worker program is crucial. The U.S. workforce is changing. Americans are having smaller
border can go only so far in preventing illegal immigration. At
families, and birthrates are well below replacement level. Baby boomers are retiring: 10,000 leave the workforce every day. Younger workers coming up behind
them are much more educated than earlier generations. In 1950, according to the Census Bureau, 56% of U.S. workers were high-school dropouts. Today, the figure
is less than 5%. The result is that the pool of people available to fill low-skilled jobs has shrunk dramatically. It is not so much that the native born don't want to
work as busboys, farmhands or nurse's aides. But the overwhelming majority of Americans are now overqualified for these jobs and have other options. Meanwhile,
less-skilled immigrants with no family in the U.S. have no way—no access to a visa program—to enter the country
legally and work in year-round jobs. This is why so many immigrants have flowed into the country illegally in recent
decades and remain here, underground. The challenge facing Congress is to create a better system—one that works for willing immigrant workers and willing
employers, replaces the current illegal influx with a legal labor force, and protects the rights of Americans who are looking for low-skilled jobs. The
workervisa program in the Senate bill meets most of these tests. Participating employers must first try to hire American workers, recruiting widely and offering a
decent wage. If they can't, the program gives them a way to hire foreign workers easily, quickly and legally. The work visas
in the Senate bill bear little resemblance to traditional guest-worker programs, which generally tie the worker to one employer, opening the door to exploitation
and an inefficient labor market. Instead, under the Senate proposal, an immigrant here on a work visa can quit any time and go to work for any other U.S. employer
that has been approved to participate in the program. Business owners get access to a more flexible labor force, including the possibility of hiring in real time
without going back to the government for approval. The
size of the guest-worker program is designed to adjust
automatically in response to changing U.S. labor needs, growing in good years when the economy
needs more foreign workers and shrinking when more Americans are out of work. Finally, unlike most guestworker programs, the Senate proposal recognizes that some participants will want to stay in the U.S. when their visas have expired. Those who have done well while
on temporary visas—learning English, developing new skills, moving up on the job, putting down roots in their community—may apply to stay permanently. This
is a win-win for the immigrants and for the U.S., combining the benefits of a temporary worker
program with those of the nation's traditional way of immigration—the melting-pot model based on permanent residence
and assimilation. The one area where the Senate proposal falls short: It's almost surely too small to address the country's future labor needs. In the early 2000s,
when the economy was booming, more than 350,000 unauthorized Mexicans entered the U.S. every year to fill low-skilled jobs for which there were not enough
Americans. The downturn eased this demand somewhat, but it's now picking up again. If
the trends of recent decades resume, the
Senate proposal won't be big enough to divert future illegal immigration. In its first year, the Senate's guest-worker
program will be capped at 20,000 visas. It will grow over time in response to market demand but is capped at 200,000 workers
annually. The danger is that if there aren't enough visas to meet U.S. labor needs, the program won't prevent illegal
immigration in years ahead. The best antidote to illegal immigration is a legal immigration system that
works. The Senate's visa program is a good start. The challenge now, for the House or the Senate, is to scale up the Senate model so it can work in years to
come.
Reducing illegal immigration lets the border patrol focus on counterterrorism – status
quo undermines ability to prevent threats
Barry 13 (Tom, January 9, 2013, Director for the TransBorder project at the Center for International
Policy in Wash. DC. “With the Resurrection of Immigration Reform We'll Hear a Lot About Securing Our
Borders, But What Does It Really Mean?” http://www.alternet.org/immigration/resurrectionimmigration-reform-well-hear-lot-about-securing-our-borders-what-does-it)
One likely reason the Border Patrol does not address its counterterrorism in any detail is that the agency’s border security
buildup on the southwestern border has not resulted in the apprehension of members of foreign
terrorist organizations, as identified by the State Department. Experts in counterterrorism agree there is little risk
that foreign terrorist organizations would rely on illegal border crossings – particularly across the U.S.Mexico border – for entry into the United States. While the fear that foreign terrorists would illegally cross U.S. land borders
drove much of the early build-up in border security programs under the newly created homeland security department, counterterrorism
seems to have dropped off the actual and rhetorical focus of today’s border security operations.
Indicative of this reduced focus on terrorism and return to the traditional focus on illegal immigration
and illegal drugs is found in the recently released *2012-2016 Border Patrol Strategic Plan*. There is only
one reference to terrorism in the new strategy’s executive summary. In contrast, the previous Border Patrol Strategy, issued in
September 2004, has 13 such references. The Border Patrol offers no explanation for this stunning change in focus. Counterterrorism is
still cited as the overarching goal of CBP, yet there is little in the new strategy statement to
demonstrate this strategic focus. *From Terrorists to Transnational Criminals* * *As cross-border terrorism has faded as a
homeland security concern, the Border Patrol has shifted the focus of its threat assessments to transnational criminal organizations based in
Mexico. What formerly were called drug trafficking organizations by the federal government are now labeled TCOs. Although never mentioned
previously, the Border Patrol over the past three years has warned of the threat posed by TCOs to border security. Unfortunately, the Border
Patrol has supported its escalated threat assessments about TCOs by counting the arrests of all drug couriers as blows to the TCOs, implying or
stating that immigrants and other illegal border crossers carrying varying amounts of marijuana (or in rare cases other illegal drugs) are
“transnational criminals.” Since the creation of DHS, CBP, together with ICE, have also attempted to demonstrate that immigration and drug
enforcement at the border and elsewhere is “risk-based.” Yet rather
than prioritizing focusing their intelligence
gathering on likely foreign threats to the borders, the post-9/11 border security apparatus has quickly
returned to its traditional targeting of illegal drugs and unauthorized immigrants as “dangerous goods and
people,” while recklessly labeling illegal border crossers as part of the operations of Mexican criminal organizations. The Border Patrol
should, as part of its risk-based and intelligence-driven strategy, maintain a near-exclusive focus on the TCO hierarchies and their enforcers.
Likewise, the Border Patrol should end its characterization of all drug-trade networks as TCOs but instead focus on those designated as TCOs by
the State Department. CBP, ICE and the Border Patrol have also used its post-9/11 commitment to risk-based enforcement to shift many
immigrants into criminal categories, such as “criminal aliens” and “fugitive aliens.” In the borderlands and elsewhere, DHS has found broad
support for its professed commitment to prioritize the arrest and deportation of the most dangerous immigrants, both those here legally and
illegally. The widespread use of illegal recreational drugs in the United States combined with harsh anti-immigrant statutes have resulted in
routine deportation of otherwise law-abiding legal immigrants for even minor drug violations, thereby making a travesty of the risk-based
criteria. This all counts, in the estimation of DHS, as improved border security. The crossing of illegal drugs has long characterized the border
and will continue to do so as long as there is a U.S. market for these substances. Currently, the Border Patrol routinely labels illegal border
crossers carrying marijuana as being accomplices or members of TCOs, thereby demonstrating its lack of strategic focus. *Bipartisan Support for
Border Security Deserves New Scrutiny* * *As
part of its stated determination to pursue risk-based border
protection, the Border Patrol should deprioritize immigration enforcement. A credible risk-management process
cannot justify operations that make no distinction between truly dangerous individuals and ordinary immigrants seeking work and family
reunification. The Border Patrol should instead target border bandits who prey upon vulnerable immigrants and the smugglers of truly
dangerous illegal and prescription drugs. Marijuana is not a security threat, and there is mounting momentum for its decriminalization on both
sides of the border. More than 95% of the Border Patrol’s drug war activities involve marijuana. This
is a waste of scarce
government resources; it diverts DHS from actual security threats, and contributes to the unnecessary
militarization of the border. Administratively, DHS could, and should, mandate that the Border Patrol end what is, in effect, its
strategic focus on the marijuana drug war.
Perception of strong border security is key to deterring terrorists
Willis 10 (Henry H. Willis , Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis, Wayne P. Brown , Henry is the Director, RAND
Homeland Security and Defense Center; Senior Policy Researcher. Ph.D. from the Department of
Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University.Sponsored by the DHS- RAND study,
“Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry “
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2010/RAND_TR837.pdf)
4.2.2 Contributions of Border Interdiction, Deterrence, and Networked Intelligence Th e principal contributions that border security makes to
counterterrorism relate to preventing certain kinds of terrorist attacks dependent on fl ows into the country of people or materials. Th ese
contributions can be illustrated by considering what opportunities exist to disrupt terrorist attacks while they are being planned and
orchestrated. Th rough a number of planning eff orts, DHS and its components have developed detailed planning scenarios of terrorist events
(DHS, 2006). Each of these scenarios has been deconstructed into attack trees that are useful for considering how DHS border-security
programs contribute to terrorism security eff orts. In their most generic form, these attack trees specify dimensions of attack scenarios with
respect to building the terrorist team, identifying a target, and acquiring a weapon (see Figure 4.1). Th is decomposition of attack planning
provides a structure around which to consider how interdiction, deterrence, and networked intelligence contribute to preventing terrorist
attacks and, thus, why it is relevant to measure these functions. DHS border-security eff orts focus on interdiction of terrorist team members
and weapons or weapon components when they cross U.S. borders. Examples of initiatives that are intended to enhance these capabilities
include the Secure Border Initiative, the acquisition of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals for nuclear detection, the Secure Communities Initiative,
and US-VISIT. In addition, it is often pointed out that, when
border-security measures are perceived to be effective,
terrorists groups may be deterred from attacking in particular ways, or possibly from attacking at all .
Th is could result from awareness of what type of surveillance is occurring or the capability of interdiction systems. In either case, deterrence
refers to the judgment of terrorists that they will not be successful, leading them to choose another course of action. Finally, many
border-security initiatives also contribute information to the national networked-intelligence picture.
For example, the Secure Communities Initiative has implemented new capabilities to allow a single submission of fi ngerprints as part of the
normal criminal arrest and booking process to be queried against both the FBI and DHS immigration and terrorism databases. Th is eff ort
makes it easier for federal and local law enforcement to share actionable intelligence and makes it more diffi cult for terrorists to evade bordersecurity eff orts. 4.2.3 Non-DHS Factors on Which Border-Security Outcomes Depend Th
e terrorist threat that border-security
eff orts must counter will be signifi cantly infl uenced by the eff ectiveness of security, economic
policy, military, diplomatic, and intelligence eff orts targeting other aspects of terrorism. If terrorists
overseas are able to acquire signifi cant quantities of weapon material or establish advanced counterintelligence capabilities, attack plans may
easily overwhelm border-security eff orts. If terrorists are successful at recruiting and building networks within the United States, bordersecurity eff orts may never get the chance to interdict attacks. Similarly, the
perceptions that terrorists have about the diffi
culty of entering the country could infl uence decisions of how to organize and plan attacks. If borders
are viewed as porous and open, terrorist groups can be expected to take advantage of this
vulnerability. To the extent that border security is seen as presenting barriers to terrorist planning (especially barriers that include
substantial operational uncertainty), eff
orts will create a deterrent eff ect that could lead terrorists to shift to
attacking interests outside the United States or attacking in diff erent ways. Th e extent to which border security will be eff
ective at both interdicting and deterring terrorists will itself depend on a number of contextual factors, including the following: •
material being smuggled: Is it possible to detect the material using noninvasive means (e.g., with nuclear detectors)? • mode of travel: Will
crossings be via air, land, or sea? • environment and terrain: Will crossings occur during times when and at places where border security benefi
ts from good visibility or poor visibility? • U.S. intelligence capabilities: Do expenditures on intelligence collection and analysis aff
ord border security the ability to anticipate terrorist incursion attempts? • terrorist counterintelligence capabilities: Do terrorists have enough
understanding of border-security tactics and techniques to be able to avoid them and to do so with considerable confi dence? Th e answer to
this, of course, will depend on the visibility and predictability of border-security systems and procedures. Th e measures used for evaluation of
border-security eff orts must be able to refl ect some of these dependencies and factors that moderate the eff effectiveness of border security.
Terrorists can get nukes- they exploit security gaps and have incentive
Brill and Luongo 12 (KENNETH C. BRILL and KENNETH N. LUONGO, March 15, 2012, Kenneth C. Brill
is a former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A.Kenneth N. Luongo is president of the Partnership for Global
Security. Both are members of the Fissile Material Working Group, a nonpartisan nongovernmental
organization. “Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-clear-danger.html?_r=0 MB )
Terrorists exploit gaps in security. The current global regime for protecting the nuclear materials that
terrorists desire for their ultimate weapon is far from seamless. It is based largely on unaccountable,
voluntary arrangements that are inconsistent across borders. Its weak links make it dangerous and
inadequate to prevent nuclear terrorism. Later this month in Seoul, the more than 50 world leaders who will gather for the
second Nuclear Security Summit need to seize the opportunity to start developing an accountable regime to prevent nuclear terrorism. There is
the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, not a Hollywood confection.
President Obama, the leaders of 46 other nations, the heads of the International Atomic Energy Agency
and the United Nations, and numerous experts have called nuclear terrorism one of the most serious
threats to global security and stability. It is also preventable with more aggressive action. At least four
terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, have demonstrated interest in using a nuclear device. These
groups operate in or near states with histories of questionable nuclear security practices. Terrorists
a consensus among international leaders that
do not need to steal a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to make an improvised nuclear device from
highly enriched uranium or plutonium being used for civilian purposes. And there is a black market in
such material. There have been 18 confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable nuclear material . In 2011,
the Moldovan police broke up part of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one
member is thought to remain at large with a kilogram of this material . A terrorist nuclear explosion
could kill hundreds of thousands, create billions of dollars in damages and undermine the global
economy. Former Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear terrorism “would thrust
tens of millions of people into dire poverty” and create “a second death toll throughout the
developing world.” Surely after such an event, global leaders would produce a strong global system to ensure nuclear security. There is
no reason to wait for a catastrophe to build such a system. The conventional wisdom is that domestic regulations, U.N. Security Council
resolutions, G-8 initiatives, I.A.E.A. activities and other voluntary efforts will prevent nuclear terrorism. But existing
global
arrangements for nuclear security lack uniformity and coherence.
Risk of nuclear terrorism is high – no acquisition barriers
Bunn ‘7
Matthew Bunn, senior research director @ Harvard, Nuclear Threat Initiative, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401154.html
terrorist use of a nuclear bomb is a very real danger.
During the 2004 presidential campaign,
President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) agreed that nuclear terrorism was
the single greatest threat to
Yes. Unfortunately,
U.S. national security . Published estimates of the chance that terrorists will detonate a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city over the
next ten years range from 1 percent to 50 percent. In a 2005 poll of international security experts taken by Senator Richard Lugar (R-
the median estimate of the chance of a nuclear attack in the next ten years was 29 percent -and a strong majority believed that it was more likely that terrorists would launch a nuclear
attack than that a state would. Given the horrifying consequences of such an attack, even a 1
percent chance would be enough to call for rapid action to reduce the risk. What materials could terrorists
Ind.),
use to make a nuclear bomb? To make a nuclear bomb requires either highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium. Neither of these
materials occurs in nature, and producing either of them requires expensive facilities using complex technologies, almost certainly
beyond the capability of terrorist groups. Hence, if all of the world's stockpiles of nuclear weapons, HEU and plutonium can be effectively
protected and kept out of terrorist hands, nuclear terrorism can be prevented: no nuclear material, no bomb, no nuclear terrorism. How
Highly enriched uranium and
plutonium are hard to make, but may not be so hard to steal. These raw materials of nuclear terrorism are
housed in hundreds of facilities in dozens of countries -- some with excellent security, and some secured by
nothing more than an underpaid guard and a chain link fence. There are no binding global standards setting out
how well nuclear weapons and the materials needed to make them should be secured. Theft of the essential ingredients
of nuclear weapons is not just a hypothetical worry, it is an ongoing reality . The International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) has documented 15 cases of theft of HEU or plutonium confirmed by the countries
concerned (and there are additional well-documented cases that the countries involved have not yet been willing to confirm).
In many of these cases, the thieves and smugglers were attempting to sell the material to anyone who would
buy it -- and terrorist groups have been seeking to buy it. How much expertise is needed to make a nuclear
difficult would it be for terrorists to get the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb?
bomb? Would a large operation be required? Unfortunately, government studies have concluded that once a terrorist organization had
the needed nuclear material, a
handful of skilled individuals might be able to make a crude nuclear bomb
using commercially available tools and equipment, without any large fixed facilities that might
draw attention, and without access to classified nuclear weapons information. Getting nuclear material
and making a crude nuclear bomb would be the most complex operation terrorists have ever carried out but the risk that a
sophisticated group could pull it off is very real. Roughly 90 percent of the effort in the Manhattan Project was focused on
making nuclear bomb material; getting stolen nuclear material would allow terrorists to skip the hardest part of making a nuclear bomb.
The simplest type of nuclear bomb, known as a "gun-type" bomb, slams two pieces of nuclear material together at high speed. The bomb
that destroyed Hiroshima, for example, was a cannon that fired a shell of HEU into rings of HEU. Plutonium cannot be used to make a
gun-type bomb with a substantial explosive yield, because the neutrons that all plutonium emits cause the bomb to blow itself apart
before the nuclear reactions proceeds very far. To make a bomb from plutonium would require a more complex "implosion-type" bomb,
which would be more difficult for terrorists to build -- but government studies have repeatedly concluded that this possibility also cannot
be ruled out. How much nuclear material would terrorists need to make a bomb? The amount of nuclear material needed to make a
bomb depends on the material and the skill of the bomb-maker. A simple gun-type nuclear bomb would require approximately 50
kilograms of HEU -- an amount that would fit in a suitcase. Implosion-type bombs are more efficient, requiring less nuclear material.
bombs like the Nagasaki bomb can be made
with 6 kilograms of plutonium or 15 kilograms of HEU. With these relatively small amounts, a
terrorist group could potentially build a bomb with the power of thousands of tons of high explosive.
Unclassified estimates suggest that basic first-generation implosion-type
Sophisticated nuclear weapon states can potentially make nuclear bombs with smaller amounts of nuclear material. Rather than stealing
nuclear material and making a bomb, could terrorists steal and use an already assembled nuclear weapon? Possibly. Nuclear weapons
are generally better secured than some stocks of HEU and plutonium are. Nevertheless, the United States is spending hundreds of
millions of dollars beefing up security for its own nuclear weapons complex sites, and hundreds of millions more helping Russia improve
security for its warhead sites. A stolen nuclear weapon might be very difficult for a terrorist group to detonate. Many nuclear weapons
are equipped with electronic locks making it impossible to set off the weapon without putting in the appropriate code or figuring out a
way to bypass the lock. Unfortunately, on older Russian tactical nuclear weapons, such locks are thought to be absent in some cases and
relatively easily bypassed in others. U.S. strategic nuclear weapons also do not incorporate such locks, and some other countries'
weapons may also lack them. In addition, modern nuclear weapons are typically equipped with devices that prevent the weapon from
going off until it has passed through its expected flight sequence ¿ such as a period of rocket-powered flight followed by coasting
through space and reentering the atmosphere, in the case of a long-range ballistic missile. While designed more for safety than security,
these devices would also make it more difficult to detonate most stolen weapons. If terrorists could not figure out how to detonate a
stolen weapon, they might choose to cut it open and use the nuclear material inside to try to make a bomb of their own. Are there
"suitcase nukes" on the loose? Probably not. In the 1990s, Gen. Alexander Lebed, then the national security advisor to Russian President
Boris Yeltsin, said that more than 100 nuclear weapons designed to be carried by one person ¿ so-called "suitcase nukes" ¿ could not
be accounted for and might be missing. The Russian Ministry of Defense firmly denied that any weapons were missing, and Lebed
ultimately backed off from his initial statements. Ultimately enough information was released to make a reasonably convincing case that
none of these man-portable nuclear weapons were missing. It is clear, however, that both the United States and the Soviet Union did in
fact manufacture nuclear weapons designed to be carried and used by one or two people. In the United States, all such weapons have
been dismantled, and some Russian statements indicate that the same is now true in Russia. Once a nuclear bomb or nuclear material
The amounts of
HEU or plutonium needed for a bomb are small and easy to smuggle. These materials are not
radioactive enough to require any special equipment to carry them, or to make them easy to
detect. After they have left the site where they are supposed to be, they could be anywhere, and all the later lines of defense are
has been stolen, could we stop it from being smuggled? The chances would not be very good, unfortunately.
variations on searching for needles in haystacks. With hundreds of millions of people and vehicles crossing U.S. borders every year,
making sure no one gets in with a suitcase of potential bomb material is an immense challenge. Even if governments screened every
container coming across their borders with a radiation detector, terrorists would not be likely to send their nuclear bomb material
through one of the readily-observable radiation detectors, but would use one of the many other possible routes to avoid inspection.
Moreover, if HEU was shielded with lead, detectors now being deployed would not be able to detect the weak radiation it emits (unless
it was contaminated with the isotope U-232, and the detector was designed to look for the gamma rays from that decay chain). If the
United States cannot stop the flow of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants across its borders, it is unlikely that it will succeed in stopping
nuclear material. Even an assembled nuclear bomb might fit in the hold of a yacht, in a truck, or in a small plane. What would happen if
terrorists set off a nuclear bomb in a major city?
Terrorist use of a nuclear bomb would be an historic
catastrophe.
US will retaliate
HotAir ’10; “New Obama policy: No nuke retaliation for bio or chemical attack?” Apr 5 2010;
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/05/new-obama-policy-no-nuke-retaliation-for-bio-or-chemical-attack-mr-obama%E2%80%99s-newstrategy-is-bound-to-be-controversial-both-among-conservatives-who-have-warned-against-diluting-america/
Unless I’ve misunderstood, we
reserve the right to nuke the following, whether in self-defense or otherwise:
(1) nuclear states, (2) non-nuclear states that are in violation of the NPT (i.e. Iran), (3) non-nuclear
states that attack the U.S. with bioweapons, but only if they possess a stockpile large enough to pose
a risk of a “devastating strike.” I hope I’ve misunderstood that last one; the idea of Obama explaining to Americans that, yes, 50,000
people may be dead of smallpox but we can’t nuke country X because they don’t have a big enough stockpile of the virus yet is dark comedy
gold. The idea here, of course, is deterrence — comply with the NPT and you have nothing to fear — but (a)
no one, least of all Iran, thinks Barack Obama’s going to use nuclear weapons against targets inside a non-nuclear state whether it’s following
the NPT or not, and (b) everyone, including Iran, understands
that a devastating attack on the U.S. by whatever
means will create such unbearable pressure on the president to retaliate that these rules will be
revisited instantly. It’s the nuclear equivalent of his interrogation protocol, essentially. America does not and will not torture captured
terrorists as a matter of national policy — but if the CIA really, truly believed that a bomb was about to go off
somewhere, don’t be surprised to see that policy politely ignored, to great public acclaim for Obama afterwards for
having done what he needed to do to try to get the information. All this is, really, is a symbolic gesture of good faith to
put pressure on Russia and China to reduce their own stockpiles. Why we think they can be trusted to do that,
especially when the United States is handing them a tactical advantage by reducing its own stockpiles unilaterally, is beyond me. But then it’s
also beyond me why Obama would suspend development on any new forms of nuclear weapons, which the new policy also demands. New
weapons, I assume, would be smaller and more precise, in the bunker-buster mold; there’s certainly no pressing need for state-of-the-art 100megaton monsters when the
chief nuclear threat at the moment comes from small non-state groups like Al
Qaeda.
Nuclear terrorism escalates to major nuclear war – resolving in the transfer period is
key
Ayson’10
Robert – Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington –
“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, obtained via
InformaWorld
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily
represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded
as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a
massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst
terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would
have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even
thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated
entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two
nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a
nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist
attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive
exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and
catastrophic interstate
tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals
who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in
the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount
of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war.
For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could
plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of
terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily
threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how
might the United States react if
it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from
Russian stocks, FN 40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that
nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris
resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and
collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most
important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete
surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift
immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well,
authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly
Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular,
if the
act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia
and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders
not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States
was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in
a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist
attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing
resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?
Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of
an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during
the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces,
including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against
the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S.
intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such
actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part
of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant
conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that
group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might
interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their
spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment
in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection
with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the
world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter
found itself unable or unwilling to provide.There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism
on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both
Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security
Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others.
For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some
reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that
they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group
had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington
felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their
culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be
crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism
was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing
for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the
international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options
would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central
dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and
perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it
may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of
is subjected to an attack
thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo,
of nuclear
terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is
would Washington view such a
possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence?
considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How
And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim
of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In
the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to
pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do”
immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists.
This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint. FN 40. One way of reducing, but probably not
eliminating, such a prospect, is further international cooperation on the control of existing fissile
material holdings.
1AC – US-Mexico Advantage
Advantage __ – US-Mexico Relations
US-Mexico relations are at a crossroads – US engagement over immigration is key to
bolster cooperation on other issues
Shifter 13 (Michael, Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown
University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for
the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue, “A More
Ambitious Agenda” February 2013
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf\\CLans)
US President Barack Obama was sworn in for his second four-year term on January 20, less than two months
after Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto took office for a single term of six years. Their nearly concurrent
inaugurations come at an especially auspicious moment for relations between the United States and
Mexico. Today, more than at any time since the signing of the NAFTA treaty in 1992, the two nations have
the opportunity to substantially upgrade their already robust economic partnership. Mexico’s proposed
reform of its energy sector coupled with the oil and natural gas boom taking place in the United States are particularly promising. Together,
they could bring North America closer than ever to energy independence. In light of the decisive role of the Latino vote in US elections, the
prospects are better than they have been in decades for a sensible reform of US immigration policy—
which should produce significant economic gains for both nations while easing a long-standing source
of bilateral tension and mistrust. While some progress has been achieved in recent years, Mexico is still searching for more
effective strategies for battling organized crime and drug violence. Though the United States and Mexico do not always agree on the right
approach, the extensive bilateral collaboration between security and police agencies is unprecedented—with both governments recognizing
public security as a shared responsibility. Bilateral cooperation is also increasing on regional and global issues. Challenges to democracy and
human rights, the growing security threats in Central America, reforming multilateral organizations, the building of new trade partnerships
worldwide, and problems of nuclear non- proliferation and climate change are just a few of the issues that deeply concern both countries.
Even if the two countries disagree on many of these matters, they remain natural partners. Indeed, the
United States and Mexico can best meet the current challenges of global instability and uncertainty by
stepping up efforts toward economic integration. More than anything else, this report of a special Inter-American Dialogue
Commission is a call to presidents Obama and Peña Nieto and their administrations to recognize the enhanced opportunities they have to forge
cooperative approaches to the multiple challenges their two countries face—and make the most out of the four years they have to work
together to address them. Their
most important priority should be to deepen their economic partnership,
increase the productivity and international competitiveness of both nations, open opportunities for
longterm growth and job creation, and set the stage for further economic integration
Guest worker program is a pre-requisite to stronger US-Mexican relations – status quo
immigration approaches make coop impossible
Cieslik 11 (Thomas, Institute of Political Science and Social Research, University of Würzburg, “Beyond
the Mérida‐Initiative: the future of security cooperation between the United States and Mexico” August
18, 2011 http://www.wiscnetwork.org/porto2011/papers/WISC_2011-670.pdf\\Clans)
Therefore, it is important that the Mexican and U.S. government intensify their cooperation on all binational levels. “Because U.S.‐Mexican security collaboration depends heavily on goodwill and ad hoc initiatives, rather than
institutionalized mechanisms, there is an unfortunate lack of consistency and continuity” (Edmondos‐Poli, Shirk 2009:
367p.). That does mean that both governments develop sustainable institutions and instruments in order to combat successfully against crime
and terrorism. The U.S.‐Mexican border has become the battlefield for human, arm and drug trafficking.
Next year, when the presidential elections will be held in Mexico (July) and the United States (November) it is likely that electoral campaigns
demand more political rhetoric in the emphasis on domestic issues; candidates and the later presidents, however, must strengthen the bilateral
cooperation in order to cope with drug trafficking related crime. If
Mexico would turn into a failing state and the drug
war would significantly spill over onto U.S. territory the U.S.security national interests is threatened like the terror attacks
from September 11, 2001. It is in
the national interest of the United States to support the economic
development of its neighbor, its democratic transformation process and the establishment of the rule of law. It would be helpful to
review the recommendations of the Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations on immigration policy where it demands “that the most
important positive signal that the United States can send to Mexico is to broaden the current narrow
focus in enforcement, and to reengage with the issue of comprehensive immigration reform” (CFR 2009: 111). And the
same Council on Foreign Relations came to the conclusion that “the failures of U.S. immigration policy affect national
security, economic growth, and foreign relations. The status quo fails even to meet the most basic
objective of guaranteeing proper documentation of visitors and noncitizen residents. It concentrates
almost solely on the U.S.‐Mexico border, despite the fact that nearly half of unauthorized workers in the
United States enter legally through other ports and overstay their visa” (CFR 2008: 47). Both countries would become
the beneficiaries of an immigration reform that includes temporary visa and a legalization processing the
framework of a deeper NAFTA integration process. Nevertheless, as long as a common immigration policy has not
been defined yet, border security will dominate the future political agenda of the U.S.‐Mexican relations.
Within the Council on Foreign Relations recommend to support a binding international arms trade treaty that establishes international
standards, to work closely with Mexican authorities to regulate foreign exchange companies (casas de cambio) in order to prevent money
laundering, to improve the monitoring of border flows from the United States to Mexico, to create a system similar to the CIA‐ based Foreign
terrorist Asset Tracking Group for the dissemination of intelligence, diplomatic, regulatory and law enforcement information, and finally to
collaborate in dismantling transnational gangs(CFR 2008: 63p.). And if the Mérida‐Initiative should achieve such successes like the Colombia
Plan did after many years, the United States should in spite of its budget cuts invest its free (military) resources from the withdrawal from
Afghanistan and Iraq in its Homeland and Borderland Security fostering the funds of the Mérida‐Initiative. Indeed, though border surveillance
and more militarization might restrict individual rights and control the (il‐)legal
immigration, the necessary political
cooperation might boost integration on the long run toward a more united North America in economy
and politics that could live in peace, wealth and security on both sides of the border.
Immigration is the lynchpin for spillover to relations on other issues
Diaz & Selee 10 (Alberto Diaz-Cayeros—PhD in Political Science @ Duke; MA in political science @
Duke; Fellow at the Center for US-Mexican Studies and the Latin American Regional Concentration
Program // Andrew Selee—PhD in Policy Studies @ University of Maryland-College Park; MA in Latin
American Studies @ UC San Diego; BA in Latin American Studies @ Washington University in St. Louis;
He serves as the vice President for Programs at the Wilson International Center for Scholars //
‘Mexico and the United States: The Possibilities of Partnership’ Published in April 2010) //L Shen
Even more important than binational civic networks, however, is the way that civic organizations in each country influence key policy arenas
that affect relations with the other country, although generally without any intention to affect U.S.-Mexico relations as such. The
rise of
Latino political influence in the United States, for example, has influenced many politicians’ views in that
country on immigration policy. 49 Anti-immigration organizations that want to restrict immigration also play a huge role on this
issue. Both have significant social bases within different communities, and the interplay between their efforts and elected officials’ political
calculations is at the heart of the schizophrenic decision-making in the U.S. Congress and many states and localities on immigration-related
issues. The
politics of immigration influences other issues in U.S.-Mexico relations , including politicians’
willingness to support other kinds of cooperation with Mexico. 50 The growing weight of Mexican
migrants in internal politics within Mexico, often more symbolic than real, is also at the heart of Mexican
politicians’ frequent trips to the United States and declarations about U.S. immigration reform . One
large unknown question is how, in the long-term, the growing Mexican-origin population will influence U.S.-Mexico relations. There is
some evidence that U.S. citizens and residents of Mexican origin do have an interest in bilateral
relations between the countries. 52 It also appears that many U.S. elected officials with constituents of
Mexican origin believe that showing an interest in Mexico is good local politics. This tendency is likely
to increase as the number of U.S. citizen voters of Mexican origin grows over time, and this may well
shape overall citizen opinions towards Mexico in the future. In Mexico, on the other hand, there are increasing
signs that greater interdependence – and perhaps most significantly the number of Mexicans with
relatives and close friends abroad – has already changed attitudes towards the United States. A study conducted by CIDE suggests that
average Mexicans have quite pragmatic ideas about the relationship with the United States, much more
so than political elites. 53 This
overwhelmingly pragmatic attitude is likely to increase over time, increasingly
shaping the attitudes of political elites as well. However, Mexicans’ personal engagement with the United States also
means that attempts to criminalize immigrants in the United States and incidents involving violence against them often produces broad
emotional responses that can undermine public trust in the relationship with the United States. In short, the growing number of Mexicans and
Mexican-Americans in the United States is likely to continue to heighten the political salience of U.S.-Mexico relations in both countries far into
the future although the exact direction this may influence policy is as yet uncertain.
Nieto administration reducing cooperation now – plan reverses that – cooperation is
key
Schaefer 13 (Agnes Gereben Schaefer, 5/29/13; Senior political scientist and professor at Pardee RAND graduate school; If
U.S.-Mexico Get Security Right, Other Good Policy Will Follow; http://www.rand.org/blog/2013/05/if-us-mexico-get-securityright-other-good-policy.html)
But while
security will remain central to the U.S.-Mexico relationship, the two sides may well change
how they handle it. The new Peña Nieto administration is re-evaluating Mexico's recent close
cooperation on security. The new Mexican leader's overall security strategy is evolving, but he has
embarked on some important reforms to defense institutions. Peña Nieto has called for a more
centralized approach to security issues that would eliminate inefficiencies and redundancies across
government agencies. He is also pushing to develop a new National Intelligence Agency — similar to the U.S. Office of the Director of
National Intelligence set up after the 9/11 Commission to quarterback the U.S. intelligence community — that would streamline Mexico's
intelligence collection and analysis, which is now conducted by many disparate agencies. The
most important unanswered
question is how involved Peña Nieto and his Institutional Revolutionary Party want the U.S. to be in
future efforts to decrease drug-related violence. Some Mexican leaders and commentators are calling
for the U.S. to back off, and some are explicitly asking to roll back the cooperative mechanisms of the
past several years. As Peña Nieto refines his national security strategy, he will need to navigate these
domestic pressures — and, ultimately, decide how much U.S. assistance he will consider, and in what
form. Peña Nieto isn't the only one facing domestic pressures, of course. Obama could almost hear the heated debates in Congress on
immigration reform and border security from Mexico City. So the two leaders emphasized economic cooperation at their summit not because
security issues have gone away, but because the new rules of the game in this nascent relationship between Obama and Peña Nieto are
evolving. Economic cooperation is of course also exceedingly important. The United States is still Mexico's largest trading partner. In 2011, U.S.
trade with Mexico totaled $500 billion, and Mexico was the United States' second-largest goods export market in 2012. But let's not assume
that economic issues will displace security issues at the top of the U.S-Mexico agenda. Because security
issues are not going
away, the two sides need to tackle them as best they can . The Obama and Peña Nieto
administrations should build on the unprecedented levels of cooperation developed over the past six
years — and if they get security right, they will be far better-positioned to broaden the relationship
to focus on other issues such as economics, energy and the environment. If the two sides continue to
invest together in security today, they may find themselves with far more opportunities for broader
cooperation tomorrow.
US-Mexico relations are key to Latin American democracy
Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Calderón; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior
Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill
Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary
of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)
At the same time the
after the global
global context has changed. The U.S. faces post-9/11 security needs and the challenge of creating jobs
economic crisis. Both give the U.S. reason to work more closely with its Mexican and Canadian
neighbors since together they buy nearly one-third of all U.S. exports and are partners in securing the region. Participants in the Sunnylands Process agreed
that no single issue should dominate the bilateral agenda. In the past, incoming administrations normally prioritized a single issue—whether violence, migration, or
trade—as the focus for U.S.- Mexico relations. Today, however, the
relationship has matured sufficiently that the two
countries are in a position to work together across a range of complex and interconnected issues that could improve the
quality of life for citizens in both countries while also engaging each other on key global challenges. Achieving
progress on any one issue
would likely facilitate progress on the others, and a greater focus on the major opportunities for
partnership on issues like trade and economic competitiveness could improve the tone of a
relationship that has recently focused on addressing the challenges of security and migration. Continued and deepened security
cooperation within the framework of shared responsibility is vital as Mexico struggles to overcome the scourge of organized
crime and to build the rule of law, while the U.S. depends on its neighbors as part of its homeland security strategy. Nonetheless, the economic
relationship should be at the heart of bilateral relations as the United States recovers from the global financial crisis and Mexico seeks to move from a middleincome to a high-income country within a generation. Labor mobility and human capital development, integral to growth in both countries, also remain important
challenges. Both
countries should engage much more on global issues, particularly trade agreements, the global financial
architecture, and strengthening democracy in the hemisphere. Finally, the United States and Mexico continue to face the important
challenge of building greater understanding between their people as the two countries move ever closer.
Latin America is a key model for global democracy
Perry Bacon Jr, 3-21-2011, "Obama lauds Latin American democracies as role models for the Middle
East," Washington Post, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-03-21/world/35207771_1_historyand-gain-clarity-pinochet-era-obama-administration, accessed 5-10-2013
Can the Middle East learn from Latin America? On his tour of Central and South America, President Obama has repeatedly
lauded many of the region’s countries for shifting from dictatorships to democracies over the past two
decades. In a speech Monday, he invoked Chile’s rise from the Pinochet era to a democracy. A day earlier, in Brazil, Obama said its
transition could be a model for countries in the Middle East and North Africa where a historic wave of
popular uprisings has surprised authoritarian governments in that region and the Obama administration itself. “The
lessons of Latin America can be a guide for people around the world who are beginning their own
journeys toward democracy,” Obama said in a speech at an art museum in the capital city of Santiago. “With decades of
experience, there’s so much Latin America now can share, how to build political parties and organize
free elections, how to ensure peaceful transfers of power and how to navigate the winding paths of
reform and reconciliation.”
Extinction
Larry Diamond, democracy expert @ Carnegie, October 1995, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s,”
http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01.html
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.
Democracy solves all major wars, terrorism, environmental destruction, and prolif
Kenneth Wollack, President of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, 2008,
“Democracy promotion: Serving U.S. Values and Interests,” Northwestern University Law Review, Vol.
102, No. 1.
Needless to say, threats to American interests still exist. They include international terrorism; economic
competition that could produce dangerous regional trade blocs and trade wars; environmental
degradation reaching crisis proportions; the proliferation of weapons, both conventional and nuclear;
and ethnic and national conflicts that could lead to war. These threats and others may not be easy to
encapsulate in the public’s mind, but any one of them could affect, fundamentally, our way of life—
what Tom Friedman would call “our flat world.”1 And together they constitute ample reason for an
engaged America in the international arena. The answer to today’s threats is not to win a metaphorical
war against a single adversary. The answer lies in creating an overall environment in which
international cooperation is emphasized, and in which conflict can be managed and terrorism
effectively confronted militarily, economically, and politically. In this context, foreign assistance is not
only a charitable endeavor, but also an exercise in enlightened self-interest and the promotion of
democracy—not some idealistic crusade, but rather quintessentially an exercise in realpolitik. Nothing
better serves the interests of this country— economic, political, or ideological—than the promotion of
democratic practices and institutions. A more democratic world is not simply a more orderly and
humane place: It is a more peaceful and prosperous place. The notion that there should be a dichotomy
between our moral preferences and our strategic goals is a false one. Our ultimate foreign policy goal is
a world that is secure, stable, humane, and safe, where the risk of war is minimal. Yet, the undeniable
reality is that the geostrategic hotspots most likely to erupt into violence are found, for the most part,
in areas of the world that are nondemocratic, or where governments are antidemocratic. Even from
the traditional foreign assistance perspective, the establishment of democratic institutions has been
found to assure sustainable development. Deforestation, rural dislocation, environmental degradation,
and agricultural policies that lead to famine all trace to political systems in which the victims have no
political voice; in which government institutions feel no obligation to answer to the people; and in
which special interests feel free to exploit the resources, land, and people without fear of oversight or
the need to account. Terrorism and political extremism pose an immediate security threat that must be
confronted directly and forcefully. Concurrently, there must be a new urgency in the promotion of the
rule of law, pluralism, and the respect for human rights. Democracy and human rights are not only
ideals to be pursued by all nations; they are also pragmatic tools that are powerful weapons against
extremism.
1AC – Solvency
Guest worker program solves farm labor shortages and border security
Todd Staples, The Express-News, 3-8-2013, "U.S. needs strong guest worker program," San Antonio
Express-News, http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/U-S-needs-strong-guestworker-program-4340209.php
Let's use pencil and paper to solve our immigration problem, rather than badges and bullets. This will enable our law enforcement to
better focus on drug-running terrorists, with the net result being a more secure border and a better knowledge of who is
really in our country. The real problem — and solution — when it comes to border security is more about policy than criminal prosecution. It's about our broken immigration system that fails
provide a win-win for U.S. taxpayers and guest workers. Our nation needs to find a safe and legal
way to welcome those willing to fill the jobs the domestic labor market has not filled. Let's be honest: No Americans
are relocating to the Rio Grande Valley to pick grapefruit. In California, strawberries are going unpicked. In Washington last year, apples were dropping to the ground. Why? Because we
have too few workers to pick them. Meanwhile, law enforcement is placed in the unworkable situation of having
to treat all undocumented individuals hiding in the brush as though they are deadly threats. And while our federal, state and
local law enforcement personnel are capable of defending our communities from the drug cartels, they are grossly outnumbered by the combined
population of cartels and undocumented workers. With a viable mechanism in place to welcome guest workers, law
enforcement officials could reasonably suspect that anyone still trying to enter our country in a covert manner
is either seeking to do harm or — at the very least — blatantly willing to flout our laws. Either way, that individual should be subjected to custody and the letter of the law,
to
not bureaucratic guesswork and the loopholes of red tape.
Current H-2A visa fails – it’s too bureaucratic and only drives more illegal immigration
Mcneill 09 [Jean Baker Mcneill;June 30, 2009; Ag JOBs Amnesty: The Wrong Way to Help American Agriculture; Senior Policy Analyst at
the Heritage Foundation and Senior Professional Staff Member at United States Senate;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/ag-jobs-amnesty-the-wrong-way-to-help-american-agriculture]
The H-2A visa was designed as temporary, non-immigrant visa to allow foreign nationals to enter the
U.S. and work on farms and in other seasonal jobs in order to fulfill the workforce needs of U.S.
agriculture. Currently, however, only an estimated 75,000 workers are in the H-2A program. The
reason: It is simply too bureaucratic and expensive for employers to use it effectively. The current
method by which the Department of Labor calculates wages is flawed, resulting in inflated wages that
are higher for H-2A workers than for American employees. Furthermore, employers must file
paperwork with multiple departments, identify specific workers when filing a petition with the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and then wait for months. This long process often means that
workers are no longer available when the visas are granted. The H-2A program's problems reduce
employers' incentives to hire employees legally. Often employers wind up hiring illegal immigrants as
employees instead--making illegal border crossings all the more attractive, because illegal immigrants
know there will be work whey they get to the United States.
CIR doesn’t solve the case – tanks the US ag industry and ensures agricultural
offshoring that undermines US food security
Dan Wheat, 6-28-2013, “Immigration passes Senate but faces steeper hill in House,” Capital Press,
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/djw-immigration-062813
Many agricultural groups issued laudatory statements about Senate passage of immigration reform, but
a key ag lobbyist says he's growing less optimistic daily about any bill passing the House. "We saw
Republicans in the House pay no attention to what the Senate does and no attention to what their
leadership does with the Farm Bill," said Tom Nassif, president and CEO of Western Growers
Association, Irvine, Calif. "Even though Speaker (John) Boehner voted for it his chairmen voted against
it," Nassif said, "and I don't think the Farm Bill is as difficult to resolve as immigration." Others in the
Agricultural Workforce Coalition are probably just as concerned as he is, he said. S. 744 passed 68-32 on
June 27. If bills from both chambers aren't in a conference committee before the August congressional
recess, there's a good chance immigration reform will die, Nassif said. Other issues like budgets and the
debt ceiling will overshadow immigration for the rest of the year, and mid-term elections in 2014
make it unlikely anything will happen then, he said. If immigration reform fails, the exodus of
vegetable producers from the American Southwest to Mexico, Latin America, the Middle East, South
Africa and China will accelerate, he said. "If the U.S. wants to be a producing nation and feed its own
without having to be dependent on foreign countries that may not like us and use food as a leverage
point, immigration reform needs to happen," Nassif said. Agricultural components of the Senate bill
remain unchanged since the bill was introduced, Nassif said. Key parts are a blue card or temporary legal
status for experienced farmworkers and a new agricultural visa program to meet future labor needs,
said Kristi Boswell, director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation. Both of
those elements are needed and the problem with tying legal status to future votes determining border
security, as Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and others are talking about, is that it doesn't solve the urgent and
immediate need of a shortage of farmworkers, Nassif said.
CIR can’t solve agriculture — uncapped is key
Helen Krieble, chair for Center for Opportunity, Protection and Fariness, 6-10-2013, “Senate's
immigration 'gang' will bungle guest worker quotas,” Mercury News,
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23429033/senates-immigration-gang-will-bungle-guestworker-quotas
The latest Gang of Eight senators have proposed an immigration reform bill that could only have been
drafted in secret, because anyone else could have told them their plan would never work. The 867-page
bill would create another new government bureaucracy, the Immigration and Labor Market Research
Bureau, headed by a political appointee and charged with determining the number of workers needed
by a wide range of businesses in future years — as if any government agency could ever know that. And
just to be sure the Gang of Eight pleased all its favorite interest groups, it didn't leave those decisions
entirely to the new bureau, but instead wrote specific quotas into the law itself: Agriculture gets
337,000 visas; construction gets 15,000; high-tech industries get 115,000; other specifically named
industries get 200,000. Small businesses that don't fit into these defined categories get none. Now the
Gang of Eight is busily trying to silence opposition, declaring that skeptics will be left behind as this
freight train leaves the station. Its members are working hard to defeat the dozens of amendments the
bill was sure to face once others finally started reading it. A system in which government determines
what types of businesses are eligible for visas, and how many workers they all need, cannot work. The
current system — which nearly everyone agrees is badly broken — is based on that same flawed
premise. That's why the number of H-2B seasonable workers is capped at 66,000, even though there
are several million such workers in the U.S. (which is why most are working illegally). That's why the
alphabet soup of visa programs includes A-3 visas for foreign diplomats, B-1 for nannies, H-1A for
agricultural workers, P for athletes, and dozens of others. It's why we have F-1 visas for students, but J-1
for professors. It's a mess, and it's why we have more than 12 million people in the U.S. illegally. Why
shouldn't all businesses, big and small, have a level playing field where employers and the free market
— not government bureaucracy &mdsash; determine how many guest workers are needed? Even the
all-powerful Gang of Eight can never repeal the law of supply and demand. If they only allow 200,000
guest workers and the economy needs 250,000, the rest will come illegally — perpetuating the very
problem Congress is trying to solve.
CIR can’t solve immigration
Jacoby 6-11 - Tamar Jacoby is known primarily for her writing on immigration-related issues. She is also president and CEO of
ImmigrationWorks USA (“Guest Workers Are the Best Border Security”, 6/11/13, WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324634304578535823045836956.html)
With the Senate beginning debate this week on the immigration reform bill, border security will be one of the most contentious issues. Sen. Marco Rubio (R.,
Fla.) argues at every opportunity that "immigration
reform hinges on border security," and he isn't wrong. But physical control of the
border can go only so far in preventing illegal immigration. At least as important is finding a way for immigrants to work
here legally. That's where a guest-worker program is crucial. The U.S. workforce is changing. Americans are having smaller
families, and birthrates are well below replacement level. Baby boomers are retiring: 10,000 leave the workforce every day. Younger workers coming up behind
them are much more educated than earlier generations. In 1950, according to the Census Bureau, 56% of U.S. workers were high-school dropouts. Today, the figure
is less than 5%. The result is that the pool of people available to fill low-skilled jobs has shrunk dramatically. It is not so much that the native born don't want to
work as busboys, farmhands or nurse's aides. But the overwhelming majority of Americans are now overqualified for these jobs and have other options. Meanwhile,
less-skilled immigrants with no family in the U.S. have no way—no access to a visa program—to enter the country
legally and work in year-round jobs. This is why so many immigrants have flowed into the country illegally in recent
decades and remain here, underground. The challenge facing Congress is to create a better system—one that works for willing immigrant workers and willing
employers, replaces the current illegal influx with a legal labor force, and protects the rights of Americans who are looking for low-skilled jobs. The
workervisa program in the Senate bill meets most of these tests. Participating employers must first try to hire American workers, recruiting widely and offering a
decent wage. If they can't, the program gives them a way to hire foreign workers easily, quickly and legally. The work visas
in the Senate bill bear little resemblance to traditional guest-worker programs, which generally tie the worker to one employer, opening the door to exploitation
and an inefficient labor market. Instead, under the Senate proposal, an immigrant here on a work visa can quit any time and go to work for any other U.S. employer
that has been approved to participate in the program. Business owners get access to a more flexible labor force, including the possibility of hiring in real time
without going back to the government for approval. The
size of the guest-worker program is designed to adjust
automatically in response to changing U.S. labor needs, growing in good years when the economy
needs more foreign workers and shrinking when more Americans are out of work. Finally, unlike most guestworker programs, the Senate proposal recognizes that some participants will want to stay in the U.S. when their visas have expired. Those who have done well while
on temporary visas—learning English, developing new skills, moving up on the job, putting down roots in their community—may apply to stay permanently. This
is a win-win for the immigrants and for the U.S., combining the benefits of a temporary worker
program with those of the nation's traditional way of immigration—the melting-pot model based on permanent residence
and assimilation. The one area where the Senate proposal falls short: It's almost surely too small to address the country's future labor needs. In the early 2000s,
when the economy was booming, more than 350,000 unauthorized Mexicans entered the U.S. every year to fill low-skilled jobs for which there were not enough
Americans. The downturn eased this demand somewhat, but it's now picking up again. If
the trends of recent decades resume, the
Senate proposal won't be big enough to divert future illegal immigration. In its first year, the Senate's guest-worker
program will be capped at 20,000 visas. It will grow over time in response to market demand but is capped at 200,000 workers
annually. The danger is that if there aren't enough visas to meet U.S. labor needs, the program won't prevent illegal
immigration in years ahead. The best antidote to illegal immigration is a legal immigration system that
works. The Senate's visa program is a good start. The challenge now, for the House or the Senate, is to scale up the Senate model so it can work in years to
come.
We don’t link to their exploitation DA – making the visas portable solves the problem
and the impact is non-unique
Alex Nowrasteh, 1-29-2013, "Immigration plan does only half the job," Reuters,
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/29/immigration-plan-does-only-half-the-job/, accessed
5-10-2013
Now unions say they oppose a guest-worker visa program to protect these workers from abuse. But unauthorized workers are
going to come in any case, so preventing a guest-worker program can only place them in a black
market ‑ where employer abuse, backed up by the threat of deportation, is far worse. If unions are honestly
concerned about guest-worker abuse, the solution is making the visa portable and not tied to one
employer. A World War I guest-worker visa let guest workers quit their jobs and be hired by approved
employers. Guest workers simply had to tell the government about their new employer after they were hired — not seek
permission before switching jobs. The best labor protection is a worker’s ability to quit a job without legal
sanction. If the government could create such a guest-worker visa program 100 years ago, there is no
reason why it cannot be revived today. As long as there is economic opportunity here, immigrants —
legal or not — will come. An immigration bill that does not create a vehicle for legal migrants to enter
the country is not real reform.
Case Extensions
Inherency
CIR Doesn’t Include Guest Workers
Immigration reform might not include a guest worker program at all – only the aff
removes incentives for illegal immigration
Christine Pratt, 7-4-2013, “Reform with no guest workers could cost growers 70 percent of workforce,”
Wenatchee World, http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2013/jul/04/reform-with-no-guestworkers-could-cost-growers-70-percent-of-workforce/
Tighter border security without a provision for an agile, workable guest worker program could result
in a 70 percent decline in the seasonal labor force for the region’s orchardists. That’s the figure that worries the local tree
fruit industry, as a bill for comprehensive immigration reform cleared the U.S. Senate last week and now enters a tougher fight in the House of
Representatives. U.S. senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and immigrant advocates last week hailed the Senate passage of the bipartisan
Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, which includes provisions favored by Republicans to toughen
border security and create a mandatory system to verify job applicant’s migratory status. It would also create an agile visa and contract-labor
program for ag workers and path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. — issues important to
democrats. And that’s all good, local industry officials say. If it all comes together as hoped. “If we get immigration reform, it wouldn’t matter
how tight the borders are, because there would be an effective guest worker program,” West Mathison, president of Stemilt Growers, said
Tuesday of the proposed federal legislation. “We believe that for seasonal work needs, the majority of work would be done by guest workers.
That’s part of why I truly think this is comprehensive and that they are truly looking at all aspects. I don’t have a fear it would jeopardize future
workforce needs.” But congressional
vetting often produces laws that are not as originally conceived. Tighter
security without guest-worker assurance could decimate the current labor force. But, by how much? “That’s
the wild card in all of this and the thing that concerns the tree-fruit industry,” said Kirk Mayer, manager of the Washington Growers
Clearinghouse, an orchardists trade group. “Tree fruit is very, very labor intensive and is the largest employer of seasonal agricultural workers in
the state.” Mayer said that some federal and state reports have estimated that as much of 70 percent of the total seasonal workforce is made
up of undocumented workers. That would amount to about 50,000 fewer workers to pick the state’s cherries, apples and pears. “The tree fruit
industry recognizes that part of the reform package has to improve border security and document verification,” Mayer said. “The
legislation looks good on the surface, but there are always discussions going on.” The association hasn’t taken
a position on the current reform bill, but Mayer said they’ll support an immigration law that legalizes experienced farm workers who have been
in the country and provides an ag-worker visa and contract programs that allow at-will, eager laborers to come here, work for the season and
go back to their home countries when the work is finished. The country’s current solution, the H2A contract-worker program, is complex,
expensive and not agile enough to respond to the unpredictabilities of the ag business, Mayer said. But for big fruit companies, including
Wenatchee’s McDougall & Sons, it’s become the norm for seasonal orchard work. Scott McDougall, the company’s orchard division manager,
said 95 percent of the company’s seasonal workforce is on the job under H2A contracts. He said he would welcome the reform, but doesn’t
expect it would change the way they do business very much. “For us, even if they tighten border security, we’ll still be very heavily reliant on
continuing the H2A,” he said. “We have less than 5 percent of workers who are domestic hires.” He added, “It’s almost too costly for small
growers to be a part of. I’m sympathetic to that... If you’re a farmer, and you depend on that labor force for your livelihood, that’s where your
frustration is, regardless of the party.” Replacing workers who don’t qualify for employment will be crucial. “If the current, unauthorized
workforce shrinks, there needs to be a flexible enough tool to let employers fill those voids,” Mayer said. “If
you have a good visa
program, it won’t be as attractive for the individuals to cross the border illegally. They’re only doing
that because there is no viable visa program in place.” State Sen. Linda Evans Parlette, R-Wenatchee, isn’t involved in the
federal immigration debate, but said she’s fielded angry phone calls from a few constituents who oppose reforms and legalization. “I don’t look
at this as a Republican or Democratic issue,” she said Tuesday. “It’s an issue long overdue in being resolved. You’ve
got to have a
reliable, legal, stable workforce. There has to be a legal way for people to come to this country and work and then go home... They
come here for a better life and work. We have to deal with this issue.”
CIR doesn’t include a guest worker program
Narvette, 2/19 - Ruben Navarrette is a CNN contributor and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers
Group (“Guest worker issue may kill immigration reform”, 2/19/13, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/opinion/navarrette-immigrationreform)
All those who are hoping that comprehensive immigration reform is going to happen this year -- Latinos,
businesses, churches, agriculture industry, law enforcement and others -- are in for a rude awakening. The trick for politicians will be
to look as if they're doing something, when really they're doing nothing. But, regardless of how it looks, it's a long shot that Congress will pass
immigration reform this year. That's bad news for those who want to give the undocumented a chance to get right with the law and develop a
sensible, fair and efficient policy for future immigrants. But it's good news for those who resist legalizing the undocumented because they're
afraid of foreigners -- either because of competition with their work ethic, or that they're changing the culture and complexion of the country.
Is enforcement key to fixing America's immigration system? The problem isn't just Republicans, who can't get on the same page about whether
they want to be reformers. It's also Democrats, who seem to be playing the immigration reform camp for chumps. The signs are everywhere, if
you know where to look. For instance, a few days ago, a draft of President Obama's immigration reform plan
was leaked. It took four
border security, a
requirement that employers use an electronic system to verify if prospective hires are eligible to
work, and a long path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the
United States. Obama's immigration plan leaked Obama: Harvest immigrants' talents How long? The undocumented could immediately
years to write, and yet its key points fit on a cocktail napkin with room to spare. Here's what is in the plan: more
apply for a special protective status to avoid deportation, but it would take them about eight years to get legal permanent residency (a green
Here's what is not in the plan: a guest worker program .
Republicans have repeatedly insisted that this needs to be in the mix for them to vote for any reform
package. The fact that it was left out tells us that Obama isn't serious about reform and ensures that
his plan would be, as Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said, "dead on arrival" in Congress. The idea would be to bring
in a few hundred thousand temporary "guest workers" to do the hard and dirty jobs that Americans
won't do at any wage. When the work is done, and the workers have been paid a fair salary, they go home. And another batch is
card) and another four or five years to become a U.S. citizen.
brought in. It's not a perfect solution. But you won't find any of those in the immigration debate. The first U.S. president to push for guest
workers was Abraham Lincoln. Industries were facing labor shortages during the Civil War and, with Lincoln's support, Congress in 1864 passed
The Act to Encourage Immigration. The bill allowed employers to recruit foreign workers and pay their way to America. There were more guest
workers during World War I. But the concept really became popular during World War II and the Cold War. From 1942 to 1964, under the
Bracero program (as in "brazo", which is Spanish for arm as in someone who works with his arms and hands), nearly 5 million guest workers
came in and out of the United States. In fact, arguably, the reason the Braceros stopped coming was because journalist Edward R. Murrow -- in
the 1960 CBS documentary, "Harvest of Shame" -- exposed the horrible treatments the workers received at the hands of employers, including
low wages, unsanitary conditions, dilapidated housing, etc. Congress pulled the plug soon thereafter. But exploitation
doesn't have
to be part of the deal, and not every guest worker program is run as badly as that one. There are apple
growers in Washington State who don't have to scramble for pickers at harvest time because the same crews return every year. The growers
lure them back by paying decent wages and providing clean living quarters. Everyone is happy. Well, maybe not everyone. Many in organized
labor hate the concept of guest workers because their leaders are busy peddling the fantasy that the hard and dirty jobs in question are sought
after by union members. Sure. Then why aren't they doing them now? Answer: Because they're hard and dirty. It's
time for Congress
to create a new guest worker program for the agriculture industry where employees can have decent
wages, access to health clinics, livable housing, workers comp in case of injury, and legal protection so that they aren't
exploited. Of course, there's the catch. If growers have to pay for all that, labor economists say, it might well kill the incentive for them to
participate. But it's those same growers who are now complaining that they aren't able to find American workers who are willing to pick a
variety of crops that can't be harvested by machine -- peaches, plums, apples, lettuce, tomatoes, avocadoes, nectarines, strawberries,
blueberries, apricots, table grapes, etc. So those employers will have to make some tough choices. If they want a reliable labor supply, it'll cost
them. That's the way it should be. There is no free lunch. Either way,
it's a guest workers program that will make or break
the prospects for immigration reform. I'm betting it's the latter.
AT: CIR Solves The Aff
CIR guest worker program is inadequate – still has a cap and doesn’t meet labor
demand or solve illegal immigration
WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]
The good news is that the
Gang of Eight bill replaces the H-2A visa with a more rational guest-worker program.
It would create a more flexible "W" visa that would last three years and allow workers to change
employers. The new program would be administered by the Department of Agriculture, which has traditionally been less subject to union manipulation than
the Labor Department. Enlarge Image Bloomberg News A worker carries boxes of packed vegetables at Swank Specialty Produce farm in Loxahatchee, Florida, U.S.,
on Wednesday, May 8, 2013. Meanwhile, current unauthorized workers would be able to obtain legal status with a new blue card, and after paying taxes in addition
to a $400 fine would be eligible for a green card after five years and ultimately citizenship. This would give certainty to employers who now live under constant
threat of audits by the Labor Department and raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Workers lost in these shakedowns aren't easily replaced. The
problem is that in return for these improvements, labor unions demanded a cap on new guest
workers of 337,000 over five years. That isn't likely to fill the needs of an industry in which labor
shortages run as high as 20%, depending on the location and crop. The guest-worker flow ought to
follow labor demand, not have an artificial cap that might still allow a shortage that would attract
more future illegals.
Farmers think the CIR version of guest workers is inadequate
WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]
The Senate begins floor debate on immigration reform next week, and our hope is that it can improve
the Gang of Eight bill that emerged from the Judiciary Committee with the U.S. economy foremost in mind. One place
to start is ending America's farm-worker shortage. Farm growers have reluctantly (and under Democratic pressure)
endorsed the Gang of Eight's framework, flaws and all, because they desperately need more workers.
Although there's currently no cap on agriculture visas, only 5% of the country's two million farm
workers are employed under the current and very onerous H-2A visa program. One reason is because
H-2A visas are only good for a year and don't allow workers to change jobs. The fast-twitch bureaucrats at the Labor
Department also must certify that U.S. workers aren't available to do the job, so workers arrive late if they arrive at all.
CIR guest worker program is inadequate – forces returns which disrupt farm
operations
WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]
Related Video Americas columnist Mary Anastasia O’Grady on how and whether immigration reform could collapse in the Senate. Photo: Getty Images The
Secretary of Agriculture would be able to lift the cap in "severe labor shortages," but much will
depend on how the Secretary defines "severe." Is a shortage that results in several thousand acres of spoiled lettuce in California's San
Joaquin Valley severe? Or must prices increase at the supermarket? The legislation also makes life difficult for employers who
need labor year-round by requiring that guest workers return home for at least one-sixth of the
duration of their visas. This can disrupt operations by taking away the most experienced workers at
crucial times, even if they want to stay.
CIR guest worker program has fixed wages – drives agricultural offshoring
WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]
Equally troublesome are the legislation's fixed wages, which unions demanded to ensure that pay for
domestic workers doesn't fall with an influx of foreign labor. The wage scales vary by job classification—ranging from $9.17 per
hour for field hands to $11.30 for equipment operators—and would automatically increase by 1.5% to 2.5% each year. Wage controls suppress
market signals that determine the most efficient allocation of labor, and these new wage scales would
make it especially difficult for farmers of low-grossing crops to compete with foreign producers. Some
would shift to row crops that allow more mechanization, but that would mean fewer U.S.-produced strawberries and other high-value crops that require humans to
harvest. Because the wage controls would apply only to employers who use guest workers, farmers would have an incentive to hire domestic workers exclusively.
But because
relatively few Americans want to do farm work, this would merely drive more farm
production overseas. The definition of perverse would be an immigration reform that causes the U.S. to import more of its food supply.
AT: Goodlatte Bill Solves The Aff
Goodlatte’s house bill sucks – requires returns to Mexico and lacks true portability
Dan Wheat, 6-28-2013, “Immigration passes Senate but faces steeper hill in House,” Capital Press,
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/djw-immigration-062813
An effort for a comprehensive bill in the House stalled but a series of bills sponsored by House Judiciary
Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., are beginning to pass the committee. One requires all employers to
check their workers' legal status within two years. One involves agricultural workers and another makes
illegal immigration a federal crime instead of a civil offense.
Goodlatte's bills contain no temporary legal status but require people "to go back (to Mexico) and
become part of our guest worker program," Nassif said. Goodlatte's guest worker plan only allows atwill employment or portability, the ability of workers to move from employer to employer, after guest
workers have worked by contract, he said. The Senate bill gives agricultural workers the choice of atwill or contract work at the start, something ag employers and workers want, he said.
However, agricultural differences with Goodlatte can be resolved, Nassif said. "He's prepared to
reasonable about that (at-will employment)," he said.
CIR Won’t Pass
CIR won’t pass – major house opposition
Philip Elliott, 7-1-2013, “Immigration Bill Faces Uncertain Future In House,” Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/immigration-bill_n_3528051.html
The immigration debate is shifting to the Republican-led House, where lawmakers have shown little
appetite for the large-scale, comprehensive approach their Senate colleagues embraced last week. The
Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that any attempt at comprehensive
immigration legislation cannot offer a "special pathway to citizenship" for those in the United States
illegally. Democrats have called that position a deal-breaker. Meanwhile, both parties eyed the politics
that could yield electoral victories or irrelevance among the growing Hispanic voting bloc. Rep. Bob
Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who leads the House Judiciary Committee, said he does not foresee a
proposal that could provide a simple mechanism for immigrants here illegally to earn full standing as
U.S. citizens. His committee members have been working on bills that address individual concerns but
have not written a comprehensive proposal to match the Senate's effort. A pathway to legal standing,
similar to that of immigrants who have green cards, could be an option, he said. Unacceptable, said Sen.
Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "No Democrat will vote for any bill without a path to citizenship," said Schumer,
who helped write the Senate immigration plan that passed that chamber last week. The Senate bill
would provide a long and difficult pathway to citizenship for those living in the country illegally, as well
as tough measures to secure the border. In the Democratic-controlled Senate, 14 Republicans joined all
Democratic senators and independents in the 68-32 vote. In the Republican-led House, conservatives
have stood opposed to any pathway to citizenship for those workers. House lawmakers have urged a
piecemeal approach to the thorny issue instead of the Senate's sweeping effort. House Speaker John
Boehner has ruled out taking up the Senate bill and said the Republican-controlled chamber would
chart its own version of the legislation with a focus on border security. Illustrating the strong opposition
among conservative lawmakers, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said flatly: "The Senate bill is not going to
pass."
Current guest worker program fails and new guest worker program unlikely to pass
House
Richmond 13
(Matt, Freelance writer for NPR, “Immigration reform would address labor shortages on NY farms” May
17, pg online at http://wrvo.org/post/immigration-reform-would-address-labor-shortages-ny-farms0//sd)
As lawmakers in the Senate's Judiciary Committee debate the immigration reform bill released last month, farmers in New
York State are hoping to find enough workers to fully staff their operations. It's a yearly struggle in New York and
nationwide and according to a report by Farm Credit East, more than 1000 farms in New York could close or shrink by two-thirds
if immigration laws were fully enforced. Anyone looking to hire foreign workers for the planting and harvesting seasons can go through
the Department of Labor's H-2A guest worker visa program. But it is often a source of frustration for farmers. “The
current H-2A guest worker program is a nightmare for many farmers in New York and nationally," says the farm credit cooperative's vice president Bob Smith. Smith
says the
program is too expensive, applicants have to pay for the workers’ travel to and from the farm
and provide housing. And the Department of Labor, which approves requests for farm workers, often responds late to
applications. “Many times, farms have gotten workers after their harvesting period or after their planting period and that
costs farmers collectively millions and millions of dollars each year,” says Smith. In 2011, about 4,000 guest worker visas were issued to farm laborers
coming to New York, about 7 percent of the total full time and seasonal positions on New York farms. Immigration reform “We have lots of illegal immigrants who
are doing the work now although they’re chased by INS, ICE, the immigration service, particularly in New York because we have a border with Canada,” says Sen.
Charles Schumer (D-NY). Schumer is a member of the group of eight, the four Democratic and four Republican senators behind immigration
reform
legislation. The
bill is facing stiff opposition in the Senate, and has yet to go to the Republican-controlled
House of Representatiaves. Under the group of eight bill, farm workers in the country illegally since 2011 would
be offered legal status. And a new guest worker program would be created to supply all agriculture
with new laborers. The bill includes legalization provisions for the estimated 11 million undocumented
immigrants in the United States and a separate path for children whose parents brought them to the U.S. illegally. The new guest worker visa
would last three years. That means farmers would not have to reapply every year, oftentimes just to be able to bring the
same workers back. And the guest workers would be able to take jobs on other farms with the same visa, something the current system doesn’t allow. “And so this
is kind of a basic right – the right to move, the right to leave one’s workplace,” says Leanne Tory-Murphy of the Workers Justice Center of New York. Rights for farm
workers Murphy says
the current system of guest workers and undocumented migrants has turned farm work into a job
that Americans don’t want. “You can see other industries that are equally dangerous, equally dirty, equally hard, like
mining for example, which is still a mostly American workforce because it’s unionized, there are protections, the pay is
much better,” says Murphy. For both undocumented workers and their employers, there’s always the threat of a
crackdown by immigration. Employers check their workers’ status with the same I-9 form that every new hire has to fill out. According to the Society of
Human Resource Management, audits of I-9 forms by immigration authorities have jumped from just 3 in 2004 to 3,000 last year. Jim Allen is head of the New York
Apple Growers Association. He says immigration officials are a constant threat to his members’ employees. “In the past, they’ve staked out laundromats, they’ve
staked out child care, they’ve sat in front of the Catholic Church on Saturday night,” says Allen. Allen says his industry, where every apple is picked by hand, relies on
migrant labor and targeting them isn’t helping anyone. “They’re very diligent, they’re very conscientious, they work very hard, they work circles around anybody
else. And they pay taxes, by the way,” says Allen. Allen says apple growers are expecting a bumper crop this year, after a bad year last year. And, like always, they’re
wondering if they’ll be able to find enough workers. Salvador's story Salvador is 32 years old and from the Mexican state of Veracruz. He’s been in the U.S. illegally
since 2008, working on a dairy farm 20 minutes from Ithaca. He didn’t want to give his real name. Salvador lives in a trailer down the hill from his boss’ dairy barn
and works 6 days a week, for up to 70 hours each week. When he needs to leave the farm, he pays for a ride from someone with a license. And he only leaves to do
what he needs to, for grocery shopping or sending money to Mexico, then comes right back to the farm. “When you go out are you worried about what might
happen?” “Yes, always.” Salvador first crossed the border in 2005, went back to Mexico after two years and made the trip again in 2008. He says the walk across the
border has gotten much harder. It took him eight days; two of those days were spent without food or water. He had to pay 5,000 pesos to gangs along the way and
was turned back once when Border Patrol sent a dog after him. “Once a person gets here, it might be a month, two months, three months, but they’ll find a job. The
most dangerous part is getting here,” says Salvador. Under
the proposed Senate immigration bill, Salvador could be eligible for
what's known as a blue card, so long as he can prove he's spent enough time doing farm work since
the end of 2011. Republican opposition to the bill has centered on whether new border security provisions are strict enough. The last time Congress
offered legal status to undocumented immigrants was in 1986, and the number of immigrants here illegally has more doubled since then. The bill includes
a new guest worker visa, the W-2, that its supporters say would help end the flow of job seekers crossing the border
illegally.
CIR Won’t Pass: House Republicans
Ashley Killough, 6/30/13, Ashley Killough is a journalist for CNN, the Washington Post, and is a student
at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, “Immigration Reform in the House Looks
Uncertain as Lawmaker’s Quarrel”, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/30/immigrationreform-in-the-house-looks-uncertain-as-lawmakers-quarrel/
Two top lawmakers in the House immigration reform effort battled Sunday over how a compromise could be obtained in the Republican-
Republican Rep. Bob
Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, flatly said the House should not take up the
Senate bill and should produce its own version instead. But Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a fellow
member of the committee, said Republicans are failing to produce anything worth voting on. The two sat
side by side Sunday morning on CNN's "State of the Union." "We cannot put compromise to one side," Gutierrez said.
"What the House Republicans are doing is giving a Republican solution, and a Republican solution isn't
what we saw was successful in the Senate." In a 68-32 vote, the Senate passed a 1,200-page bill Thursday that promises to
controlled chamber, after the Democrat-controlled Senate passed sweeping reform legislation last week.
overhaul immigration laws. The legislation includes a pathway to citizenship for most of the country's 11 million undocumented workers. A lastminute, bipartisan amendment added tougher border security measures to the bill as a way to make it more enticing to House Republicans. A
bipartisan group is also working on a package in the House, though it differs sharply from the Senate measure by making it harder for
undocumented immigrants to get on a path to citizenship. Members of the House group negotiating the bill would also require that border
security measures be in place before any process toward gaining legal status could begin.
Lawmakers agreed to include security
"triggers" in their proposal in hopes of attracting support from more House Republicans who have
been highly critical of the Senate bill. The Senate rejected a similar GOP proposal. "The compromise is going to
have to come both in getting a bill out of the House and then in going to conference with the Senate to work out the differences," he told CNN's
chief political correspondent Candy Crowley. Asked if he thinks the House bill will include a pathway to legalization, he said "yes," but not
necessarily a pathway to citizenship. Goodlatte reiterated what House Speaker John Boehner has said, saying the bipartisan group must
produce a bill "that can get a majority of House Republicans to support it." But Gutierrez said the proposals coming from Republicans are "old"
and "discredited." "The breadth and the depth of support which exists for comprehensive immigration reform is greater than I've seen on any
But he
added House Republicans are "the one people that stand on the side, unwilling to compromise and sit
down with Democrats."
other issue," he said, talking about labor unions, religious communities and poll numbers that show support for immigration reform.
Agriculture Advantage
Yes Ag Labor Shortage
Labor shortages wreck ag industry across the nation
Serrano 12 – Alfonso Serrano is a senior editor at TIME magazine
(http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-onimmigration-laws/) Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws
Roughly 70% of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture industry are undocumented. No
U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented immigrants. But acute labor shortages brought on
by anti-immigration measures threaten to heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of
stiff foreign competition. Nationwide, labor shortages will result in losses of up to $9 billion, according
to the American Farm Bureau Federation. In Arizona, Nan Walden’s complaints mirror those of the
Broetjes. Walden is vice president of the family-owned Farmers Investment Co., the largest grower and
processor of pecans in the world, with 6,000 acres (2,500 hectares) of farmland in the Santa Cruz Valley,
35 miles (56 km) from the U.S.-Mexico border. Walden says the state system in place for luring
seasonal workers is wholly inefficient and adds that Arizona’s infamous SB1070 immigration law has
only compounded the problem, creating a climate of fear for Arizona employers and employees. “This
has led to people leaving our state, going to other states without these ambiguous clouds and legal
sanctions hanging over employers’ and employees’ heads,” says Walden.
American labor shortages in the Ag market hinder production – Plan solves
Serrano 12 – Alfonso Serrano is a senior editor at TIME magazine
(http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-onimmigration-laws/) Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws
The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex web of local
and state anti-immigration laws account for acute labor shortages. With the harvest season in full
bloom, stringent immigration laws have forced waves of undocumented immigrants to flee certain
states for more-hospitable areas. In their wake, thousands of acres of crops have been left to rot in
the fields, as farmers have struggled to compensate for labor shortages with domestic help. “The
enforcement of immigration policy has devastated the skilled-labor source that we’ve depended on
for 20 or 30 years,” said Ralph Broetje during a recent teleconference organized by the National
Immigration Forum, adding that last year Washington farmers — part of an $8 billion agriculture
industry — were forced to leave 10% of their crops rotting on vines and trees. “ It’s getting worse
each year ,” says Broetje, “and it’s going to end up putting some growers out of business if Congress
doesn’t step up and do immigration reform.”
Ag labor shortage still exists, despite better benefits
Serrano 12 – Alfonso Serrano is a senior editor at TIME magazine
(http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-onimmigration-laws/) Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws
Farming operations nationwide, from New York to Georgia to California, are reeling from similar labor
shortages despite offering domestic workers competitive packages that include 401(k) plans and
health insurance. Almost in unison, farmers complain that even when they are able to lure domestic
workers to what often amounts to high-skilled, grueling work, it’s not long before they abandon the
job. North Carolina, whose four main crops are valued at $2 billion, has seen its labor supply vanish
since nearby Alabama and South Carolina enacted restrictive immigration laws. “Clearly, immigration
reform is as much a federal issue as maintaining our military or managing our money supply,” says
Larry Wooten, president of the North Carolina Farm Bureau. “And this state-by-state regulation, with
hyperenforcement, is putting pressure on farming operations here in North Carolina and across the
country.”
The US is facing systemic labor shortages—reform is key to maintain competitiveness
Atwater and Aisha 4
(David, PhD in economics at Graziado School of Business. “Preparing for a Future Labor Shortage”
Graziado Business Review Vol 7 Issue 2, pg online at http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2010/08/preparing-fora-future-labor-shortage///sd)
Despite the current rhetoric, demographic trends suggest the potential for a shortage of skilled workers as the baby boomers retire. What can
A systemic labor shortage
occurs when the overall number of new job openings exceeds the number of qualified new entrants in
a national economy for a sustained period of years. By definition, systemic labor shortages spread across a
wide range of occupations and skill groups. Systemic labor shortages have been recorded historically when nations transition from
you do to ensure that you maintain a productive enterprise? Is a Systemic Labor Shortage Developing?
wartime economies to peacetime economies, when widespread health problems or plagues devastate an economy, or when major innovation
cycles such as the Industrial Revolution transform work organizations. Today, national and global demographic changes are a potential catalyst
for a long-term systemic imbalance. According to the Employment Policy Foundation (EPF), a
systemic labor shortage is expected
to transform the workplace over the next 25 to 30 years as the gap between baby boomers and
entrants of college-educated workers widens due to the boomers’ mass retirements. If the U.S. economy continues to
grow at three percent per year—the economy’s consistent average since 1948—the workforce will have to increase
by 58 million employees over the next three decades if the same rate of productivity is maintained. Yet, if the
current population trend continues, the number of workers will only increase by 23 million. This trend
would create an overall U.S. labor shortage of 35 million workers .[1] Most of these projected shortages are
expected to involve workers having specific skills. The consequences of such a skilled worker shortage at the national level would be
substantial. Results would include: reduction of the growth in the standard of living, compared to historical trends;
higher wage-
push inflation; potential decreases in international competitiveness, and even the erosion of future
domestic production capacity.
US Ag industry depends on Foreign workers
Bloomberg 2013, May 15, Mike Bloomberg: Mayor of New York city, “US Agriculture Industry
Depends on Foreign Agriculture Workers”,
http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=AA0D6AF8-C29C-7CA2-FD8B6D602550A74D
“Business leaders in our coalition and across the country who work in the agriculture industry see
everyday how American farms are hurt by an immigration system that hasn’t been updated for
decades,” said Partnership for a New American Economy Co-Chair and New York City Mayor Michael R.
Bloomberg. “Until we fix this broken system, America’s farm owners will continue losing out on the
critical labor they need to keep their businesses healthy – and our economy strong. It’s time for
lawmakers in both parties to pass comprehensive immigration reform that includes measures to
streamline our temporary guest-worker program so we can get the workers we need to keep our
farms running and create American jobs.” “It's clear in the data that without foreign farm workers,
North Carolina’s farms would not have access to the labor they need. U.S.-born workers simply will not
take the jobs offered on North Carolina farms, but immigrants are filling these roles, creating
American jobs, and promoting our economic well-being with their contributions,” said CGD’s Michael
Clemens.
West Coast Faces Ag Labor Shortage
Hecht 2013, March 24, “As young workers avoid Agriculture shortage looms”, Peyer Hecht: reporter
for the Post Gazette, http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/as-young-workers-avoidagriculture-farm-labor-shortage-looms-680616/
Increasingly, California's $44.3 billion agricultural industry must rely on the well-calloused hands of
older workers who came many years ago to fill jobs pruning, planting, picking and packing.These days at
Chandler Farms, a fourth-generation family ranch 20 miles south of Fresno, veteran workers like Mr. Contreras are in the majority.On a recent
weekday, Antonio Magdaleno, 59, cut grapevines in a neighboring field. Mr. Magdaleno emigrated from Michoacan, Mexico, in 1973 and has
spent 36 of his last 40 years on Central Valley farms.His features bronzed and weathered, Mr. Magdaleno said he looks forward to the midwinter pruning, "a beautiful time and something special," marking the start of the growing season."It's always been us," Mr. Magdaleno said in
Spanish. "Time has passed, and we're older. The young people want to work in factories and other places."The
aging of California's
agricultural workforce reflects a convergence of trends.In many cases, the children of farmworkers
who arrived decades ago have little interest in fieldwork. Tighter U.S. immigration enforcement, as
well as brutal cartel-driven violence along the Mexican border, have deterred many potential workers
from attempting to cross.And, amid a rebounding economy in Mexico, Mexican farms are facing their own labor shortage and have
plenty of work to offer at home.The upshot, according to the California Farm Bureau Federation, is that more
than 70 percent of state agricultural producers anticipate a worker shortage starting this spring and
worsening through the growing season. Some officials estimate the labor force could fall by more than
80,000 farmworkers -- down from the 450,000 workers on whom farmers have come to rely for the
peak harvest of late summer."Basically, we're running out of low-skilled workers. People simply are
not doing farm work to the extent they were doing before," said J. Edward Taylor, a University of
California-Davis economist who has studied the migration of farmworkers from Mexico.From California's Central Valley to
Washington, D.C., the graying workforce adds urgency to the debate over immigration reform.Farm lobbyists and
elected officials are discussing remedies that include granting legal status to more than 1 million undocumented farmworkers in the United
States and establishing an expanded guest worker visa program for agriculture to ensure a steady supply of laborers."We have to try to find a
system that is not going to cause a major disruption to our industry," said Bryan Little, director of labor affairs for the California Farm Bureau
Federation. The industry group favors letting undocumented farmworkers stay in the country while applying for legal status, as well as drawing
in seasonal guest workers to replenish the labor force.California agricultural interests estimate that as many as 70 percent to 90 percent of
farmworkers in the state may be here illegally, often presenting counterfeit documents to secure work.Bill Chandler, 73, runs the family ranch
in Selma with his son, John, who is 35. Mr. Chandler says his workforce largely consists of older laborers who got permanent residency or U.S.
citizenship under a 1986 immigration reform law signed by President Ronald Reagan."There are always people in the ag labor force who don't
have [proper] papers," he said. "So we're all scrambling for what labor is here. And they're older folks."He added: "They're special. They're
really special."Mr. Taylor of UC-Davis said economic factors may continue to drive down the number of farmworkers and prompt growers to
convert to less labor-intensive crops.That is already happening at the 480-acre Chandler Farms. Because
of difficulty finding
workers for harvesting fruit, the family decided to cut back by 40 acres on peaches and plums and use more land to grow
almonds, which can be harvested by machine."I don't know if it is going to get better for a while," Mr. Chandler said. "If you want
peaches or plums, or strawberries or lettuce or tomatoes, we need a program in which we can have
labor. I don't have the answers."
Ag labor shortage continues to worsen as current worker age
ABCLocal News 2013, March 12,”California farm labor shortage expected to get worse”
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/ag_watch&id=9023957
Agriculture officials say the problem is getting worse -- mainly because current farm workers are
getting older, more are going home to Mexico, and fewer migrants are coming into the country
to replace them. An economist with U.C. Davis says the ag industry is basically running out of lowskilled workers. The California Farm Bureau Federation says more than 70-percent of farmers expect a
worker shortage starting this spring -- and getting worse through the growing season.
California’s 38 billion agricultural sector in danger- worker shortage
Wells 2012, August 20, CNBC News, “California Farm Labor Shotage ‘Worst It’s Ever Been”, Jane Wells:
New reporter, http://www.cnbc.com/id/48725145
There's a different sort of drought plaguing California, the nation's largest farm state. It's $38 billion
agricultural sector is facing a scarcity of labor.Benjamin Lowy Migrant workers weed lettuce seed plants at an organic
produce farm near Fresno, California."This year is the worst it's been, ever," said Craig Underwood, who farms
everything from strawberries to lemons to peppers, carrots, and turnips in Ventura County.Some crops aren't get picked this season due to
a lack of workers."We just left them in the field," he said.The Western Growers Association told CNBC its members are reporting a 20 percent
drop in laborers this year. Stronger border controls are keeping workers from crossing into the U.S. illegally, and the current guest worker
program is not providing enough bodies. (Related: Massive US Drought Leads to Worst Fears for Corn Crop.)"We
have 100 fewer
people this year," said Sergio Diaz, who provides workers under contract for growers . "We're having
difficulty finding people to do this work."The lack of workers is forcing farmers to pay more. In one of
Underwood's fields, pickers are harvesting peppers for $9.25 a hour, or $5 a bucket, whichever is more. Craig Underwood said his
workforce is aging and starting to retire, and no one is coming in to replace them. (Related: Recession-Proof
Industries.)"Migratory flows between Mexico and the United States have come to a halt," Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, consul general of Mexico
in Sacramento, told a California farm bureau labor committee, according to AgAlert. Growers of California's wine grapes are concerned there
won't be enough pickers for this fall's harvest. Berry growers — among the highest paying — saw fewer field hands show up in the spring."Fruit
that you should be picking is not being picked," said grower John Eiskamp.Most pickers in California are not here legally, a fact of life for
decades.When asked if any local residents have come out to apply to work in the fields, Craig Underwood replied, "None. Absolutely none."
He is even having trouble finding truck drivers and other semi-skilled labor for jobs that pay $12-$18
an hour.
Yes Offshoring
Lack of guest workers is causing agricultural off-shoring
WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]
In 2010, farmers reported more than $320 million in losses because they didn't get the workers they
needed. Illegal workers fill most of the gap, but increasingly the bigger companies are moving
production to Latin America. Growers estimate that 80,000 acres of fruit and vegetable production
have moved out of California alone because of the labor shortage.
Ag Competitiveness Brink
Ag industry is on the brink-competitors are catching up
Agrimoney 2012
(“US crop exports face 'crisis of competitiveness'”, February, http://www.agrimoney.com/news/us-cropexports-face-crisis-of-competitiveness--4179.html, DOA: 7-13-12)
"US producers face a crisis of competitiveness," the council said, noting an "intense battle" for share in export markets.¶
"Aggressive competitors in Argentina, Brazil and the Black Sea region… are ramping up production in
response to high global prices for corn and other feed grains."¶ US producers "can hardly fault others for
competing effectively for market share because, in large part, we taught them how to do it ", the group
said.¶ "But rising competition means US producers must look aggressively to emerging markets in which
the US can earn a competitive edge."¶ Foreign threats ¶ The comments follow forecasts last week from the
USDA that the US was over the next decade to continue to lose market share in exports of major crops
including corn, soybeans and wheat and, to a lesser extent, cotton and sorghum.¶ In wheat, US shipments will represent 16% of the world
total in 2021, down from an average of 23% over the past five years, the last decade, mainly due to increased shipments from the Black Sea.¶
The USGC highlighted that in corn, "the US
cannot take market dominance for granted", noting "increasing selfsufficiency" in the rest of the world.¶ "Non-US demand continues to rise rapidly, prices remain high,
and non-US producers are responding."
Guest Workers Key Economy
Guest worker program is key to the economy
Clemens 13 [Michael A. Clemens; INTERNATIONAL HARVEST: A Case Study of How Foreign Workers Help American Farms Grow Crops
– and the Economy; Clemens has a PHD from Harvard in Economics and is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development where he leads
the Migration and Development initiative; http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/nc-agr-report-05-2013.pdf; May 2013]
Foreign farm workers create jobs for American workers: In North Carolina, temporary foreign workers
play a vital role in commercial agriculture. Because local farms cannot get local labor for many essential
manual tasks, foreign workers allow those farms – and their whole contribution to North Carolina’s
economy – to exist, creating additional jobs for US workers in all sectors. The 7,000 seasonal H-2A workers
recruited by the NCGA in 2012 added at least an estimated $248 million to $371 million to the North Carolina economy that year. This
economic benefit created one US worker job for each 3.0–4.6 H-2A farm workers who worked in
North Carolina. The projected benefit here is actually a conservative estimate for what foreign
seasonal laborers add to the North Carolina economy. It underestimates total job creation because it
assumes that the H-2A workers could be completely replaced by other methods of harvesting crops, like machines that
mechanize harvests, which is not currently possible for many crops. Also, the estimated benefit does not account for the
H-2A workers’ spending a portion of their wages in the local economy, or for the spending of US
workers who work on the same farms. Thus, the actual economic impact of the foreign agricultural
laborers is higher.
Labor Shortage Bad – Housing Scenario
Labor shortages cause housing market collapse—increasing immigrants boost it
NAHB 13
(National Association of Home Builders, “IMMIGRANT WORKERS IN THE CONSTRUCTION LABOR FORCE”
4/1 pg online at
http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=734&genericContentID=200529&channelID=311//sd)
The turnaround presents new challenges for the construction industry. The Housing Market Index (HMI) surveys conducted by NAHB in January
and March 2013 indicate that labor
shortages are quickly rising on home builders’ list of the most significant
problems. More than half of all home builders surveyed in January confirmed that they expected cost
and labor availability to be one of the most significant problems faced by builders in 2013. This stands in
sharp contrast with the situation as recently as in 2012 and 2011 when only 30 and 13 percent of surveyed NAHB members, respectively,
reported cost and labor availability as their most prominent concern. More than half of all home builders surveyed in March reported that
labor shortages over the past 6 months caused them to pay higher wages and subcontractor bids and,
consequently, raise home prices. Fifteen percent of respondents had to turn down some projects and nine
percent lost or cancelled sales as a result of recent labor shortages. The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the month of January had the second highest number of unfilled positions in the last 17 months. This
study examines where construction workers come from by analyzing the most recent 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) from the Census
Bureau and compares the findings with the results from the 2004 ACS, the last time the NAHB Economics conducted a similar analysis. The
results show that immigrants
have been an important source of new recruits to the construction industry—
accounting for a large share of the overall labor force. The inflow of foreign born labor into
construction is cyclical and coincides with the overall housing activity. Their share was rising rapidly
during the housing boom years when labor shortages were widespread and serious. But even during the severe
housing downturn and a period of high unemployment the construction labor force continued to recruit
new immigrants to partially replace native and foreign born workers leaving the industry. Particularly,
immigrants are concentrated in some of the trades needed to build a home, like carpenters, painters,
drywall/ceiling tile installers, brick masons, and construction laborers – trades that require less training and
education but consistently register some of the highest labor shortages in the HMI surveys.
Housing is key to the economy—boosts consumer confidence and raises net GDP
Noguchi 13
(Yuki, nqa, “As Housing Industry Builds Up, Other Sectors Follow” NPR News 3/29/13 pg online at
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/29/175690983/as-housing-industry-builds-up-other-sectors-follow//sd)
When fortunes rise in the housing industry — as they currently are — it tends to lift sales for other
businesses, too. Home construction, sales and prices are all improving. And according to many analysts,
the market is gaining steam. For nearly two decades, Scott Gillis has owned his own moving company,
Great Scott Moving in Hyattsville, Md. Moving high season is just around the corner, which means Gillis
is hiring. "I'm doing it right now, I'm calling up all my old employees. Basically, I'm doing as much as
possible 'cause I'm anticipating we're having a good summer," Gillis says. That's in contrast to several
years ago, when Great Scott moved more people into rental apartments than houses — as its sales and
staff plunged by a third. Gillis says things have improved. But they're still very hard to predict. 'The
Mood Is Much Better' "I think the mood is much better than it was five years ago. I think we are heading
in a better way," he says. "But nobody knows the forecast." The federal spending cuts known as the
sequester don't help. And there are pockets of housing weakness. Still, overriding all that, he says, is a
sense that things are fundamentally better and improving. "When you start seeing larger offices going
to smaller offices, it's an indicator that everybody's cutting back. Now I see offices getting larger. And
that's usually a good indicator," Gillis says. Part of what's driving the urge to move is that people are
spending again. "This housing market recovery is a tremendous boost to the economy," says Lawrence
Yun, a chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. More On The Housing Industry Business
Technology Upends Another Industry: Homebuilding Increase In Sales And Low Inventory Indicate
Housing Recovery Is In Full Swing March 21, 2013 Is The Housing Market Finally Back On Track? March
20, 2013 A Powerful Economic Boost Yun says residential construction, remodeling, moving, gardening
and furniture buying add up to about 20 percent of the country's g ross d omestic pr oduct — which
is why the upward momentum in housing is such a powerful boost to the economy. But it's not just
that. Yun says by year end, U.S. homes will collectively be worth $3 trillion more than they were at the
bottom of the market. "And that will provide a significant boost in consumer spending" — $100 billion
in extra spending this year, to be exact, he says.
Food Security Impact – General
Billions will die without expanded agricultural output
Mahendra Shah, Executive Secretary of CGIAR and Maurice Strong, Senior Adviser to UN and World
Bank 2000 “Food in the 21st century: from science to sustainable agriculture,” p. 9-10
As the new millennium begins, the world faces another food crisis that is just as dangerous — but much more
complex — than the one it confronted thirty years ago. Each year the global population climbs by an estimated 90
million people. This means, at the very least, the world's farmers will have to increase food production by
more than 50 percent to feed some two billion more people by 2020. But the numbers don't tell the full story. The
challenge confronting the world is far more intricate than simply producing more food, because global conditions are very different than they
were on the eve of the Green Revolution. To
prevent a crisis, the world community must confront the issues of
poverty, food insecurity, environmental degradation, and erosion of genetic resources. Feeding the world in the 21st century will
require not only food availability, but food security — access to the food required for a healthy and productive life. It means the ability to grow
and to purchase food as needed. It also means that people do not have to rely only on staples such as wheat, rice, potatoes and cassava. Food
security focuses attention on areas such as income, markets, and natural resources. The
basic statistics on food security are
grim. In addition to the expected population growth, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) estimates as many as 840 million people — a number that exceeds the combined populations of Europe, the United
States, Canada, and Japan — currently do not have enough to eat. The companion problem of "hidden hunger" — deficiencies of
vital micronutrients — affects even more people in the developing world. The shift away from the traditional food staples will make this
challenge even more difficult. Simply increasing productivity of wheat and rice alone may not have the impact it did 30 years ago
Food Security Impact – Resource Wars
Food insecurity is rapidly increasing now – causes resource wars and global
instability//Agricultural development is key to resolve
Bertini and Glickman, ’13. Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, World Food Program,
United Nations. Dan Glickman, Former Secretary, US Department of Agriculture May 2013. “Advancing
Global Food Security: THE POWER OF SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS.” report issued by an
independent Advisory group on global Agricultural development. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global
issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning.
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/2013_Advancing_Glob
al_Food_Security.pdf - clawan
The world is facing perhaps the greatest challenge of a generation: how to feed two billion more people nutritiously in the decades ahead. This—combined with
rising incomes in the developing world and growing needs for energy—is increasing demand for agricultural products at an unprecedented rate. With global
demand for food expected to rise 60 percent by 2050,1 the world’s farmers will need to produce as
much food over the next 40 years as they have in thousands of years to date. Globally, nearly 870 million people are
already chronically hungry.2 In 2013 the world will likely consume more grain than it produces.3 With the buffer
against shortages shrinking, food prices have sharply increased in recent years around the world,
slowing progress in reducing the proportion of hungry people. At the same time, global agricultural
production is not increasing at the same rate as it has in decades past. Water and untapped productive land
are getting harder and harder to find. Climate change is projected to make food production more
unstable by upending the places where crops can be grown and by stirring up agricultural diseases and pests. Left unchecked, these problems will
only worsen. Not only will millions more people be sentenced to lives of hunger and malnutrition, but
societies will become increasingly unstable. Hunger and conflict are bound together. Insufficient food production or
barriers in agriculture and food trade result in food shortages, making people angry and desperate
enough to take to the streets or take up arms. Riots in dozens of countries around the world in recent years have
been linked to commodity price spikes. When events spiral out of control, US intervention in the form
of emergency food assistance— or even more costly military engagement—becomes more likely.
Yet this course of events is not inevitable. History has proven that agricultural development is one of the most effective ways
to remedy food security-related challenges. In particular, global food security is advanced when the world
empowers smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia to maximize their agricultural potential. These
regions are agriculture’s last untapped frontiers. Their farmers’ isolation from methods that increase their production of nutritious foods and therefore increase
agricultural incomes not only condemns hundreds of millions of people to chronic hunger, it denies global markets a tremendous source of food. Done properly,
agricultural development increases production, improves nutrition, protects the environment, and
raises incomes among some of the world’s hungriest people. It drives economic development and
reduces poverty while creating new markets and social stability. New research suggests that helping smallholder farmers in
poor nations become self-sufficient is also one of the most effective types of foreign aid for promoting peace.4
Empirics – Arab Spring conflict was the result of food insecurity
Vidal ’13 John Vidal, environment editor for The Guardian; “Climate change: how a warming world is a
threat to our food supplies;” Apr 13 2013; The Guardian: The Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/13/climate-change-threat-food-supplies RMJ
When the Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire on 17 December 2010, it was in protest at heavy-handed treatment
and harassment in the province where he lived. But a
host of new studies suggest that a major factor in the subsequent
Arab spring, was food insecurity. Drought, rocketing bread prices, food
and water shortages have all blighted parts of the Middle East. Analysts at the Centre for American Progress in
Washington say a combination of food shortages and other environmental factors exacerbated the
already tense politics of the region. As the Observer reports today, an as-yet unpublished US government study indicates that the
uprisings, which became known as the
world needs to prepare for much more of the same, as food prices spiral and longstanding agricultural practices are disrupted by climate
change.
Food Prices Scenario
Higher food prices absent increased guest workers--American farms grow unprofitable
Hinyub 12
(Chris, history and political science major from the Palm Beach Atlantic University, “Agriculture & Voters
Keen on Guest Worker Program” 5/10/12, pg online at http://ivn.us/2012/05/10/agriculture-voterskeen-on-guest-worker-program///sd)
Attempts to tackle comprehensive immigration reform at the state level has wounded agriculture and exposed an
unavoidable issue for farm-state lawmakers seeking election in 2012. Because U.S. citizens, by and large, will
not work in farm fields and because partisan gridlock over amnesty has kept comprehensive
immigration reform off Congress’ to-do list, agricultural stakeholders are pleading with lawmakers to reform the country’s
immigration policy to accommodate an ag-centric guest worker program. Last year, farm labor shortages gripped states that
had passed stringent immigration reforms. Since then the symptoms have spread, as entire regions are
feeling the pinch. Industry insiders have voiced concern that its only a matter of time before the
promised ‘papers please’ crackdowns of individuals detained in Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia – coupled with e-verify
mandates for employers in those states – translate to higher food prices at the grocery store…but not before the
failure of many American farms. To avoid this scenario, a coalition of 100-plus farm organizations led by the California-based
Western Growers farm/trade group are floating an idea to invite foreign guest workers into the U.S.
to harvest and process crops without giving them a path to citizenship. Industry leaders hope the plan could operate
parallel to the current H2A program in which migrants enter the U.S. for 12 months to work in agriculture before they are supposed to return
home. Under the new proposal, immigrant workers could renew their work credentials for another year, but would not be allowed to bring
their families into the states. “I don’t think there
is an appetite for comprehensive immigration reform (nationally)
so that’s why we’re trying an ag-first proposal,” said Tom Nassif, Western Growers’ President and Chief Financial Officer
during a conference call with reporters late last March. A Tarrance Group-conducted poll (PDF), which surveyed a broad cross section of the
American electorate in January, found that 70
percent of voters back such a plan. The survey showed
overwhelming support for a streamlined ag-first guest worker program from all likely voter groups
including Republicans, Tea Party supporters, Democrats and Independents. During an Agriculture Department
press conference last summer, American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman called for “new, innovative approaches
like programs where biometric identifiers can be provided (to guest workers) … who want to, frankly,
do the jobs that American workers will not do.” Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack reaffirmed Stallman’s claim that
farmers are hard pressed to find “legal” employees, urging Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform to prevent
farm labor shortages. “While some American citizens step up and take (farm) jobs, the truth is even when farmers make their best effort to
recruit a domestic workforce, few
citizens express interest. In large part that’s because this is hard, tough
work… “Simply put, our broken immigration system offers little hope for producers trying to do the right thing and make a living. But again
and again good faith efforts to fix this broken system – from leaders of both parties – fall prey to the usual
Washington political gains.” Most of Washington’s political gains (at least on the right of the spectrum) have hinged
on the treatment of immigration reform proposals that include amnesty or “citizenship pathways” as anathemas. The
revised guest worker plan pitched by agricultural interests grew up from that volatile soil. It bans any
such “pathway” outright. Nassif made it clear that his group does not want to attach immigration reform
language to the next Farm Bill, which has already been jeopardized by budgetary partisanship in the earliest phases of its deliberation.
Expect the agricultural industry to pitch its guest worker program to Congress before fall elections. According to Stallman, between $5
billion and $9 billion per year of production is dependent on workers whose legal status has not been
verified and who are assumed to be working illegally. He says that California accounts for almost $3 billion and Florida for $1 billion of that
total. “Most of that is in specialty crops like fruits and vegetables. But the livestock sector, particularly
dairy, is also affected,” Stallman said. In the debate over comprehensive immigration reform its difficult to gain a broad enough
perspective not to disqualify one, if not more valid points of view. This owes to the complexity of a political issue which holds livelihoods and
the integrity of family units in its balance. But the practical necessity of maintaining a constant and safe food supply while keeping American
farms competitive and profitable is an issue of pressing concern for all voters. If
summer, a refined
farm labor shortages continue through the
ag-first guestworker program will likely be a national election issue.
Labor shortages increase food prices
Washington Post 1/29
(“We’re running out of farm workers. Immigration reform won’t help.” 2013 pg online at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farmworkers-immigration-reform-may-not-help///sd)
For decades, farms in the United States have relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers — mainly
from Mexico — to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural workers in the United States
were foreign-born . (And half of those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that
cheap labor has helped keep down U.S. food prices, particularly for labor-intensive fruits and
vegetables.
But that labor pool is now drying up. In recent years, we’ve seen a spate of headlines like this from
CNBC: “California Farm Labor Shortage ‘Worst It’s Been, Ever’.” Typically, these stories blame drugrelated violence on the Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the decline. Hence the call
for new guest-worker programs.
Food industry is on the brink—collapse tanks the financial sector
Holt-Giménez 8
(Eric, Ph.D., Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and analyst for
the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy. “The world food crisis: what is behind it and
what we can do” 10/23 pg online at http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5611//sd)
Food, finance and speculation: bailing our way out of crises? "The current financial crisis might be mitigated by going to the Federal Reserve
Bank and the U.S. government to tap capital reserves. But what
happens if we have a devastating drought or other natural
or man-made disaster which results in a food crisis in the United States? There are no food reserves! The United
States has a Federal Reserve Bank for money, and a Strategic Petroleum Reserve for oil, but absolutely no federal reserve for grain
and other emergency foodstuffs." The American economy is in the worst shape we've seen since the
Great Depression. The federal government is investing billions of dollars in taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street. Both the food
crisis and the financial crisis are rooted in similar polices that have fed on each other for years. Free
market reforms worldwide, championed by the United States, eroded support for local agriculture and led to massive
consolidation in the agriculture industry. In the same period, deregulation in the financial services industry allowed banks to "cross over"
their investments: small banks that traditionally held mortgages were allowed to invest in other areas of the economy. Large banks quickly
swallowed up small banks. Between 1980 and 1998 alone there were over 8,000 bank mergers in the United States, accounting for over $2.4
trillion in assets. As
banking became more centralized, loans to small businesses, including farms, became
harder to come by, which in combination with falling prices and expensive chemical and seed
packages left many farmers to "get big or get out." Commodities traders increasingly invested in other financial services,
large traders moved into futures markets, and some banks began to trade in financial instruments, including commodities, in
order to protect their loans. Some financial services companies, like Goldman Sachs, even became importers of physical goods, while traditional
agribusinesses, like Cargill, now have investment banking arms that deal in everything from real estate and corporate securities to IT
technology. Deregulation
and consolidation both make markets extremely vulnerable to shock. When the subprime mortgage crisis hit in 2007, investors began to scramble for safe places to put their investments. At least some of the
rampant food price inflation that began at the beginning of 2008 was caused by exactly that
scramble—a combination of investing in agricultural commodities and oil, which drove up the price of food and farm inputs. Looking for
safer investments, traders that may or may not be in businesses related to food at all, put their money into commodities
futures. This kind of speculative trading that is exacerbating the food crisis was not possible on this scale until financial
services deregulation in the 1980's. This system of deregulation has caught our economy and our food system in
a negative feedback loop. Less regulation breeds more consolidation and less stability in both agricultural and
financial markets. The irony is that because markets and investments are now so intertwined, we are facing a
breakdown in the world's food and financial systems at the same time. The Wall Street bailouts may
or may not stabilize financial markets in the short run, but will do nothing to address the root causes
of the current crisis, nor will they stave off the next one. A real solution must include measures to stabilize both
food and financial markets. We need strong oversight on large traders and financial services, and increased support to local
economies, small farmers, local banks, and small borrowers. Most of all, we need a dramatic departure from the free-market fundamentalism
that brought us here in the first place.
High food prices collapse Chinese economy and spur tension with CCP
NYT 3/11
(“Food Costs Threaten Rebound in China” 2013, published on Reuters, pg online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/business/global/food-costs-threaten-rebound-inchina.html?ref=foodprices&_r=0//sd)
BEIJING — Diners looking for beef hot pot on a chilly evening in Beijing pay more than their counterparts in Boston, a discrepancy that shows
the challenges China faces in reviving growth as inflationary pressures return. A
6 percent increase in food costs drove a rise
in the Chinese consumer price index to 3.2 percent in February, compared with the same period a year
earlier, a 10-month high, official data released Saturday showed. The index was 2 percent in January. On Monday, China’s top
economic planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, forecast consumer price inflation at about 3 percent for 2013.
Food prices typically rise in advance of the Lunar New Year holiday, which occurred in February this year. But since
the holiday ended, meat prices, especially those for beef and lamb, have stayed elevated. Retail beef prices in
Beijing city markets are higher compared with supermarkets in the Boston area. Pork, China’s staple meat, is only about 50 cents per kilogram,
or 23 cents a pound, below the U.S. price, a Reuters comparison of standard retail prices show. Those
prices represent a direct hit
on the spending power of Chinese, whose average income is about a 10th the size of Americans’
salaries. Contributing to food production costs are the loss of farmland and farm labor to urbanization — Chinese cities are swelling as they
absorb hundreds of millions of people. Grazing restrictions because of land degradation are also causing costs to rise across the country. “The
more the economy develops, the harder it is to raise calves,” said Wang Jimin, who tracks cattle trends for the Chinese Academy of Agricultural
Science’s Rural Economic Development Institute.
a lot of imports.”
“In the short term, I don’t see meat prices falling unless there are
After an international outbreak of mad-cow disease a decade ago, China allows beef imports only from Australia,
New Zealand and Uruguay, so options to tame prices with imports appear limited. For the near future, high feed costs will also help elevate the
price of pork, an increase that is expected to drive broader inflation gains by the third quarter. “It’s a question of fundamentals, not monthly
C.P.I. fluctuations,” said Shi Tao, a livestock analyst at eFeedlink in Shanghai, referring to the consumer price index. He said he expected a
reduction in the pork supply this year because some pig breeders had decided to drop out of the business after losing money last summer. Beef
production in China has decreased every year since 2008, although it could rise by less than 1 percent this year, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture estimates. “Cattle take at least a year to raise, not like chickens, which need a few months at most,” said Yang Shaohui, a poultry
vendor in Beijing. “Poultry producers can respond to the market much faster.” His chicken was selling for about a third of the price of the beef
at a nearby stall. The pressure on meat prices in China highlights not only the challenge of bringing inflation under control but also the drive to
shift the economy toward consumer-led growth, Beijing’s stated goal after decades of export-led expansion. “Accelerating
food prices
mean less growth in spending on other goods and services in the economy,” Carl Weinberg, the China-watching
chief economist at the New York consulting firm High Frequency Economics, wrote in a client note. A large increase in prices could
jeopardize Chinese economic growth, which weakened in 2012 to its slowest pace in more than a
decade. Growth only started to pick up in the fourth quarter after a seven-quarter slide. It is a dilemma that China’s incoming leaders, Xi
Jinping and Li Keqiang, might have hoped they would not have to face so early in the economic recovery. “This year, I think, there are
three priorities: to stabilize economic growth, which is not too big of a problem,” to stabilize the prices of goods,
“where already it looks like there could be some pressure,” and to reduce the risk from hidden debt, like off-book wealth management
products, said Zhao Xijun, deputy director of the Finance and Securities Institute at Renmin University in Beijing. There are already indications
that the
Chinese central bank is shifting its policy focus to inflation from growth. China needs to control
inflation as a priority, the central bank said in its fourth-quarter policy report in February, shifting from a pledge in its previous report
to support the economy above other needs. Rising food prices represent a sensitive area for the Chinese
Communist Party leadership given that social tension has often accompanied price increases . Food
price increases can fuel inflation expectations that lead to a broader rise in inflation and the risk that
the central bank will tweak monetary policy to keep a lid on the price pressures. .
High food prices increase the chance of conflict
Von Braun 8
(Joachim, PhD in agricultural economics, “The Economist debate: Rising food prices
The Opposition's opening statement” July 28, pg online at
http://www.economist.com/node/11829097//sd)
The surge in food prices is also a trigger for social andpolitical unrest. As prices increase, the poor usually suffer
silently for a while, while the middle class typically has the ability to organise, protest, and lobby. Since 2007,
social unrest related to high food prices has occurred in more than 50 countries, with some
experiencing multiple occurrences and a high degree of violence. Under current conditions, the effects of high
food prices on humanity are largely negative. Now fundamental changes in trade policies, in biofuel policies,
increased investment in agriculture, more agricultural science and technology, sound social protection and nutrition action, and
improved governance of the food system at national and global levels are needed to allow people and countries to
cope with and grow out of the food-price crisis. So far these needed actions have not been forthcoming at sufficient scale.
Food shortages block exports and causes protectionism
Dapice 11
(David, Yale Global, Associate Professor of economics, “The Looming Food Crisis” Feb 18 pg online at
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/looming-food-crisis//sd)
Percentage of Leading Importers of Food 1980-2009. Enlarge Image Fifth, many countries try to protect their consumers by
increasing imports and subsidies, even blocking exports of food. Russia did this to wheat during its drought. The
effect: World prices jump more as demand fails to adjust – even for eating less meat – due to subsidies.
Supply to other countries drops as exports end, prompting many importers to stockpile extra food and
pushing some countries towards self-sufficiency due to the perceived unreliability of the world food
market. Sixth, the jump in Chinese soybean imports was only half driven by consumption. Stocks of oilseeds in China grew by 15 million tons
from 2006/7 to 2010/11. There are various ways to interpret this, but one is that the Chinese government, fearing a weak
dollar, decided to keep reserves of food rather than US Treasury debt. It’s otherwise difficult to
understand why stockpiles of oilseeds would skyrocket when prices are doubling. It could be panic
stockpiling or speculative behavior by state firms with access to cheap credit. Whatever the explanation, a large part of the
demand seems to come from speculative buying – and it might not only be in China. If real interest rates begin to approach normal levels, such
speculation is more expensive and normally reduced.
High food prices bad
High food prices trigger Middle East conflict – Arab Spring proves
Guild, ’12. Monty Guild, Chief Investment Officer at Guild Investment Management Inc. 10/19/12.
“Another Food Crisis Is Likely to Spur Revolution in the Developing World.”
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/guild/another-food-crisis-is-likely-to-spur-revolution-inthe-developing-world – clawan
With another food crisis is in the works, revolution becomes a likelihood in some parts of the world. We would like to draw
readers' attention to the fact that the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization at the United Nations) Food Price Index hit a near-high in
September. The cereals portion of the Index was 263, just a hair below the peak reached in April 2008, when food riots were sparked across
the developing world. Of all the food groups, cereals are particularly significant to the people of the world, primarily because of the many
developing nations where cereal imports are critical for food security, and where most of the imports are consumed
directly rather than being processed into further commercial foodstuffs as in the developed countries. The availability and price of cereals is
a matter of grave concern for many nations. They consume cereals as the basis of their diet. So while a
spike in wheat prices will add only pennies to the cost of an American loaf of bread, most of which is comprised of manufacturing, transport, and
marketing expenses, a spike in wheat prices can mean the difference between sufficiency and hunger for citizens of
many countries in the Middle East, the Caribbean, East Asia, and Africa. As we saw during the Arab Spring, when
food prices create social instability in geopolitically sensitive areas, the consequences can be severe
for all members of the global community. We believe that the full ramifications of the Arab Spring have not yet been felt in the world and
that they will be felt in many ways over coming years and decades. Some serious research has been done on the correlation
between food prices and social unrest. The New England Complex Systems Institute has published several reports (NECSI). Their data show
clear correlations during periods of food shortage in 2008 and during the Arab Spring period in 2011 .
Alarmingly, today the current food crisis is at the same type of levels that led to widespread unrest in 2008 and 2011. These studies clearly show that political
instability results from food insecurity, regardless of the level of esteem the people hold for their
government. In other words, if you're hungry, you're ready for revolt, no matter how much you say you trust your leaders. Food Prices Tracked Political
Unrest Closely... Food Price Index Source:NECSI ...And May be Set to Do So Again FAO october 2012 Source: FAO A number of factors intersect to render some
nations and regions more vulnerable than others to social crisis driven by food price spikes. First is the level of import dependency and domestic production,
influenced by the current drought. For example, many North African countries (including Egypt) rely heavily on wheat imports as the backbone of their food supply,
importing 30 to 70 percent of their needs, and in addition are often challenged by water constraints. Asia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines are similarly
dependent on wheat and other imports, as is much of sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa is the largest corn producer on the continent, and its neighbors (Botswana,
Namibia, and Swaziland) are all heavily import-dependent. Drought has driven yields down sharply in countries such as Lesotho, which under better circumstances
are able to meet more of their own cereal needs. When
political unrest reaches a severely disruptive point, it puts
production into a disastrous downward spiral, as in Mali, Yemen, and especially Syria. Many nations in the Caribbean and in Central
America are similarly affected and similarly dependent. The effects of the 2007/2008 and 2011 crises persist also in that many poor citizens sold assets during the
crisis and cut down expenditures on education and health, putting them in an even more vulnerable position for the present spike. Unfortunately, besides a
confluence of long-term dependency, drought, political turmoil, and reverberations of the last rounds of price spikes, there are other factors at work driving up
cereal and soybean prices, as we observed in our discussion of the current drought in last week's letter. The U.S. still has ethanol production mandates in place
which divert half of its corn production away from food use. The states of Georgia, New Mexico, Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina, and Arkansas have all
petitioned the EPA for a suspension of the mandate. Not surprisingly, in the current divisive political climate, a decision on whether to grant that suspension has
been put off until the week after the election. Notably also, global waves of QE liquidity are pouring into the world's financial system from every central bank eager
to boost its nation's flagging economy. And much of that freshly printed money is finding its way into commodity markets. This raises food prices both directly and
indirectly; directly because cereals and soybeans are themselves the objects of financial speculation, but also indirectly through the volatility of hydrocarbon prices,
which influence both the cost of food production itself and that of the ammonia-based nitrogen fertilizers on which the world food supply is dependent.
Appreciating asset prices thus add another layer of instability. Sadly, instability in certain parts of the world that is caused by food insecurity is often perceived to be
geopolitically irrelevant to many in the developed world. However, a
few critical hotspots, particularly in the Middle East have
shown that food insecurity is far from being simply an occasion for the deployment of short-term
international aid. Food is necessary for life and people will risk their lives to procure a stable supply. As investors, we should be alert to the probability
that turmoil may develop in the Middle East if food is once again in short supply during 2013.
Agroterror Scenario
Food security Is key to stop an agro terrorist event.
Schnider et al 12 (R. Goodrich Schneider, associate professor; University of Florida, 6/26/12 , Agroterrorism in the U.S.: An Overview
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FS/FS12600.pd
Since the attacks of 9/11, vulnerabilities of the nation's infrastructure have been analyzed and discussed.
The United States (U.S.) has identified the protection of national systems and infrastructure, such as the
transportation, communication, water supply, and agriculture networks, as priorities to defend against terrorism.¶
Terrorism is widely defined as the unlawful use of force, violence, or implied harm against persons and property to intimidate or coerce a
government, the civilian population, or any element of either, to further political, religious, or ideological aims. Agroterrorism is
the
deliberate introduction of detrimental agents, biological and otherwise, into the agricultural and food
processing system with the intent of causing actual or perceived harm. The broad areas of agriculture
that could provide targets in an agroterrorism event are farm animals and livestock, plant crops, and the food
processing, distribution, and retailing system.¶ The term bioterrorism will be widely used in this
discussion, and in fact is closely related to agroterrorism. Bioterrorism is defined as the use of biological agents in a
deliberate, harmful attack, or terrorism using the weapons of biological warfare such as anthrax, smallpox, or other
pathogens. Bioterrorism attacks can be directed not only at agricultural targets, but also at the general public and key domestic infrastructure
systems and personnel. The anthrax incidents involving tainted mail that occurred shortly after the 9/11 events can be classified as
bioterrorism. In the discussion herein, biological agents can be considered the most probable weapon used to launch an agroterrorism event.
Collapses the economy
Schnider et al 12 (R. Goodrich Schneider, associate professor; University of flordia, 6/26/12 , Agroterrorism in the U.S.: An Overview
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FS/FS12600.pd
Agriculture and the food industry are important to the U.S. economy . The USDA's Agricultural Research Service
(USDA-ARS) estimates one person in eight works in some part of the agriculture/food sector. Cattle and dairy farmers alone earned over $95
billion a year in meat and milk sales in 2007. Domestically, a significant portion of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is related to
agriculture and food production.¶ Even
without agroterrorism, livestock and crop diseases cost the U.S.
economy billions of dolars annually. These are the baseline losses to which the financial impact of an
actual agroterrorism event would be added.¶ If an agroterrorism event occurred in the U.S., the
potential for disruption of our export market would be immense. International trade is crucial, as it provides a
market for a major part of our crop production, and a growing share of meat output. Overall, 12.7% of the U.S. GDP was due to international
trade in 2008. For comparison, close to 30% of U.S. farm products were exported in 2008, while nonagricultural exports were about 12% of the
GDP. Proportionately, the U.S.
agriculture industries rely on export markets more heavily than other sectors
of U.S. industry. An agroterrorism event that instigated fear or even uncertainty in our international
customers could be financially devastating to U.S. agricultural interests.
U.S agriculture is vulnerable to an agroterroirst attack
Schnider et al 12 (R. Goodrich Schneider, associate professor; University of flordia, 6/26/12 , Agroterrorism in the U.S.: An Overview
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FS/FS12600.pd
Various factors lead to the heightened state of vulnerability of the U.S. to an agroterrorism event. As
previously ¶ discussed, agriculture, food processing and food retailing ¶ contribute significantly to the U.S. economy,
despite the ¶ perception of the ceaseless encroachment of urban growth ¶ into rural areas. As urban growth
has occurred, agricultural ¶ operations, including farms, packinghouses, and processing ¶ plants have
become larger, more centralized, and more ¶ intensive. It is this type of industrial concentration that ¶
perhaps increases the vulnerability of the U.S. agriculture ¶ system; as almost all agricultural sectors
consolidate, their ¶ overall size generally increases. Thus, the impact of a ¶ targeted agroterrorism event
affecting just one entity could ¶ still have a serious, adverse impact. For example, foot-andmouth disease (FMD)
confined to a very small geographically distinct herd is a vastly different situation than FMD ¶ occurring through intentional spread of the
disease in a ¶ large cattle operation. Although large operations typically ¶ have greater economies-of-scale, they also lead to these ¶ types
of
vulnerabilities.¶ There are other reasons to be aware of the need to better ¶ security in agricultural
operations. It is difficult and expensive to secure large areas of farm land with fences, gates and ¶ monitoring devices. Yet, it is
incumbent upon producers ¶ to provide security in these areas. Packinghouses and ¶ processing plants
are more easily controlled from a physical ¶ perimeter standpoint, but conversely have more
personnel ¶ that need to be screened and then trained in specifics of ¶ plant security. More and more
auditors focus on specific ¶ areas where their clients can improve their procedures and ¶ practices.
Defense against terrorism must become ingrained ¶ in the normal operations of all agricultural
operations ¶ before the U.S. can expect an improvement in the current ¶ state of readiness against an
attack.585858
Leads to Econ Collapse
Monke 04, (Jim Monke¶ Analyst in Agricultural Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division at the
library of congress, 8/14/04, “Agroterrorism: Threats ¶ and Preparedness” ,
http://www.cnmihomelandsecurity.gov.mp/downloads/agroterrorism-threat-and-preparedness.pdf)
The potential of terrorist attacks against agricultural targets (agroterrorism) is¶ increasingly recognized as a
national security threat, especially after the events of¶ September 11, 2001. In this context, agroterrorism is defined as
the deliberate¶ introduction of an animal or plant disease with the goal of generating fear, causing¶
economic losses, and/or undermining stability.¶ Agroterrorism is a subset of the more general issues of terrorism and¶
bioterrorism. People more generally associate bioterrorism with outbreaks of human¶ illness (such as from anthrax or smallpox), rather than
diseases first affecting animals¶ or plants. Agriculture
has several characteristics that pose unique problems for¶
managing the threat:¶ ! Agricultural production is geographically disbursed in unsecured¶ environments
(e.g., open fields and pastures throughout the¶ countryside). While some livestock are housed in secure facilities,¶
agriculture in general requires large expanses of land that are¶ difficult to secure from intruders.¶ !
Livestock are frequently concentrated in confined locations (e.g.,¶ feedlots with thousands of cattle in open-air pens, farms with tens of¶
thousands of pigs, or barns with hundreds of thousands of poultry).¶ Concentration in
slaughter, processing, and
distribution also makes¶ large scale contamination more likely.¶ ! Live animals, grain, and processed food
products are routinely¶ transported and commingled in the production and processing¶ system. These
factors circumvent natural barriers that could slow¶ pathogenic dissemination.¶ ! The presence (or rumor) of
certain pests or diseases in a country can¶ quickly stop all exports of a commodity, and can take months or ¶
years to resume.¶ ! The past success of keeping many diseases out of the U.S. means¶ that many veterinarians and
scientists lack direct experience with¶ foreign diseases. This may delay recognition of symptoms in case¶ of an
outbreak.CRS-2¶ ! The number of lethal and contagious biological agents is greater for¶ plants and animals than for humans. Most of these
diseases are¶ environmentally resilient, endemic in foreign countries, and not¶ harmful to humans – making it easier for terrorists to acquire,¶
handle, and deploy the pathogens.¶ Thus, the general susceptibility of the agriculture and food industry to¶ bioterrorism is difficult to address
in a systematic way due to the highly dispersed,¶ yet concentrated nature of the industry and the inherent biology of growing plants and¶
raising animals.¶ The
results of an agroterrorist attack may include major economic crises in the¶
agricultural and food industries, loss of confidence in government, and possibly¶ human casualties. Humans could be
at risk in terms of food safety or public health,¶ especially if the chosen disease is transmissible to
humans (zoonotic). But an¶ agroterrorist attack need not cause human casualties for it to be effective or to
cause¶ large scale economic consequences.
US Ag Good – Hegemony
Domestic US Ag production is key to future Global Leadership – more important than
all other factors
Andrew Pickford, 2008, Andrew Pickford holds positions of Mannkal Fellow at Mannkal Economic
Education Foundation and Project Consultant at the Committee for Economic Development of Australia
in Western Australia, Masters of Studies in Strategic Affairs from the Australian National University,
Research Manager of Future Directions International, Australia's Center for Strategic Analysis,
7/29/2008, (The Rise of Agri-Powers,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1499253/the_rise_of_agripowers/)
AGRICULTURAL POWERS – those self-sufficient in food, fabric, and hydrocarbon production – once were
unambiguously regarded as strategic powers. This has been true throughout history: societies which were not
agriculturally efficient and abundant could never long or fully sustain strategic power. Now, once again, a
new set of nations is likely to emerge in the 21st Century with significant regional, if not global,
influence demonstrably based on their agricultural capacity and their ability to match capital,
productive land, and emerging technology on a scale which was not possible in the past. These emerging “agri-powers” are
benefitting from trends making agricultural commodities more strategically important, and will gain from
having a significant agricultural base.¶ Unlike the second half of the 20th Century, the global strategic environment is set to become more fluid,
and the criteria which marked “middle-power” status, such as access to sophisticated military technology, is likely to become less
overwhelming in importance. Even the term itself will lose its relevancy as dozens of nations fulfil the original definition of a traditional middlepower.¶ In
this period of global turbulence, a back to basics approach, which leverages agricultural
surpluses for international sale, biofuel production and potentially, through biotechnology, industrial
applications, may result in nations with a substantive agricultural sector, such as Australia, having a
more prominent global position. Similarly, it could make smaller agri-powers attractive targets for
larger, hungrier1 nations.
US Ag Good – Brazil Scenario
Decline in US ag allows Brazil to fill in
AP 2008
(Associated Press, “U.S. grain exports snagged by infrastructure delays”, 8-25,
http://www2.jcfloridan.com/news/2008/aug/25/us_grain_exports_snagged_by_infrastructure_delaysar-60163/, DOA: 7-13-12)
Some agribusiness groups worry the bottlenecks could hurt the United States' standing as a global
food provider as other nations, such as Brazil and Argentina, compete for a lucrative share of the
market. In years past, bountiful harvests meant millions of bushels were stored outside overstuffed grain silos, waiting for shipment.
Commodities loaded on barges faced long waits at outdated locks and dams on the Mississippi River, adding days and dollars to their
transportation. The barge delays alone added an average $72.6 million annually to cost of shipping goods down the Mississippi and Illinois
rivers, according to a new Army Corps of Engineers analysis provided to The Associated Press. Rail delays are costly as well. In 2006, an
estimated 1 billion bushels of grain was stored outside or in improvised shelters in Iowa, Illinois and Indiana, adding an estimated $107 million
to $160 million that year to the cost of transporting it, according to USDA figures. That's about 1 percent of the combined $13.8 billion value of
corn and soybean exports in 2006. "We're
way, way behind in our infrastructure investment, both in the private
sector and publicly," said Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, a trade group representing
grain exporters. "And we need to move a lot on that or we will see other countries supplant us as they get
greater investment in their infrastructure." The problem is likely to persist, if not worsen, in years to come. Fixing the
bottlenecks will take billions of dollars in investment over several years. In the meantime, exports are forecast to increase,
with corn shipments expected to grow every year over the next decade from 54 million metric tons to 77 million metric
tons, according to the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. Added costs from bigger bottlenecks could only
hurt U.S. farmers in a competitive global industry. "Price is still king in this business," said Larry Jansky,
senior trader in agricultural commodities for North Pacific Inc. in Portland, Oregon. "Two or three dollars a ton is the
difference between getting a contract or not." Agricultural exports last year were worth just less than $90 billion. If the U.S.
loses just 1 or 2 percent of that market to fast-growing exporters like Argentina, it could drain between $9 billion and $18 billion from the
economy.
Specifically, Brazil pushes the US out of the soy export market- causes deforestation
Martin, Chicago Tribune, 2004
(Andrew, “Brazil threatens U.S. soybean dominance”, 6-13,
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/290689.shtml, DOA: 7-13-12)
Spurred by new global markets, soaring prices and vast tracts of undeveloped land, Brazil is poised to
surpass the United States as the largest soybean producer in the world, largely due to the explosive growth of
farming in Mato Grosso. Mato Grosso's success has stirred waves of panic in the American Midwest. Some U.S. soybean farmers
worry that they can't compete with Brazil's cheap labor and land, divided into soybean plantations that are routinely
10,000 acres, far larger than a typical U.S. farm. Environmentalists, meanwhile, fret that Brazil's soybean success is
accelerating deforestation of the Amazon for new farmland .
Mato Grosso's governor, Blairo Maggi, gruffly brushes
off such criticism and prefers to talk about his state's tremendous potential for agricultural expansion. Only 7 percent of the land in Mato
Grosso is used for farming, and with twice as much land as California, Mato Grosso could see 10 percent annual growth in new farms over the
next decade, the governor says. Already, Mato Grosso--"thick forest" in Portuguese--has more acres devoted to soybeans, 12.9 million, than
Illinois or Iowa, America's biggest soybean states. Illinois has 10.5 million acres and Iowa 10.4 million acres, according to a recent U.S.
Department of Agriculture report for 2002. "People have a lot of fear of the unknown," said Maggi, known locally as the Soybean King because
The emergence of Brazil and
Argentina as players in the world soybean market is unwelcome news to U.S. soybean farmers, who
faced little competition for decades. In the 1960s, the United States controlled 80 percent of the global market for soybeans,
his family owns the world's biggest soybean farming operation. "There is a lot of room to enlarge."
which are used mostly as a protein source in livestock feed. By the turn of the century, that market share shrunk to 34 percent, and Brazil and
The pain has yet to be felt by many
Midwestern farmers because of government price supports and increasing world demand, primarily from
Argentina together now supply 50 percent of the world's soybeans. Farmers still thrive
China's emerging middle class. Indeed, Midwestern soybean farmers are seeing some of the best prices ever. A drought in the United States,
along with Asian soybean rust fungus in South America, helped drive up prices this year, past $10 per bushel. Soybean prices usually hover
around $5 or $6 a bushel, according to the USDA. But experts suggest that U.S. soybean farmers should enjoy the good times while they last.
The future, they say, is clear: Brazil will grow more soybeans and the United States less. "At this
point, it has been more talk than actual impact," said Darrell Good, an agricultural economist at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. "Everyone who goes down to South America comes back with a scare story for the American producer. "It's much more
profitable to grow soybeans in Brazil than it is here. Over the next decade, we are going to lose beans to South America and switch to corn."
Recognizing the threat, U.S. soybean associations are busily working on strategies to remain competitive, such as promoting U.S. advantages in
Transport improvements Because many soybeans are transported
by barge, U.S. soybean growers are pushing the government to improve locks and dams along the
Mississippi River. They are also promoting an energy bill, now stalled in Congress, that encourages the use of soybeans to produce diesel
quality, tracing shipments and transportation.
fuel. In Illinois, a new program called SoySelect will allow farmers to quickly deliver soybean products that can be traced from the store to the
field in which they were grown. Such "traceability," officials hope, will make U.S. soybeans more attractive. "We know that they [Brazilians]
are producing lots of beans, more and more all the time," said Sharon Covert, a Tiskilwa, Ill., soybean farmer who heads the Illinois Soybean
Checkoff Board, which uses farmers' money for promotions. "You just have to be ready for that type of competition." The potential of that
competition--as well as its weaknesses--is evident on the road north from Cuiaba. BR 163 stretches 1,100 miles to the Amazonian port city of
Santarem, through an immense stretch of largely undeveloped land that Maggi's government touts as the world's last great agricultural
frontier. Roberto Smeraldi, director of the environmental group Friends of the Earth Brazil, said soybean expansion is a "powerful driver" of
deforestation. Because land planted with soybeans typically soars in value, Smeraldi said speculators are clearing more and more territory in
the hopes that it becomes the next cluster of huge soybean plantations. "It stimulates people to open up the frontier," Smeraldi said. "Out of
four areas they open up, maybe only one actually works for soybeans . . . but then the damage is done."
Amazon key to prevent extinction- biodiversity, oxygen and disease
Sohn, staff writer, 99
(Pam, "Eight Days in Brazil," Chatanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee), 4-11, lexis)
Inside Brazil's rainforest, the Amazon is a waterworld of life. It nurtures more than half of the Earth's plant and
animal species and spreads its life-giving oxygen to all of the planet. In late March, a 20-person group sponsored by the
Tennessee Aquarium made a eight-day trip there to find, study and harvest seeds from the Amazon's Victoria lily. The lily is legend. With its giant green pad, the lily
is an indicator of the health of the world's largest contiquous rain forest, which provides breathable air and serves as a global source of climate control. The
Chattanooga Times and Free Press went along on the Amazon trip, which was arranged so that Tennessee Aquarium horticulturalist Charlene Nash and the Victoria
Conservancy could find and study the lily in the wild. Inside today's newspaper, beginning on Page G1, an eight-page special section chronicles the trip with a special
team of travelers, people with an eye for plants, fish and bugs. Many of the lessons learned in a Amazon also apply, on a smaller scale, to the Tennessee River
Valley. Both regions are known for abundance. The Amazon,
sometimes called the cradle of diversity, claims some 50
percent of the earth's known plant and animal species. The Southeast, with its Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, is said to be the
global epicenter of freshwater mollusks. But the Amazon Basin's rain forest, which provides the habitat for all that
biodiversity, is disappearing fast. And in the Tennessee and Cumberland river basins habitats are so changed that 30 species of freshwater mussels
are already extinct and 70 percent of those remaining are considered endangered. Biodiversity is a scientific word for variety of life,
and it may be key to human survival if a life-form that provides a life-saving medicine is lost. The threads
of biodiversity are river basins with their wealth of plants and creatures. The rivers give life. The rivers
are life. And the Amazon is life on a grand scale.
US Ag Good – Food Security
U.S. leadership in agriculture is key to combat food insecurity globally
Bertini and Glickman, ’13. Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, World Food Program,
United Nations. Dan Glickman, Former Secretary, US Department of Agriculture May 2013. “Advancing
Global Food Security: THE POWER OF SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS.” report issued by an
independent Advisory group on global Agricultural development. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global
issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning.
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/2013_Advancing_Glob
al_Food_Security.pdf - clawan
As the world’s leading agricultural power, the United States has an immense opportunity to lead the
international community in addressing the challenge of global food 2 ADVANCING GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY: THE POWER OF
SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS security through agricultural development. While the United States has taken positive steps over the past
several years to move in this direction, much more must be done in the coming decades to meet the complex
challenges of feeding the world. Now is the time to move the agenda forward. The United States possesses the most
successful agricultural research enterprise globally through its universities, research institutes, and agrifood
businesses. It has the capacity to rally the necessary resources and expertise at home and abroad
toward equipping the global agriculture and food system to sustainably meet future demand. Through the
right partnerships with other governments and organizations in both the developed and developing world, smallholder farmers living in Sub-Saharan Africa and
South Asia can get the tools needed to lift themselves and others from poverty and become part of the solution.5 By
leading this charge, the
United States would also create more American jobs, expand trade and investment opportunities,
grow markets, and increase US influence globally, including in regions that will become increasingly
important strategically in the years ahead.
American ag industry key to support global food markets
Bertini and Glickman, ’13. Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, World Food Program,
United Nations. Dan Glickman, Former Secretary, US Department of Agriculture May 2013. “Advancing
Global Food Security: THE POWER OF SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS.” report issued by an
independent Advisory group on global Agricultural development. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global
issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning.
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/2013_Advancing_Glob
al_Food_Security.pdf - clawan
The United States has before it the opportunity to be a catalyst to advance global food security. The
blueprint put forward in this report calls for the US government to lead an international effort to mobilize science,
increase trade, and leverage the strengths of business to advance global agricultural development as a
means to increase food security. The United States has proven it can provide international leadership in the quest
toward global food security and encourage others to act on this issue. It has the expertise, institutions, and experience to energize this effort. What is required is the
vision and commitment of American governmental, university, research, and business leaders working alongside their international counterparts. The
recommendations in this report, if implemented and sustained, will
help lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty
over the next two decades and help ensure sustainable food and nutrition security for future
generations to come. They will also guard the world’s natural resource base, make agriculture more
resilient to climate change, and contribute to economic growth and social stability in regions of the world that are
key to US interests. If the United States fails to form a strategy, or if attempts to meet future food demand would falter, progress toward
reducing global poverty may halt, and America’s domestic and international interests may be put at risk. Hunger
would sow more conflict and political unrest in parts of the world that are vitally important to US
interests. The number of those living in chronic hunger would increase. The United States could miss the opportunity to cultivate new markets in developing
countries. The American farm belt—one of the strongest parts of the economy—could lose export
opportunities and see its future prospects dim.THE CHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL AFFAIRS 5
U.S. agricultural innovation spills over globally – key to resolve food security and
extinction
Bertini and Glickman, ’13. Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, World Food Program,
United Nations. Dan Glickman, Former Secretary, US Department of Agriculture May 2013. “Advancing
Global Food Security: THE POWER OF SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS.” report issued by an
independent Advisory group on global Agricultural development. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global
issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning.
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/2013_Advancing_Glob
al_Food_Security.pdf - clawan
In the 21st century the world faces the multiple challenges of feeding growing populations, alleviating
poverty, protecting the environment, and responding to climate change. Left unchecked, these
challenges will perpetuate hunger and malnutrition, slow economic growth, spur political instability,
and threaten irreversible damage to the environment and human survival. Since 2009 the US government
has taken steps to confront these challenges through agricultural development. For the first time since the Green
Revolution, empowering the world’s poorest to improve their livelihoods through agriculture is at the top of the international agenda. If these efforts are
supported and expanded, it will be possible to reduce poverty and meet future food demand
sustainably. For progress to continue, government, business, and civil society must continue to work together
to chart a course to meet future food needs in a way that improves nutrition, supports economic
development, increases resilience to extreme weather variability, and preserves the environment. The
next phase of US leadership needs to recognize both the complex interactions of agriculture with health,
resource limitations, and climate change and the importance of trade and business in fostering food
security. Farmers and businesses in the United States and abroad need access to advanced innovations in order to produce
more nutritious food with fewer resources and less environmental impact. Trade in agriculture and food commodities
needs to flow more freely between areas of surplus and deficit. And governments must focus on the policies and investments that will make it possible for
companies to thrive in new markets and develop and broadly disseminate innovations to increase nutritious food production. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
launched a project in mid-2008 to provide new
thinking on how the US government could renew its leadership on
global agricultural development to alleviate poverty, advance global food security, and spur economic
growth and social stability. The project’s landmark report, Renewing American Leadership in the Fight Against Global Hunger and Poverty, was
issued in early 2009 by a bipartisan group of interested Americans. It called on the United States to reinvigorate investment in agricultural systems in the developing
world, with a focus on smallholder farmers, especially the women who farm most of the world’s small holdings. The report put forward specific recommendations
for US action that, if implemented and sustained, would lift millions of people in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia from poverty. The recommendations of the 2009
Chicago Council report—to reenergize support for agricultural research, extension, education, and rural infrastructure and to reform development delivery
mechanisms—are still highly salient. But emerging
global issues necessitate a refresh of US priorities and strategies
for achieving global food security and raising the incomes of smallholder farmers and rural
populations, the majority of the world’s poor. The current administration and 113th Congress require the most up-todate analyses and recommended
options for action if the United States is to continue to champion and lead the cause of global agricultural development.
American ag leadership is key to global stability – exports and tech spillover
Pardey and Alston, ’10. Philip G. Pardey is professor of science and technology policy in the
Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. Julian M. Alston is a professor in the
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics of the University of California, Davis, where he
teaches graduate and undergraduate classes in microeconomic theory and the analysis of agricultural
markets and policies. January 2010. “U.S. Agricultural Research in a Global Food Security Setting.” A
Report of the CSIS Task Force on Food Security. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research and
analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change.
http://csis.org/files/publication/100111_Pardey_USAgriRes_Web.pdf - clawan
In the past half-century, agricultural science achieved a great deal. Since 1960, the world’s population has more than doubled, from 3.1
billion to 6.7 billion, and real per capita income has nearly tripled. Over the same period, total production of cereals grew faster than population, from 877 million
metric tons in 1961 to more than 2,351 million metric tons in 2007, and this increase was largely owing to unprecedented increases in crop yields.1 The
fact
that the Malthusian nightmare has not been realized over the past 50 years is attributable in large part to
improvements in agricultural productivity achieved through technological change enabled by
investments in agricultural research and development (R&D). The United States has been pivotal to the
crucial role of agricultural R&D in alleviating global hunger and addressing pervasive food security
concerns. Public and private investments in U.S. agricultural R&D constitute a large share of total global R&D spending. Consequently, shifts in the
amount and emphasis of agricultural R&D within the United States have measurable consequences
for the pool of global scientific knowledge affecting agriculture worldwide. Moreover, as well as being directly useful to
farmers around the world, many new ideas and innovations developed by U.S. scientists have been taken up at
home and abroad by other scientists, spurring further rounds of innovation. Thus the global food-security
consequences of U.S. agricultural R&D are realized in two important ways . First, U.S. agricultural R&D has fueled productivity
growth in U.S. agriculture, which, given the importance of U.S. production in global food and feed
staples such as corn, wheat, and soybeans, has been a significant element of growing food supplies globally.
Second, R&D and technology spillovers from the United States to the rest of the world have had
important implications for growth in supply of food and feed in the rest of world. Agricultural R&D is at a
crossroads. The close of the twentieth century marked changes in policy contexts, fundamental shifts in the scientific basis for agricultural R&D, and shifting funding
patterns for agricultural R&D in developed countries. Even
though rates of return to agricultural research are
demonstrably very high, we have seen a slowdown in spending growth and a diversion of funds away
from farm productivity enhancement. Together these trends will contribute to a slowdown in farm
productivity growth at a time when the market has, perhaps, begun to signal the beginning of the end
of a half-century and more of global agricultural abundance. 1. Obtained from United Nations FAO, FAOSTAT online database,
found at http://faostat.fao.org. Accessed September 2009. u.s. agricultural research in a global food security setting Philip G. Pardey and Julian M. Alston2 | u.s.
agricultural research in a global food security setting It is a crucial time for rethinking national policies and revitalizing multinational approaches for financing and
conducting agricultural research.
American food exports are key to global food supplies but have recently been
declining
Pardey and Alston, ’10. Philip G. Pardey is professor of science and technology policy in the
Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. Julian M. Alston is a professor in the
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics of the University of California, Davis, where he
teaches graduate and undergraduate classes in microeconomic theory and the analysis of agricultural
markets and policies. January 2010. “U.S. Agricultural Research in a Global Food Security Setting.” A
Report of the CSIS Task Force on Food Security. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research and
analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change.
http://csis.org/files/publication/100111_Pardey_USAgriRes_Web.pdf - clawan
Productivity growth in the United States and globally has been the main driver and has contributed
enormously to growth in supply of food and fiber. In 2002, in aggregate terms, U.S. agriculture produced more
than five times the quantity of agricultural output produced in 1910. The 1.82 percent per year increase in output over
1910–2002 was achieved with only a 0.36 percent per year increase in the total quantity of inputs. Consequently, in 2002 it required only 1.4 times the 1910
quantity of inputs to produce 5.3 times the 1910 quantity of agricultural output, a very significant increase in agricultural productivity. These productivity gains can
be measured in various ways. Conventional measures of productivity express the quantity of output relative to the quantity of inputs. If output grows at the same
pace as inputs, then productivity is unchanged: if the rate of growth in output exceeds the rate of growth in the use of inputs, then productivity growth is positive.
Partial factor productivity measures express output relative to a particular input (like land or labor).3 Multifactor productivity measures express output relative to a
more inclusive metric of all measurable inputs (including land, labor, and capital as well as energy, chemicals, and other 2. J.M. Alston, M.C. Marra, P.G. Pardey, and
T.J. Wyatt, A Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D: Ex Pede Herculem? IFPRI Research Report No 113 (Washington D.C.: International Food Policy
Research Institute, 2000). 3. Crop yields represent a particular partial productivity measure wherein the physical output for a particular crop is expressed relative to
land input. pardey and alston | 3 purchased inputs). Measures
of agricultural productivity growth for the United States—be
they crop yields, other partial factor productivity measures (for example, measures of land and labor productivity), or indexes of multifactor productivity—show
generally consistent patterns in terms of secular shifts, including indications of a recent slowdown in growth.4 The
twentieth-century pattern of agricultural productivity growth in the United States can be divided into three phases. Prior to the 1950s, U.S. land, labor, and
multifactor productivity grew comparatively slowly. The average rates of productivity growth picked up considerably during the subsequent four decades, 1950–
1990, averaging 4.08 percent per year for labor productivity, 1.96 percent per year for land productivity, and 2.12 percent per year for multifactor productivity. A
third phase, beginning in 1990 (and in this instance running to 2002, the latest year for which Alston et al. (2010) report multifactor productivity estimates), saw a
sharp downturn in the rates of growth of all three productivity measures.5 Notably, during the period 1990–2002 labor productivity and multifactor productivity
grew at half, or less than half, the corresponding rate for the period 1950–1990. The
long-run evidence on U.S. crop yields and
productivity tells a consistent story: measurable but comparatively sluggish growth prior to 1950, historically rapid growth for the subsequent
four decades 1950–1990, and then a substantial slowdown from 1990 forward in the rates of growth for all of the
crop yield and productivity series detailed in this report. Paralleling productivity developments in the United States, the evidence of a
slowdown in crop yields throughout the world is quite pervasive. In more than half of the countries growing each crop, yields
for rice, wheat, maize, and soybeans grew more slowly during 1990–2007 than during 1961–1990. More critically, the slowdown was more widespread among the
most important producers (that is, the top ten producing countries worldwide) than among all producing countries.
US Ag Good – Economy
Ag Industry key to jobs and economy
Stabenow 2013, Feb 17, Debbie Stabenow, Senate agriculture Committee Chairwoman, “American
Agriculture Supports 16 Million Jobs” http://www.stabenow.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=251
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, said today that American agriculture is supporting 16 million
jobs and is one of few industries leading the economic recovery. Stabenow made the comments at the
Committee's first hearing of the 112th Congress, where Members and witnesses examined agriculture's
effect on the U.S. economy. Keith Creagh, Governor Rick Snyder's newly appointed Director of the
Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development, testified at the hearing on the importance
of agriculture, the state's second-largest industry, to Michigan's economy. "Rarely have we seen a
more positive outlook for the agricultural economy as a whole," Stabenow said. "This should come as
no surprise to any of us: American farmers and ranchers produce the safest, most nutritious and most
sustainable agricultural products in the world. In fact, one of the biggest success stories in our nation's
economy is the strength of our farm exports. For the second year in a row, agricultural exports are
projected to be over $100 billion ... Our agricultural exports will support over one million jobs this year
alone -- and these jobs are not just on the farm but in towns and cities all across the country."
Stabenow pointed to her state of Michigan, where agriculture is the second-largest industry, as an
example of a state poised to continue strengthening an already robust sector. "Agriculture represents
more than $70 billion for our economy each year, and represents one out of every four jobs in my
state," she said.Keith Creagh, Director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development,
provided a snapshot the agriculture economy from a state perspective, highlighting agriculture's role as
a jobs creator and also identifying new opportunities for investment and growth."Michigan's agri-food
industry is a robust and high tech industry that will undoubtedly serve as one of Michigan's, and the
nation's, foundations to our long term, sustainable economic recovery," Creagh said. "At a time when
850,000 jobs were lost in Michigan, our agricultural economy experienced a decade of growth. It
expanded at a rate of more than five times faster than the rate of the general economy between 2006
and 2007. Further, since 2007, we have seen a 27 percent increase, making agriculture a cornerstone in
diversifying Michigan's economic future. As a result of our diverse soils, crops, fresh water, and climate
we are well-positioned to continue this growth and expansion at all levels of production. Currently, we
produce over 200 commodities on a commercial basis; and lead the nation in 18 of these." Creagh also
thanked Stabenow for her leadership in agriculture and her commitment to strengthening Michigan's
economy and workforce through continuing to work closely with state officials. Additional witnesses
included Mr. Fred Yoder, a farmer from Plain City, Ohio and former president of the National Corn
Growers Association; Dr. Joe Outlaw, an economist with Texas A&M; and Mr. Thomas M. Hoenig, the
president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.Senator Stabenow added, "I want to thank all our
witnesses today, especially Director Keith Creagh from my home state. Director Creagh I look forward to
working with you and Governor Snyder to create Agriculture jobs in Michigan." 16 million jobs. That's
an estimate of the total number of Americans who have a job because of American agriculture .
AT: CIR Solves Ag
Cap on Guest worker program cant solve for Ag- Plan Key
Wall street Journal 6/5 2013,” The Farm Worker Shortage U.S Agriculture needs more guest
workers than the Senate bill allows”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html
The Senate begins floor debate on immigration reform next week, and our hope is that it can improve
the Gang of Eight bill that emerged from the Judiciary Committee with the U.S. economy foremost in
mind. One place to start is ending America's farm-worker shortage. Farm growers have reluctantly
(and under Democratic pressure) endorsed the Gang of Eight's framework, flaws and all, because they
desperately need more workers. Although there's currently no cap on agriculture visas, only 5% of the
country's two million farm workers are employed under the current and very onerous H-2A visa
program. One reason is because H-2A visas are only good for a year and don't allow workers to change
jobs. The fast-twitch bureaucrats at the Labor Department also must certify that U.S. workers aren't
available to do the job, so workers arrive late if they arrive at all.In 2010, farmers reported more than
$320 million in losses because they didn't get the workers they needed. Illegal workers fill most of the
gap, but increasingly the bigger companies are moving production to Latin America. Growers estimate
that 80,000 acres of fruit and vegetable production have moved out of California alone because of the
labor shortage.The problem is that in return for these improvements, labor unions demanded a cap
on new guest workers of 337,000 over five years. That isn't likely to fill the needs of an industry in
which labor shortages run as high as 20%, depending on the location and crop. The guest-worker
flow ought to follow labor demand, not have an artificial cap that might still allow a shortage that
would attract more future illegals. The Secretary of Agriculture would be able to lift the cap in "severe
labor shortages," but much will depend on how the Secretary defines "severe." Is a shortage that
results in several thousand acres of spoiled lettuce in California's San Joaquin Valley severe? Or must
prices increase at the supermarket? The legislation also makes life difficult for employers who need
labor year-round by requiring that guest workers return home for at least one-sixth of the duration of
their visas. This can disrupt operations by taking away the most experienced workers at crucial times,
even if they want to stay.Equally troublesome are the legislation's fixed wages, which unions demanded
to ensure that pay for domestic workers doesn't fall with an influx of foreign labor. The wage scales vary
by job classification—ranging from $9.17 per hour for field hands to $11.30 for equipment operators—
and would automatically increase by 1.5% to 2.5% each year.Because the wage controls would apply
only to employers who use guest workers, farmers would have an incentive to hire domestic workers
exclusively. But because relatively few Americans want to do farm work, this would merely drive more
farm production overseas. The definition of perverse would be an immigration reform that causes the
U.S. to import more of its food supply. Most media attention on immigration has been on legalizing
the 11 million workers already here, but more crucial for the future is creating an adequate flow of
guest workers to meet the demands of a growing U.S. economy. Having conceded on a "path to
citizenship" for the 11 million, Republicans should focus on creating guest-worker programs with
enough visas and without bureaucratic controls. Let Democrats choose between satisfying Big Labor
and legalizing 11 million Hispanics.
AT: Europe Solves Food Security
European policies fail – too export-oriented
GPF, 6/27/13. Global Policy Forum is an independent policy watchdog that monitors the work of the
United Nations and scrutinizes global policymaking. We promote accountability and citizen participation
in decisions on peace and security, social justice and international law. “EU Agricultural Reform Misses
Opportunity.” http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/217-hunger/52432-euagricultural-reform-misses-opportunity.html
According to the German NGOs Brot für die Welt and WWF Germany, the preliminary agreement reached on the reform of the European Union’s
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) remains far behind its formulated goals. In particular, it does not take
into account the effect it has on economic development in countries of the global South, given that it
leaves out both sustainability as well as justice. “The EU continues to ignore any possible external implications of its agricultural policy”,
commented Stig Tanzmann, agricultural expert from Brot für die Welt. Particularly disappointing is the fact that the EU was not even able to
come to an agreement with regard to export subsidies, which have been going on for decades now,
but whose cancellation is utterly overdue. The EU’s milk quota will run out in 2015, at which point the EU will receive a lot of calls
demanding export subsidies to make up for the lost domestic revenues. Therefore, Tanzman worries that “successful milk producers in developing countries such as
Zambia or Kenya will once again have to compete with cheap EU milk, which will marginalize local production.” The
new agreement further fails
to account for the damage being done by EU imports, which have equally detrimental implications. The
production of soy beans which are imported from South America into the European Union is taking up 30 million hectares of farmland. In turn, this land cannot be
used by developing countries themselves in order to provide food security for their populations. Thus, the
CAP is also a matter of land
grabbing. Moreover, the soy bean imports enable large-scale poultry exports from the EU to African countries, which amount to more than 450,000 tons a
year. The new CAP regulations are still lacking a complaint mechanism for producers who are affected
by cheap EU exports. However, instead of facing the problems caused by European agricultural policies,
the new CAP simply purports a new green look, without changing its old export-oriented nature.
AT: Immigrants Hurt Economy
They have the economics wrong: Low skilled immigration stop outsourcing and
increases US investment
Cowen 5/26
(Tyler, American economist, professor at George Mason University, “Do low wages for unskilled
workers weaken the case for more immigration? Pg online at
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/do-low-wages-for-unskilled-workersweaken-the-case-for-more-immigration.html#sthash.zCtGomla.dpuf//sd)
Here is a point which I think the anti-immigration forces are getting wrong, mostly on the side of
economics. It can be pointed out that low-skilled (native) labor in the United States has not seen strong income gains for some time. You
might then wonder whether it makes sense to bring more unskilled labor into the country. In my view the evidence (and here) suggests
that the negative wage pressures on unskilled labor, to the extent they have international origins at all
(as opposed to TGS or automation or political factors), come more from outsourcing and trade than from immigration. So if
you limit low-skilled immigration, outsourcing likely will go up, as it would be harder to find cheap labor
in the United States. The United States will lose the complementary jobs as well, such as the truck driver who
brings cafeteria snacks to the call center. Conversely, if you increase low-skilled immigration, you will also get more
investment in the United States and more complementary jobs as well and possibly some increasing returns from
clustering and maybe more net tax revenue too. On top of that the individuals themselves have greater choice
as to where to spend their lives and build their careers. Here’s another way to put it. Either factor price equalization
will go on or not, noting that capital flows are the more active marginal lever here and there is no serious talk of banning capital outflow.
If FPE isn’t going to happen much, no big deal either way. If FPE is going to happen, you still might want to have it
happen with more of those jobs inside your country. Again, you may wish to counterbalance this against any political costs
from having more unskilled labor in your country, as I mentioned earlier. But from an economic point of view, the case for
accepting the immigration — including low-skilled immigration — still seems strong to me.
AT: Bee Alt Cause
No impact to bee collapse – alternative pollinators solve
PBS, ’07. Nature from PBS, “Silence of the Bees: Impact of CCD on US Agriculture.”
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/silence-of-the-bees/impact-of-ccd-on-us-agriculture/37/ -clawan
Of course, nature has its own safeguards to keep crops pollinated. Honeybees aren’t our only pollinators.
Other insects and birds pollinate fruits and vegetables as well. The problem with other natural pollinators picking up
the bees’ slack is that today’s agricultural industry has simply grown too large for them to keep up. The leviathan that is U.S. agriculture creates
a huge demand for pollination. Because honeybees are relatively mobile and can pollinate a generous number of crops, they have been the
ideal recruits to meet our crop needs. But honeybees
don’t perform such feats naturally without help — lots of it.
Commercial beekeepers keep colonies nourished and healthy and move their hives from state to state in
semis, selling their pollination services to farmers at a premium. With the threat of CCD looming, researchers are starting to study
how other pollinators like the larger bumble bees could step in for honeybees. “The Dutch have
figured out how to use bumblebees,” says Pettis. Bumblebees share many similarities with honeybees.
Both are social nesters, although the bumblebees’ society is not as highly ordered as that of honeybees. Also, bumblebees make a new nest
each spring by solitary queens, who hibernate through the winter. Honeybees remain in the old nest.
Illegal Immigration Advantage
Yes Illegal Immigration
Despite high border security, illegal immigration still increasing—unsecure rural areas
Potter, 13 (Mark Potter, NBC National News Correspondent, “Despite safer border cities,
undocumented immigrants flow through rural areas”, May 3 2013, NBC News,
http://dailynightly.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/02/17708115-despite-safer-border-citiesundocumented-immigrants-flow-through-rural-areas?lite, //nikp)
As the national debate over comprehensive immigration reform plays out, the question looms: just how secure is the U.S. border with Mexico?
The answer appears to be mixed, with definite improvements nationwide and a downward trend in illegal immigration in most places –
especially in the cities. But there
are some areas, in rural Arizona and Texas, where residents insist the border
is neither secure nor safe. Gary Thrasher, a veterinarian and rancher in southern Arizona near Bisbee, says the rural border
area where he works is actually less safe now than it was years ago, because of an increase in the number
of armed drug and immigrant smugglers. When the federal government increased security in the
border cities, he said, it had the negative effect of forcing the smugglers to move to the large rural
areas. "The border statistically is securer than ever. That means nothing ,” he said. “That's like saying we
fixed this whole bucket, except for this hole down here. You know it's still not going to hold water." U.S. officials: look to
the numbers Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano frequently travels to the Southwest border and has made appearances before
Congress where she has touted the recent improvements in border security and argued for passage of a comprehensive immigration bill.
"Fewer people are trying to emigrate illegally into this country than in four decades,” she testified before a U.S. Senate committee earlier this
year. “What I know is that apprehensions are low, because attempts are low. Drug seizures, contraband seizures, all the numbers that need to
be up are up." In the year 2000, agents along the length of the Southwest border reported detaining 1,643,679 immigrants for allegedly
entering the country without proper documentation. Twelve years later, in 2012, that number had plummeted to 356,873, a decrease of 78
percent. "San Diego and the Mexican border used to be the most lawless, violent places across the face of the earth with thousands of crossborder migrants on a given day,” said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the former head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. “We put in
triple fencing and adequate Border Patrol and Coast Guard and it stopped." Ranchers: rural border areas not secure Critics of
the
administration's position on border security, however, say that while the overall apprehension
numbers are down, they don't fully reflect the reality in areas where smugglers and immigrants still
routinely make the illegal crossing into the United States from Mexico. On a small ranch near the
border in southwestern Arizona, a mother of several children spoke under the condition of anonymity. She fears what she
described as an increase in drug and immigrant smugglers crossing her land by day and night. "You're still having
to pack a gun everywhere with you and make sure your kids can't go outside to play unless you are watching them." she said. " The border
is not secure . The Border Patrol doesn't have a very strong presence out here." Texas police: a rise in immigrant
smuggling In the small town of San Juan, Texas, a few miles north of the Mexican border, Police Chief Juan Gonzalez toured some
of the human stash houses his officers recently uncovered. They had been used to hide immigrants
from all over the world who were smuggled across the border into the United States. Gonzalez says
his department has never dealt with as many undocumented immigrants as it encounters now. "In the
past three years we've seen an increase. And it's not a steady increase, it's a massive increase ," he said.
"Too many people are getting through. We've got too many holes in the border and we don't have
enough manpower to make sure we secure the border." About 75 miles north of the border, in
Falfurrias, Texas, Benny Martinez, the chief deputy of the Brooks County Sheriff's Office, says his area is also deeply
affected by a recent rise in illegal immigration. “ The trending is going up ,” he said. “ It hasn’t gone down
at all , not here.” Last year, officials and ranchers there found the bodies of 129 immigrants who died in the
harsh terrain, presumably after crossing the border illegally. Dozens are still unidentified and are
buried in a local cemetery. Some of the metal markers on the graves read, "Unknown Female" and "Unknown Remains." One says,
simply, "Bones." Martinez does not believe the U.S.-Mexican border is at all secure in South Texas, given
the rise in illegal immigration in Brooks County. "It's steady and I don't think it's going to go down, it's not going to happen
anytime soon," he said. Ranchers like Linda Vickers, who lives just north of a Border Patrol highway checkpoint near Falfurrias, said she
regularly sees, and often photographs, illegal immigrants cutting across her land as they try to evade the agents. “I’m seeing groups of 10,
groups of 20 and I’m seeing them more often,” she said. When asked about Obama administration claims that the border is more secure now,
Vickers said that while it appears to be true elsewhere in the country, it’s not the case where she lives. “In
the state of Texas, in the
Rio Grande Valley, the border is not secure and I don’t think you’ll find a person, a real person, to say it’s secure,” she said.
Border patrol: South Texas a problem area In South Texas, in the Rio Grande Valley sector, immigrant
apprehensions rose 65 percent from the years 2011 to 2012 -- from 59,243 to 97,762, according to
U.S. Border Patrol -- bucking the national trend of falling immigration numbers. This year, statistics
reveal the Rio Grande Valley apprehension numbers have climbed even further, rising 55 percent
compared to this time in 2012. Federal agents believe it reflects a recent increase in people fleeing the
poverty, drug gangs and violence in Central America. Privately, some agents say that, despite their great success
in making more apprehensions, thousands of immigrants crossing the border illegally in South Texas
still slip past them. A majority of people involved in the security debate agree that most of the U.S. cities along the border are now
much safer than they used to be and have much lower crime rates, thanks to high fences, increased monitoring technology and thousands of
Border Patrol and other federal agents deployed there. But McCaffrey says U.S.
officials need to do more for the rural areas.
Yes Illegal Immigration – AT: Increased Border Security
Increases in Border Security have minimal effects—empirics—no studies prove impact
of enforcement after recent increases in border presence
Hanson, 6/24 (Gordon Hanson, professor in the economics department and School of International
Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California at San Diego, holds the Pacific Economic
Cooperation Chair in International Economic Relations, director of the Center on Emerging and Pacific
Economies at UCSD, specializes in international migration, trade and investment issues, and U.S.
immigration policy to border security, “Want tough border security? Hope for an awful economy”,
Interview by Dylan Matthews – Transcript, The Washington Post, WonkBlog,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/24/want-tough-border-security-hopefor-an-awful-economy/, //nikp)
Dylan Matthews: An extreme fatalist would say that there’s basically nothing that the U.S. can do to control the border, that as long as there’s demand for jobs in
the U.S., people will come. What do you make of that argument? Gordon Hanson: I think it’s a bit oversimplified. There
are two excellent
analyses of the impact of border enforcement on migration, each using data from the 1980s and
1990s, one by Pia Orrenius and one by Christina Gathmann. This work found that increases in border enforcement do
deter people from crossing the border, but the effect is small . Do those studies, conducted when we
had 4,000 border agents, apply when we have 20,000 agents or 40,000? It’s not at all clear . Whereas
previous increases in border enforcement left big gaps along the border, the recent and coming surges
could possibly eliminate those gaps, causing the effectiveness of border enforcement to rise. In
general, I’m skeptical about the efficacy of huge increases in border security. At the same time, we have to be
careful about what we think we know. The impact of enforcement on the decision to migrate looks pretty weak but
we don’t yet have analyses after the recent massive increases in border presence . How much is technology
changing this? Are drones making surveillance cheap enough that securing the whole border is finally feasible? The relatively cheap technology
of video surveillance cameras has had a significant impact on enforcement, but my sense is that these tools
work best in urban areas, where agents have the capability of rapidly responding to information
about migrant location. The deployment of surveillance technology is partly behind the dramatic reduction in crossings in San Diego, El Paso and other
border cities. Video technologies are relatively cheap. However, the problem is that when you increase surveillance in
cities people just stop crossing in urban areas and cross in remote locations, instead. As I understand
it, the current effectiveness of drones for border enforcement is limited. Part of the reason may be that to use drones in
a meaningful way the Border Patrol would have to rethink how it deploys agents, with agent locations and movements being dictated by information coming from
drones. There still appears to be something of a disconnect between drone operations and the activities of agents on the ground. Using
drones
properly could dramatically increase the effectiveness of the Border Patrol, but the cost of such a
program could be enormous (given how expensive drones are to purchase and operate). Are there other countries that have gotten good at border
security, who the U.S. could learn from? The former Soviet Bloc was very good at controlling borders. Such a reference sounds tongue in cheek, but if we’re going to
have 40,000 agents on the border, 700 miles of significant border barriers, and drones in constant circulation, how far are we from Soviet style border security? For
the Soviet Bloc, border security had tremendous symbolic importance. The image of large outflows of emigrants seeking to escape the Soviet Union and its satellites
would have been emblematic of the failure of those countries to be attractive places to live. I
would argue that our interest in stopping
illegal immigration also has a significant symbolic component. An extra $30 billion a year, as proposed
in the Senate deal unveiled this week, would take annual spending on border enforcement to around $50
billion. It’s hard for me to believe that this level of spending passes any meaningful cost-benefit test .
Yes Illegal Immigration – AT: DHS Border Security Statistics
DHS measures of illegal labor flows are based on false assumptions in order to meet a
political threshold to pass CIR
Hanson, 6/24 (Gordon Hanson, professor in the economics department and School of International
Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California at San Diego, holds the Pacific Economic
Cooperation Chair in International Economic Relations, director of the Center on Emerging and Pacific
Economies at UCSD, specializes in international migration, trade and investment issues, and U.S.
immigration policy to border security, “Want tough border security? Hope for an awful economy”,
Interview by Dylan Matthews – Transcript, The Washington Post, WonkBlog,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/24/want-tough-border-security-hopefor-an-awful-economy/, //nikp)
I understand you have some criticisms about how we actually measure border effectiveness . I was part of this
National Academy of Sciences panel on estimating illegal border flows. Our charge was to address “How
should DHS go about measuring illegal border flows, and are existing data adequate to ascertain how
many people are crossing the border illegally each year?” Some of the panelists were scholars like me, who’d been
studying immigration for many years. Others were statisticians with a deep understanding of data collection, surveys, and the statistical
properties of administrative information.
No one on the panel was impressed by the way that DHS measures
illegal labor flows . We simply don’t know how many undocumented migrants cross the border .
Pressure on DHS pressure has led them to use essentially manufactured numbers on “turn-backs” and
“got-aways.” The resulting effectiveness rates they’ve produced aren’t terribly meaningful , due to
double-counting of apprehensions and a host of other statistical problems. More importantly, DHS
estimates of their effectiveness rate are at odds with results from migrant surveys that ask individuals
about apprehensions. We should approach estimates of DHS effectiveness with a healthy dose of
skepticism . That would seem to imply that there would be more stat-juking if we had a trigger
mechanism, as in the Gang of Eight bill, where legalization provisions are tied to border security
effectiveness. In the end, defining effectiveness will be primarily a political battle . It DHS is required to reach a
true apprehension rate of 90 percent immigration reform would never be implemented. So, what I’m guessing will happen is that DHS will
define effectiveness measures that they can reach (or that politicians want them to reach ). DHS will
likely shield information about their activities, as they’ve done to date, complicating independent
evaluation of their efforts. Any final things you’d like to add before we wrap up? Before the current round of immigration reform got
off the ground, it seemed that DHS was on the verge of opening up access to its data on border
apprehensions and enforcement. I’ve done a great deal of work DHS data on apprehensions and enforcement using their internal
data. My interest in working with DHS was in ultimately producing academic studies that could be published in scholarly journals. Two years
ago, or so, I thought we were close to getting permission to publish the results of our work. However, the environment has changed entirely.
DHS won’t let me or others who’ve used their internal data on apprehensions release our work for public
view. We’d learn much more about the effectiveness of border enforcement if DHS would release its
data in the public domain. They receive free evaluation of their efforts by the scientific community and would surely
gain access to more reliable and more defensible indicators of enforcement effectiveness . But DHS is going
in the other direction. They seem intent on shutting down any chance of data access . There’s language
being put in the immigration reform legislation that prevents the DHS from putting too detailed
information on border apprehensions or enforcement in the public domain. I believe this is a terrible mistake. If
we want to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of border enforcement, we need DHS to become more open about what it does.
Guest Workers Solve Illegal Immigration
Immigration is inevitable, a guest-worker program is necessary to accommodate
economic benefits – CIR insufficient to solve
Nowrasteh, 13 - Alexander "Alex" Nowrasteh is an analyst of immigration policy currently working at the Center for Global Liberty and
Prosperity of the Cato Institute (“Immigration plan does only half the job”, 1/29/13, http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2013/01/29/immigration-plan-does-only-half-the-job)
Heeding the Obama administration’s call for immigration reform, a bipartisan group of eight senators Monday released a proposal they plan to
introduce as legislation. They wisely included legalization for current undocumented immigrants, but their plan will likely come up short on a
guest-worker program for legal migrant workers. While
legalization is a good step, lack of a comprehensive guestworker program only perpetuates the problem many immigration critics cite as their biggest concern: unauthorized
immigration. Yet guest-worker measures have worked in this country before, so it is pure politics, rather than substance, that prevents
officials from crafting one now. Unauthorized immigrants who are not violent or criminals should indeed be legalized. They came
here for economic security, and many are on their way to achieving it. So many of their offspring, the so-called “DREAMers,”
who were brought here as children, know nothing but the United States and speak only English. They are
Americans in all the ways that count — except a law that now says they aren’t. It’s time for the law to accept
them. Most unauthorized immigrants came from Mexico, Central America and Asia, where the benefits of moving
here are incomes two to six times greater than in their homelands. The U.S. economy, struggling since the 2008 crisis, put a
damper on unauthorized immigration, but gradually recovering housing and labor markets are
beginning to attract people again. That is why a robust guest-worker program is needed: to
accommodate future flows of migrants. After decades of unauthorized immigration motivated by
economic gain, it is fantasy to expect it to stop after legalizing those unauthorized immigrants
already here . Let us not forget that President Ronald Reagan tried an amnesty in 1986 ‑ which failed because it legalized the workers
here but did not provide a viable pathway for future workers to come. What we need is a legal way for lower-skilled
immigrants to enter the United States — and a guest-worker visa program is the easiest avenue . So why
doesn’t the proposed immigration reform include a comprehensive guest-worker program? Surprisingly,
the main issue is not opposition from conservative Republicans. It is unions and their supporters who do not want it. In the
2007 immigration reform push, an amendment that would have ended the guest-worker program after five years destroyed Republican
support. The then-leaders of the AFL-CIO, the Laborers’ International Union of North America, the United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers and the Teamsters
all wrote letters opposing guest workers and supporting the amendment. Teamsters President James P. Hoffa wrote that he opposed a guestworker program because it would “[force] workers to toil in a truly temporary status with a high risk of exploitation and abuse by those seeking
cheap labor.” At least unions now support immigration restrictions for different reasons than before. Samuel Gompers, the founder of the AFL,
never saw an anti-immigration bill he did not like. He supported the Chinese Exclusion Act and the near-race-based quota acts of the 1920s that
drastically curtailed immigration from anywhere except Northern and Western Europe. Gompers’ logic was simple. He thought unions can only
organize when there is a limited supply of labor, especially immigrant labor. This thinking was even espoused by the likes of César Chavez,
whose organizing efforts involved calling the Immigration and Naturalization Service to report unauthorized Mexican workers or forming a “wet
line” (his language) on the Mexican border. Now unions say they oppose a guest-worker visa program to protect these workers from abuse. But
unauthorized workers are going to come in any case, so preventing a guest-worker program can only place them in a black market ‑ where
employer abuse, backed up by the threat of deportation, is far worse. If unions are honestly concerned about guest-worker abuse, the solution
is making the visa portable and not tied to one employer. A World War I guest-worker visa let guest workers quit their jobs and be hired by
approved employers. Guest workers simply had to tell the government about their new employer after they were hired — not seek permission
before switching jobs. The best labor protection is a worker’s ability to quit a job without legal sanction. If the government could create such a
guest-worker visa program 100 years ago, there is no reason why it cannot be revived today. As
long as there is economic
opportunity here, immigrants — legal or not — will come. An immigration bill that does not create a
vehicle for legal migrants to enter the country is not real reform.
Increasing visas resolves illegal immigration – empirics
Anderson, 4/16 - Stuart Anderson, Contributor to Forbes magazine, “I write about globalization, business, technology and
immigration.” (“Too Few Work Visas in New Immigration Bill”, 4/16/13, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2013/04/16/toofew-work-visas-in-new-immigration-bill)
If the goal of the new immigration bill was to reduce illegal immigration , then the new legislation
provides far too few visas to accomplish that objective. The lack of a legal visa category for the jobs
most illegal immigrants fill is a core reason for illegal immigration. Unfortunately, according to the summary released by the
Senate bill’s sponsors, there won’t be a chance a reasonable number of new temporary work visas will be issued until at least the year 2020. The bill’s summary
states: “Beginning April 1, 2015 . . . The annual cap on the maximum number of registered positions that may be approved each year are limited for the first four
years. 20,000 for the first year; 35,000 the second year; 55,000 the third year and 75,000 the fourth year.” Hundreds
of thousands of people
attempt to enter the United States illegally each year seeking work. As a result, the numbers cited above
will be too low, particularly as the economy improves. The lack of legal visas undermines the bill’s
determination that America should achieve “operational control” of the border.
Whether the number will ever go
above 75,000 is anyone’s guess, since the AFL-CIO achieved its goals in the bill of establishing a type of labor czar who will help determine how many workers are
needed in America. F.A. Hayek wrote eloquently about the “fatal conceit” of governments acting as if they know information that by its nature they cannot know.
The bill’s summary describes the complicated formula under which it might be possible to go beyond 75,000 work visas in a year: “For each year after the fourth
year, the annual cap will be calculated according to a statistical formula that takes the following four factors into consideration: the rate of change in the number of
new job openings in the economy; the inverse rate of change in the number of unemployed US workers; the percentage change the Bureau recommends the annual
cap should increase or decrease; and the percentage difference between the number of W-visas requested in the prior fiscal year compared to the cap in the prior
fiscal year.” If you read the summary closely, you’ll notice the number can also go back down the ladder as well, so there’s no guarantee that even 75,000 will
endure as the annual cap. Another concern is the Department of Labor has administrative discretion under the new category, as it has with H-2B visas, a category
for seasonal nonagricultural workers. DOL so overstepped its authority in restricting H-2B visas that a federal judge recently threw out its regulations. The
Hill
newspaper (April 11, 2013) reported on a letter sent to House members signed by the Associated Builders & Contractors (ABC),
ImmigrationWorks USA, the International Franchise Association and the National Association of Home Builders advocating a large work visa
category . The letter argued, “In the early 2000s, when the economy was booming, several hundred thousand
unauthorized workers entered the country every year to fill low-skilled jobs for which there were not enough willing
and able Americans. If the new visa program is not ample enough, it will not succeed in replacing this illegal
flow with a legal workforce.” The best way to reduce illegal immigration is to provide a substantial
number of new work visas so individuals can enter the United States legally. That is the one reform
most likely to succeed , as we saw during the Bracero program when illegal entry dropped
dramatically as legal entry increased. It is also the reform that appears least likely to be enacted.
Guest worker programs reduce illegal immigration
Felde, 9 - Kitty Felde is KPCC's Washington, D.C. Correspondent. Before moving to the nation's capital, Kitty hosted KPCC's "Talk of the
City" from 1997-2006 (“Study says guest worker program may help stop illegal immigration”, August 17th, 2009,
http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/08/17/4725/immigration-study)
This fall, Congress is expected to tackle comprehensive immigration reform. A
Washington think tank says the best way to
stop illegal immigration is with a guest worker program . KPCC’s Washington Correspondent Kitty Felde reports. The
Cato Institute says tougher border enforcement would reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the
U.S. workforce. But the libertarian think tank says it would also increase the value of the illegal immigrant
workers that remain. It’s supply-and-demand: fewer unskilled illegal immigrant workers available for some of the grimiest work means
their pay goes up. And Cato estimates that as their pay went up, everyone else’s income would go down by about half a percent. But Cato
says if the U.S. adopted a guest worker program for low-skilled immigrants, it would hold down their
pay and increase everyone else’s by more than a percent. The Cato study says a guest worker program
that offered temporary green cards to immigrant workers would eliminate smuggler fees and create
higher immigrant productivity. The Cato Institute did not examine the economic impact of giving illegal immigrants permanent legal
status.
Guest Workers Solve Border Security
Emphasis on immigration trades off with security measures – guest worker programs
solve
Alexander 13 (Robert Alexander, June 14th, 2013, graduate from West Texas A&M University, staff
writer for Texas Tribune “U.S. Policy Toward Illegal Immigration and Border Security: Summary and
Evaluation”
http://www.wtamu.edu/webres/File/Academics/College%20of%20Education%20and%20Social%20Scie
nces/Department%20of%20Political%20Science%20and%20Criminal%20Justice/PBJ/2009/1n2/1n2_01A
lexander.pdf)
Payan asserts that “a real solution to the border would require a political will that no one, from
Washington to Mexico City, is willing to invest on this god-forsaken part of the globe that clamors for
attention” (p.xii). Regardless of the political realities that have thus far prevented genuine border
security and immigration reform from being achieved, law and policy makers must realize the complex
nature of the problem. Additionally, these officials must stop trying to use such a single, heavy-handed
approach, which by itself, does little more than waste money and turn foreign opinion against us.
Government officials must recognize that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are not criminals, but
rather peaceful, hardworking people that contribute to our nation both economically and culturally. The
United States is fully within its rights as a sovereign nation to secure its borders. However, focusing all of
our attention and resources on the border can only go so far in resolving the problem. We must
understand that the strong motivations that drive illegal immigration have not yet been stopped by
increased border security. Even so, if such an approach were possible, it would not help either side.
The United States needs to develop a comprehensive policy that recognizes the complexity of the issue.
The legislation proposed by Representative Jackson Lee approaches the problem in an appropriate
manner. We must take into account border security, economic needs that immigration can satisfy, the
possibility of permanent residency for some and a temporary program for others, labor exploitation,
and the enforcement of immigration and labor laws and the punishment of violators. Although such
reform could not be guaranteed to work completely, it would likely be far more successful than the
current policy and would be a much more balanced and rational approach. Through an approach that
would limit the number of illegal crossings, the Border Patrol would be able to focus on the
interdiction of drugs and the protection of our borders against terrorist threats. A more peaceful
resolution of the immigration problem would benefit the United States by welcoming foreign workers
who would contribute economically and culturally to this great nation. The border region with Mexico
would achieve a level of stability and peace, and the United States could remain the center of diversity
and economic opportunity.
Focus on immigrants trades off with security – prioritization
Barry 11 ( Tom, Septhember 13, 2011, Director for the TransBorder project at the Center for
International Policy in Wash. DC “Border Security After 9/11: Wasteful Policy Fueling New Drug Wars”
http://www.alternet.org/story/152402/border_security_after_9_11%3A_wasteful_policy_fueling_new_
drug_wars?paging=off
By mid-decade, the rash of new border security and related immigration enforcement initiatives had little
or nothing to do with securing the US against terrorists. The Border Patrol's "Prevention through Deterrence" strategy
took on new import as a national security strategy to deter domestic security threats. A new array of CBP and ICE programs including the 670-mile "secure fence," the planned $8 billion SBInet or "virtual fence," Operation
Streamline and the expanded Criminal Alien Program - constituted the "Secure Border Initiative" (SBI),
which was launched in late 2005 by DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. In 2005, DHS described SBI as "a comprehensive multiyear
plan to secure America's borders and reduce illegal migration." DHS insisted that the new initiative would be based on a "risk-based decisionmaking process." Yet, in practice, DHS's
new border control and immigration enforcement programs were not
focused on demonstrable homeland security threats. Both the increased border fortifications and the
intensified enforcement under the SBI umbrella continued the Border Patrol practice of targeting
illegal immigration and marijuana smuggling, which were shoehorned into the new homeland security rubric of
"dangerous people and goods." Chertoff was a veteran federal prosecutor who had been attorney general John Ashcroft's chief
deputy in charge of Patriot Act prosecutions. In Chertoff's view, the deterrence logic of the criminal justice system - namely, criminalization and
imprisonment - could also be applied to immigration enforcement at the border. Through Operation Streamline, launched in 2005, the Border
Patrol began turning over illegal border crossers to the federal courts for prosecution and criminal incarceration. After serving their criminal
consequences for immigration violations, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) US Marshals Service (USMS) and Bureau of Prisons then transfer the
immigrants back to DHS. In turn, ICE directs the immigration consequences of illegal entry, including lengthy incarceration in ICE's own network
of mostly privately-run detention centers and eventual deportation. This new practice of criminalizing immigration violations has vastly
expanded the number of immigrants that DHS calls "criminal aliens." As conceived by Chertoff, the new determination to charge and imprison
illegal border crossers was part of a revamped, stepped-up deterrent strategy, which the Obama administration has continued. Border Security
Serves New Drug Wars When the immigrant crackdown took hold in 2005 and cries for border security mounted, there was little mention of the
fears and factors that have propelled the border security bandwagon since 2009. In late March 2009, in response to rising alarm about drugrelated violence in Mexico, Napolitano announced the launch of DOJ's Southwest Border Initiative. This continuing initiative, described as a UScentered adjunct to the State Department's counternarcotics aid to Mexico through the Mérida Initiative, is loaded with border security
language. Rather than deciding that the surge of drug-related violence in Mexico was another reason to re-evaluate the 40 years of failed drug
control policies, the Obama administration has reaffirmed US support for the military-led drug war in Mexico. The administration has also made
a major public display of its determination to increase and redeploy DHS and DOJ resources to bolster border security. The administration
argues that border security and national security, as well as Mexico's security and stability, demand that we stay the course initiated by the
Bush administration. Rather than seize the opportunity to end drug prohibition and the drug wars, Obama and Napolitano have reverted to the
traditional practice of desperately trying to hold the line at the border against immigrant, drug and gun flows. For the Obama administration,
border security encompasses a wide range of policy initiatives, including rigorously enforcing drug laws in the Southwest, involving US agencies
and aid in foreign drug wars and flooding the criminal-justice system and prisons with drug users and so-called criminal aliens. In June 2009, the
Obama administration released its National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy. ONDCP director Gil Kerlikowske contended that the
"new plan, combined with the dedicated efforts of the Government of Mexico, creates a unique opportunity to make real headway on the drug
threat." Similar pronouncements have echoed throughout the past four decades of the "war on drugs." Real headway, however, has forever
eluded the US drug warriors, and is belied by the US government's own intelligence. In its National Drug Threat Assessment 2010 report, DOJ's
National Drug Intelligence Center concluded that "the availability of illicit drugs in the United States is increasing." That's despite increasing
drug seizures along the Southwest border, as the same DOJ drug intelligence report documents. The report states that "significantly more
marijuana" - the most widely used illegal drug and the source of most of the income of Mexico's drug trafficking organizations - is "being
smuggled into the United States from Mexico, as evidenced by the sharp rise in border seizures." The main measure of success for
counternarcotics operations - namely drug seizures - is not closely connected with drug consumption patterns. In 2009, border agents seized
nearly a half-million more kilos of marijuana than they did in 2005. The Border Patrol and ICE routinely emphasize that their operations are
"risk-based." However, the public safety and personal health risks of marijuana consumption are minimal. More than 10 percent of the US
population that is 12 years or older uses marijuana.19 Marijuana is deemed beneficial by the medical profession and is legal for medicinal use in
many states. Yet the Border Patrol persists in citing massive annual marijuana seizures as a chief indicator of its border security achievements.
Drug trafficking, dominated by illegal marijuana smuggling and distribution, is hardly benign. Drug prohibition policies combined with US
promotion and support for drug wars have greatly contributed to the rise of organized crime in producing and transit countries. This
criminalization of prohibited drugs and the militarization of counternarcotics campaigns breed horrific violence, not only among the major
crime organizations, but also among gangs at the community and neighborhood levels. Concern about the drug war to our south has provided a
new boost for those calling for total border security. Further contributing to the demands for heightened border security is alarm expressed by
many border security hawks about the purported threat of narcoterrorism, a term normally used by scholars and analysts to describe forces
that conflate drug trafficking and political ambitions. The steady decline of illegal immigrant flows across the southwest border since 2006 with Border Patrol apprehensions declining from 1.2 million in 2005 to 450,000 in 2010 - has undercut the immigration arguments of border
security hawks.20 But as the resonance of immigration-focused arguments for border security has diminished, border security demands
couched in threat assessments about spillover violence, narcoterrorism and the drug war have come to dominate border security advocacy.
Even more loosely tied to the 9/11 impetus for border security has been the "failed state" argument for fortifying the border. Organized crime
groups, which, while established to traffic drugs, have branched into an expanding array of other criminal and noncriminal operations,
increasingly threaten the viability of governance in areas of Mexico and Central America, especially in Guatemala and Honduras. Citing US
government threat assessments, many border security hawks contend that the United States is facing the prospect of having failed states as
close neighbors and argue, therefore, that increased border security is needed to protect the country against the resulting crime and
socioeconomic turmoil. The exact correlation and configuration of forces responsible for the drug-related and organized crime violence in
Mexico is difficult to discern. However, on the border, it is clear that the border security buildup contributes to the violent competition among
crime groups for control over the plazas for drug smuggling and other related crime. Increased border security on the US side means increased
public insecurity on the Mexican side and makes border crossing increasingly fraught with risk and violence. Stephen Flynn, author of "America
the Vulnerable: How Our Government is Failing to Protect Us from Terrorism," calls the resulting increased border violence the "hardened
border paradox." Flynn concluded that "stepped-up enforcement along the Mexican border suggests that U.S. efforts aimed at hardening its
borders can have the unintended consequence of creating the kind of environment that is conducive to terrorists and criminals," noting how
the increasingly fortified border in the 1990's raised the costs of getting into the United States while also creating "a demand for those who are
in the business of arranging illegal crossings." The illegality at the border in this new border security era usually refers to illegal border crossers
themselves, together with the coyotes (human smugglers/guides) and the organized crime bands that charge for illegal crossings. This border
illegality has escalated to include bandits that prey on the border crossers and on Border Patrol agents who cross their paths. Tightened control
has made illegal crossings more difficult and more expensive. It has also turned what were previously routine, nonviolent crossings into
dangerous undertakings that regularly involve dealings with criminal organizations. An indirect and certainly unintended consequence of the US
border security buildup has been the increasingly violent competition between criminal organizations and gangs as they both struggle to
maintain markets and trafficking corridors. On the US side, the border security fallout is far less grave. Indeed, across the southwestern border,
the buildup in border security infrastructure and personnel has injected new life into many border communities. Yet throughout the region, and
throughout much of the country, the undue focus on the security of the border has skewed politics, fostered vitriol and split communities into
ideological factions. Responding to the charges by border hawks that the Border Patrol's apprehension and drug seizure statistics don't
adequately measure the state of border security, Napolitano announced in early May 2011 that DHS was formulating a "new comprehensive
index that will more holistically represent what is happening at the border and allow us to measure progress." The new border security
"metrics" will for the first time include measures of border area crime as well "indicators of the impact of illegal cross-border activity on the
quality of life in the border region," such as property values, environmental impacts and traffic accidents. "Ultimately the success of our efforts
along the border," said Napolitano, "must be measured in terms of the overall security and quality of life of the border region." The everchanging and expanding concept of border security will likely foster yet more demands for border security pork in the way of increased funding
for border law enforcement and border infrastructure, regardless of what the new metrics show. The new index of border security represents a
new concession to border hawks, and is yet another example of how DHS is moving further and further away from its own central mission securing the United States and serving as an adjunct national security apparatus. The farther away we are from the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, the more DHS is prone to Orwellian redefinitions, such as translating security as safety. It has done this effectively in
immigration enforcement with its Secure Communities program. Translating border security as quality of life in the borderlands is another
dangerous case of mission creep for a new federal bureaucracy that is itself in search of meaning. Ten Years Later A border security juggernaut
swept across the Southwest borderland, leaving in its wake new fears, insecurities and alarm. As billions of dollars are spent to increase security
at the border, fear and alarm about the insecurity of the border have deepened since 9/11, along with strident demands that the government
do still more. Continuing down the same course of border security buildups, drug wars and immigration crackdowns will do nothing to increase
security or safety. It will only keep border policy on the edge - teetering without direction or strategy. Without addressing border policy in
conjunction with drug policy, the drugs we consume will continue to be the product of transborder organized crime and bloodletting south of
the border. Without addressing immigration reform, we face a future of immigrant bashing, divided communities, stalled economies and more
immigrant prisons rising up on the edges of our towns. Alarm about the rising federal budget deficit threatens an end to the customary large
annual increases for border security and immigration enforcement, even as the failures and waste accompanying those increases become more
apparent. We should welcome the new constraints on border security funding as an opportunity to allow reason and pragmatism to direct
border policy instead of fear, politics and money. Like
the ill-considered occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the
"global war against terrorism," the post-9/11 border-security buildup has drained our treasury while
doing little to increase our security. The standard of success for our border policy should not be how
completely sealed and secured our border is, but rather, how well it is regulated. New regulatory frameworks
for immigration and drug consumption are fundamental prerequisites for a more cost-effective border policy. Just as the Bush administration
launched the "global war against terrorism" and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a burst of misguided patriotism, the administration also
thrust us into a new era of "homeland" and border security with little reflection about costs and consequences. Without
a clear and
steady focus on the actual security threats, "homeland" and border security have devolved into wars
against immigrants and drugs. Instead of prioritizing intelligence and interagency communication - the
failures of which made 9/11 possible - the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration, have
mounted security-rationalized crackdowns on the border and in the interior of the "homeland." As a
result, the criminal justice system is overwhelmed, our prisons are crowded with immigrants and the
flagging "war on drugs" has been given new life at home and abroad. Absent necessary strategic reflection and
reform, the rush to achieve border security has bred dangerous insecurities about immigration and the
integrity of our border.
Border Focus Trades Off
Currently the US is over-focusing on Mexico border security—lack of focus elsewhere
AP, 6/26 (The Associated Press, "Mexico Raps US Immigration Bill on Border Security”, June 26 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/mexico-raps-us-immigration-bill-border-security19487559#.UcuLvD6gks0, //nikp)
The Mexican government objected on Tuesday to an immigration bill that appears headed for approval
in the U.S. Senate, saying the initiative's heavy focus on border security is not consistent with the
relationship between the two countries. Foreign Relations Secretary Jose Meade said that instead of
expanding a border fence, as proposed in the bill, the United States should modernize border bridges
to expedite commerce . " Fences do not unite ," Meade said while reading a statement to reporters
during a news conference where he didn't take questions "Fences are not the solution to migration and
are not consistent with a modern and secure border," he added. "They do not contribute to the
regional development both countries seek to propel." It was the first time the Mexican government
had addressed the U.S. immigration bill. The U.S. Senate could have a final vote Thursday or Friday on
the bill, which could offer a chance at citizenship for millions living in the country illegally while also
calling for beefing up border security. It would then go to the House, where conservative Republicans in
the majority oppose citizenship for anyone living in the country illegally. The measure includes adding
20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents, doubling their number along the border with Mexico, and
completing 700 miles of fencing. Meade acknowledged the bill might benefit several million Mexican
migrants living in the United States, but said measures "that could affect ties between communities
move away from the principles of shared responsibility and neighborliness."
Even if plan doesn’t eliminate illegal immigration, it allows border security to focus
efforts
Stroube 10 [Jack, Cato-At-Liberty, May 12, Bracero Guest Worker Program Model for Immigration
Reform, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/29/to-control-the-border-first-reform-immigrationlaw/]
We know from experience that expanding opportunities for legal immigration can dramatically reduce
incentives for illegal immigration. 1950s, the federal government faced widespread illegal immigration
across the Mexican In the border. In response, the government simultaneously beefed up enforcement
while greatly expanding the number of workers allowed in the country through the Bracero guestworker program. The result: Apprehensions at the border dropped by 95 percent. (For documentation,
see this excellent 2003 paper by Stuart Anderson, a Cato adjunct scholar and executive director of the
National Foundation for American Policy.)
If we want to “get control” of our border with Mexico, the smartest thing we could do would be to
allow more workers to enter the United States legally under the umbrella of comprehensive
immigration reform. Then we could focus our enforcement resources on a much smaller number of
people who for whatever reason are still operating outside the law.
US-Mexico Border Key Terrorism
The U.S–Mexican border serves as a hotspot for international terrorism
Murdock, 4/25 - Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps
Howard News Service, and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University (“The Southern
Border: Our Welcome Mat for Terrorists “, 4/25/13, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346591/southern-border-our-welcome-matterrorists)
There are at least 7,518 reasons to get the U.S./Mexican border under control. That equals the
number of aliens apprehended in fiscal year 2011 from the four nations the U.S. government labels “state
sponsors of terrorism” and ten additional “countries of interest.” Since January 2010, those flying into America via these 14 nations
face enhanced screening; as the Transportation Security Administration announced, “Effective aviation security must begin beyond our
borders.” U.S.
national security merits at least that much vigilance on our borders. The roaring
immigration-reform debate this year largely addresses Hispanic aliens who illegally cross the border.
Far more worrisome, however, are the thousands who break into America from countries “where we have concerns, particularly about
al-Qaeda affiliates,” a top State Department official told CNN. These include Cubans, Iranians, Sudanese, and
Syrians whose governments are federally designated “state sponsors of terrorism.” As indicated by the latest information in Table 34 of
Customs and Border Protection’s Immigration Yearbook 2011, 198 Sudanese were nabbed while penetrating the USA. Between FY 2002 and
2011, there were 1,207 such arrests. (These figures cover all U.S. borders, although, as Table 35 confirms, 96.3 percent of the overall detainee
population intruded from Mexico.) Like other immigrants, most Sudanese seek better lives here. But some may be vectors for the same militant
Islam that literally tore Sudan in two. In FY 2011, 108 Syrians were stopped at our borders; over ten years, the number is 1,353. Syria is a key
supporter of Hezbollah, and Bashar Assad’s unstable regime reportedly has attacked its domestic opponents with chemical weapons. As for
Iranians, 276 were caught in FY 2011, while 2,310 were captured over the previous ten years. Iran also backs Hezbollah, hates “the Great
Satan,” and craves atomic weapons. The other ten “countries of interest” are Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, and: Afghanistan: The
Taliban’s stronghold and current theater of America’s longest war. Afghans halted in FY 2011: 106. Prior ten fiscal years: 681. Nigeria: The land
of underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab suffers under sharia law in its northern provinces. Respective data: 591, 4,525. Pakistan:
Hideaway of the Pakistani Taliban and the late Osama bin Laden. 525, 10,682. Saudi Arabia: Generous benefactor of radical imams and militant
mosques worldwide; birthplace of 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers. 123, 986. Somalia: Home of Indian Ocean pirates and al-Qaeda’s alShabaab franchise. In October 1993, Islamic terrorists there shot down two Black Hawk helicopters, killed 18 U.S. soldiers, and dragged several
of their bodies through Mogadishu’s streets. 323, 1,524. At a Capitol Hill hearing last July, Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano
conceded that terrorists enter the U.S. via the U.S./Mexican border “from time to time.” The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on
Oversight last November published A Line in the Sand: Countering Crime, Violence, and Terror at the Southwest Border. As this study explained:
The Congressional Research Service reports that between September 2001 and September 2012, there have been 59 homegrown violent
jihadist plots within the United States. Of
growing concern and potentially a more violent threat to American
citizens is the enhanced ability of Middle East terrorist organizations, aided by their relationships and
growing presence in the Western Hemisphere, to exploit the Southwest border to enter the United
States undetected. A Line in the Sand offers chilling portraits of some who treat the southern border
as America’s welcome mat. • On January 11, 2011, U.S. agents discovered Said Jaziri in a car trunk trying to enter near San Diego.
Said said that he had traveled from his native Tunisia to Tijuana and paid smugglers $5,000 to sneak him across the border. The French
government previously convicted and deported Jaziri for assaulting a Muslim whom he considered insufficiently devout. In 2006, Jaziri
advocated killing Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for creating what Jaziri called sacrilegious drawings of the Prophet Mohammed. •
Somalia’s Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane told authorities in 2011 that he earned up to $75,000 per day
smuggling East Africans into America. His clients included three al-Shabaab terrorists. As the House report
states: “Dhakane cautioned that each of these individuals is ready to die for their cause and would fight against the United States if the jihad
moved from overseas to the U.S. mainland.” • On June 4, 2010, Anthony Joseph Tracy (a.k.a. Yusuf Noor) was convicted of conspiring to slip
aliens into America. Tracy told federal investigators that Cuban diplomats used his travel agency in Kenya — Noor Services Ltd. — to transfer
272 Somalis to Havana. They proceeded to Belize, through Mexico, and then trespassed into the U.S. Tracy, who converted
to Islam in prison in the 1990s, claims he refused to assist al-Shabaab. But officials discovered an e-mail in which he casually wrote: “i helped a
lot of Somalis and most are good but there are some who are bad and i leave them to ALLAH . . . ”
Terrorists will smuggle WMDs through the U.S.-Mexican border – systemic flaws
bolster the opportunity
Olson & Lee, 12 - Eric Olson serves as Associate Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars in Washington, DC. He oversees the Institute’s work on U.S.-Mexico security cooperation and research on organized crime and drug
trafficking between the U.S., Mexico, and Central America (“The State of Security in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region”, August, 2012,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Security_Olson_Lee.pdf)
During the months and years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the nation’s long and relatively porous and undefended borders,
particularly the
U.S.-Mexico border, were drawn deeply into the national conversation about national security.
Border security became part of the overall analysis and rethinking of U.S. national security
vulnerabilities, which included transportation networks and other critical infrastructure security .
Ironically, the 9/11 terrorists did not enter the United States over the northern or southern border but entered legally on student or immigrant
visas. Nevertheless, fear that U.S. borders could be vulnerable to terrorist incursions led to a number of important policy decisions. Significant
fortification of the border with additional staff, equipment, and infrastructure to make access more difficult became the principal way policymakers sought to address perceived border vulnerabilities. Along the way, these concerns
were conflated with a growing call
for restrictive immigration policy, and the so-called “sealing” of the border to keep out undocumented
migrants, criminals and to halt exploding violence in Mexico from crossing into the United States.
Despite these concerns, various public announcements (testimony, speeches, and the like) on the part of federal government officials in various
agencies state a common theme: no significant terrorist threat to the United States has materialized in Mexico nor penetrated the U.S.-Mexico
border since 2001. The State Department’s annual country reports on terrorism provide clear language to this effect. “There was no evidence of
ties between Mexican criminal organizations and terrorist groups, nor that the criminal organizations had aims of political or territorial control,
aside from seeking to protect and expand the impunity with which they conduct their criminal activity…There was no indication that terrorist
organizations used Mexico as a conduit for illicit activities.” —U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism 2010 One U.S.
government agency charged with keeping terrorists from crossing into the United States isthe United States Border Patrol, a division of the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The
U.S. Border Patrol specifically seeks to “Prevent Terrorists and
Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States.”5 It would come as no surprise to anyone with a
passing interest in border security that U.S. Border Patrol strategy, goals, objectives, and tactics are
the subject of fierce public debate. Recently, the United States Government Accountability Office
criticized the new U.S. Border Patrol Strategy in a report, “Border Patrol Strategy: Progress and Challenges in Implementation
and Assessment Efforts.” As reported by GAO, the Border Patrol finds itself in a challenging period characterized by
multiple transitions: “Border Patrol officials stated that the 2012 Strategic Plan will rely on Border Patrol and federal, state, local, tribal,
and international partners working together to use a risk-based approach to secure the border, and include the key elements of “Information,
Integration, and Rapid Response” to achieve objectives. These elements were similar to those in the 2004 Strategy and GAO’s past work
highlighted the progress and challenges the agency faced obtaining information necessary for border security; integrating security operations
with partners; and mobilizing a rapid response to security threats.” 6 In this context of ambiguity, institutional
challenges and an
overall lack of good data, precise measures of terror activity in the U.S.-Mexico border region are
difficult to come by. However, U.S. border security officials interviewed for this report stated that the primary
terrorist-related concern at the border involve Aliens from Special Interest Countries (ASIC) , nationals
from countries that are either designated state sponsors of terrorism (such as Iran) or countries where terrorist
organizations are known to operate (such as Colombia or Pakistan). The ASIC designation does not necessarily imply the person is a
terrorist, but it does subject him/her to closer scrutiny by Customs and Border Protection officials than other aliens apprehended at or between
the ports of entry. According to information from CBP, ASIC arrests by the Border Patrol increased 44 percent between
Fiscal Year 2007, when 462 arrests were made, and Fiscal Year 2010, when 663 arrests were made. During Fiscal Year 2011 the number of
arrests dropped to 380, a 43% decline when compared to 2010, and the trend lines through June, 2012 were down another 32%. The
majority of these arrests occur on the Southwest border, including 193 reported between January and June 2012 (see
Table 1 below). The data available seems to indicate that ASIC reports—including those made on the Southwest border— are in decline. The
authors of this report are unaware if any of these cases have resulted in specific terrorrelated investigations, although there was one publicly
reported case involving a Somaliman in Texas that allegedly involved links to Al-Shabab. Nevertheless, public statements provided by the U.S.
intelligence community and the Department of State suggest that risks are of a potential rather than actual nature (documented and verified).
In its 2010 Terrorist Threat Assessment for Mexico, the Department of State notes that, “There was no evidence of ties between Mexican
criminal organizations and terrorist groups, nor that the criminal organizations had aims of political or territorial control, aside from seeking to
protect and expand the impunity with which they conduct their criminal activity.” According to the Department of Justice, however, “the
threat of terrorism exists wherever criminals regularly exploit gaps in homeland security. Terrorists
could conceivably attempt to enter the United States or smuggle weapons of mass destruction across
the Southwest Border by utilizing routes and methods established by drug and alien smugglers.”
Terrorists will target the U.S. via the Mexican border
Shane, 10 - Scott Shane is an American journalist, currently employed by The New York Times, reporting principally about the United
States intelligence community (“Cold War Nuclear Fears Now Apply to Terrorists”, April 15th, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/world/16memo.html)
WASHINGTON — The top secret National Intelligence Estimate did not mince words. The
United States faced an enemy with
“no scruples about employing any weapon or tactic,” it said, and nuclear weapons smuggled across
porous borders threatened to devastate American cities. Sleeper cells, the document warned, might already
be inside the country. Or so the Central Intelligence Agency told President Harry S. Truman. The year was 1951. It has become
conventional wisdom, repeated by President Obama at the nuclear summit meeting this week, that the cold war danger of huge
strikes by thousands of nuclear missiles has given way to a new threat: terrorists killing tens of
thousands of Americans with a stolen or homemade nuclear device. A broad range of security experts
agree that nuclear terrorism may well be the most serious danger the United States faces today. But it is
not new. In fact, almost from the invention of the atomic bomb, government officials were alarmed by the
threat that compact nukes would be smuggled into the United States by Soviet agents and detonated.
“Officials regard the possibility of atomic sabotage as the gravest threat of subversion that this
country, with its virtually unpatrolled borders, has ever faced,” The New York Times reported in 1953, telling readers that the
Eisenhower administration was preparing to alert the public to the danger from “valise bombs.” Hundreds of pages of declassified
documents from the 1950s, obtained by The New York Times from the F.B.I. under the Freedom of Information Act, lay out a
strikingly familiar story, in which Communist agents played the role of today’s Al Qaeda. Then, as now,
investigators searched for agents they feared were in the United States awaiting orders to attack. Then, too, the government spent millions to
install radiation detectors at airports and seaports despite doubts about their effectiveness. (In those days, false nuclear alarms were set off by
radium watch dials, once hidden in a woman’s corset.) Nor
is the worry in recent years about nuclear material
crossing the permeable Mexican border new. An F.B.I. memo from 1953 warned that “a saboteur could easily
pose as a Mexican ‘wetback’ and get into the country without detection, presumably carrying an atomic
weapon in his luggage.” Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has written on nuclear history, said: “The
fear of a clandestine nuclear attack on American soil goes back to the very beginning of the nuclear
era. There’s certainly nothing new here, even if they didn’t call it terrorism back in the ’50s.”
Specifically, Al-Queda will target the border as a staging area for WMDs
Zagorin, 4 – not Edmund Zagorin – I know, I wish it was too – it didn’t say ontology enough- **Adam Zagorin focuses on investigations
primarily involving national security and violations of securities laws. Zagorin has written reports for POGO on security risks surrounding the
protection of U.S. diplomatic and other facilities abroad, links between a major U.S. military contractor and Iran, and enforcement issues at the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Prior to joining POGO, he was a Senior Correspondent at TIME magazine in Washington, DC (“Cold War
Nuclear Fears Now Apply to Terrorists”, April 15h, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/world/16memo.html)
A key al-Qaeda operative seized in Pakistan recently offered an alarming account of the group's
potential plans to target the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction, senior U.S. security officials tell TIME. Sharif al-Masri,
an Egyptian who was captured in late August near Pakistan's border with Iran and Afghanistan, has told his interrogators of "alQaeda's interest in moving nuclear materials from Europe to either the U.S. or Mexico," according to a report
circulating among U.S. government officials. Masri also said al-Qaeda has considered plans to "smuggle nuclear
materials to Mexico, then operatives would carry material into the U.S.," according to the report, parts of which
were read to TIME. Masri says his family, seeking refuge from al-Qaeda hunters, is now in Iran. Masri's account, though unproved, has
added to already heightened U.S. concerns about Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge met publicly with top
Mexican officials last week to discuss border security and smuggling rings that could be used to slip al-Qaeda terrorists
into the country. Weeks prior to Ridge's lightning visit, U.S. and Mexican intelligence conferred about reports from
several al-Qaeda detainees indicating the potential use of Mexico as a staging area "to acquire endstage chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material ." U.S. officials have begun to keep a closer eye on heavytruck traffic across the border. The Mexicans will also focus on flight schools and aviation facilities on their side of the frontier. And another
episode has some senior U.S. officials worried: the theft of a crop-duster aircraft south of San Diego, apparently by three men from southern
Mexico who assaulted a watchman and then flew off in a southerly direction.
Terrorism likely by exploiting the US-Mexico border – studies prove
Murdock, 13 (Deroy Murdock, a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor, a nationally syndicated
columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War,
Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University, Senior Fellow with the Atlas Economic Research
Foundation, a Distinguished Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research; and an advisory
board member of the Cato Institute Project on Social Security Choice, and a member of the American
Council on Germany, the American-Swiss Foundation, and the Council on Foreign Relations, “The
Southern Border: Our Welcome Mat for Terrorists”, April 25 2013, National Review Online,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346591/southern-border-our-welcome-mat-terrorists, //nikp)
At a Capitol Hill hearing last July, Homeland
Security secretary Janet Napolitano conceded that terrorists enter
the U.S. via the U.S./Mexican border “from time to time.” The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight
last November published A Line in the Sand: Countering Crime, Violence, and Terror at the Southwest Border. As this study explained: The
Congressional Research Service reports that between
September 2001 and September 2012, there have been 59
homegrown violent jihadist plots within the United States. Of growing concern and potentially a more violent
threat to American citizens is the enhanced ability of Middle East terrorist organizations, aided by
their relationships and growing presence in the Western Hemisphere, to exploit the Southwest border
to enter the United States undetected. A Line in the Sand offers chilling portraits of some who treat the southern border as
America’s welcome mat. • On January 11, 2011, U.S. agents discovered Said Jaziri in a car trunk trying to enter near
San Diego. Said said that he had traveled from his native Tunisia to Tijuana and paid smugglers $5,000 to sneak him across the border. The
French government previously convicted and deported Jaziri for assaulting a Muslim whom he considered insufficiently devout. In 2006, Jaziri
advocated killing Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for creating what Jaziri called sacrilegious drawings of the Prophet Mohammed. •
Somalia’s Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane told authorities in 2011 that he earned up to $75,000 per day
smuggling East Africans into America. His clients included three al-Shabaab terrorists. As the House report
states: “Dhakane cautioned that each of these individuals is ready to die for their cause and would fight
against the United States if the jihad moved from overseas to the U.S. mainland.” • On June 4, 2010, Anthony
Joseph Tracy (a.k.a. Yusuf Noor) was convicted of conspiring to slip aliens into America. Tracy told federal
investigators that Cuban diplomats used his travel agency in Kenya — Noor Services Ltd. — to transfer 272 Somalis to Havana. They proceeded
to Belize, through Mexico, and then trespassed into the U.S. Tracy, who converted to Islam in prison in the 1990s, claims he refused to assist alShabaab. But officials discovered an e-mail in which he casually wrote: “i helped a lot of Somalis and most are good but there are some who are
bad and i leave them to ALLAH . . . ” And
remember: These anecdotes and statistics involve individuals whom
authorities intercepted. No details exist about aliens from these countries who successfully have
infiltrated America.
Illegal Immigration Key Terrorism
Illegal immigration distracts focus from terrorism threats
Barry 11 (Tom Barry, June 2011, Director for the TransBorder project at the Center for International
Policy in Wash. DC “POLICY ON THE EDGE FAILURES OF BORDER SECURITY AND NEW DIRECTIONS FOR
BORDERCONTROL”
http://www.ciponline.org/images/uploads/publications/Barry_IPR_Policy_Edge_Border_Control_0611.p
df MB)
MUDDLING OF IMMIGRANTS AND TERRORISTS In his book The Closing of the American Border, Edward Alden noted, “The muddling of
counterterrorism and immigration enforcement is the single biggest mistake we’ve made since 9/11.”
By mixing border control, immigration regulation and counterterrorism, DHS preempted the
possibility of maintaining a sharp focus on foreign and domestic terrorism threats. While spending most of
its resources on immigrant- and drug-related enforcement, DHS failed to mount the intelligence
operations needed to track the rise of domestic terrorists and has not functioned as a much-needed
clearinghouse for domestic and foreign counterterrorism intelligence. Not only has its counterterrorism mission
suffered from this muddling, but by lumping together immigrants and prospective terrorists, DHS has played a
central role in demonizing both legal and illegal immigrants. By doing so it must accept major responsibility for the
nation’s failure to address immigration and border issues fairly and reasonably. This muddling also accounts for the waste of federal homeland
security resources and empowers border politicians like Texas Governor Rick Perry and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, together with allied
border sheriffs, to mount their own border security operations and immigration crackdowns. There’s no denying that a prospective terrorist
might attempt sneaking across the southwestern border. But it is unlikely, and has not yet happened. Terrorists, like those involved in the
September 11 attacks, are much more likely to enter with visas as tourists, students or workers. Any
illegal border crossing by
terrorists would be much more likely to occur on the vast largely unpatrolled northern border, where
a large sum of cash could all but guarantee a safe crossing. A northern entry would also avoid the harsh conditions and
the pervasive crime of the southwestern border. To regard the southwestern border as the “frontline against
terrorism,” as the Border Patrol does, is folly. weapons that have penetrated the overseas frontlines of defense by U.S. and foreign
intelligence agencies. As counterterrorism experts agree, good intelligence is the key to a successful anti-terrorism
strategy.
Terrorism Impacts
Terrorist attack causes extinction- they have incentive, technology, and its inevitable
WEF 12 (World Economic Forum, July 11, 2012, nonprofit organization made up of international
political leaders/intellectuals. http://reports.weforum.org/global-agenda-council2012/councils/nuclear-biological-chemical-weapons/ )
In addition, regional tensions in politically troubled areas can undermine legal norms and treaties,
especially when the perception of a threat to national security becomes a justification for the pursuit
of WMD capability. Concerns about secret nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea continue to raise questions about
whether non-proliferation norms can hold, as they must, for the sake of global security. Current events in the Middle East provide
a vivid illustration of the risks associated with WMD proliferation. Libya had given up chemical weapons, but
throughout 2011 there were uncertainties about the remnants of its arsenal. Syria may have the largest operational chemical stockpile in the
region, and the regime could use it against its own population. In the event of civil war or other political breakdown, Syria’s chemical weapons
could fall into the hands of terrorists or be transferred to other countries. Dwarfing these potential crises is the Iranian nuclear problem, which
is connected to the most strategic issues of our time: nuclear proliferation; the right of any state to enjoy nuclear energy; the risk of nuclear
accidents; terrorism and religious fundamentalism; sectarian conflicts; and access to crucial oil and gas supplies. Whether triggered by Iran or
another nation, a big crisis in the Persian Gulf has the potential to threaten the fragile global economic recovery by sharply elevating energy
costs for weeks, months, or even longer. The Risks of Terrorism through WMD: After the end of the Cold War, the
use of WMD by
terrorists emerged as a significant new threat and an important policy issue. “Loose nukes”, poorly
monitored chemical stockpiles, technological diffusion, the complexities of global manufacture, and
advances in science, could all be exploited for hostile purposes by groups or individuals operating
outside the law. Thus far, the unfamiliarity of terrorists with WMD technology and logistics seems to be a barrier to their use, but the
intent of some to overcome this impediment cannot be discounted. Before the sarin attack in Tokyo in 1995, its lead
biologist experimented with anthrax spores released against public targets, attempts which failed for technical reasons only. As another
example, according to an intensive FBI investigation, a lone US military scientist launched the 2001 anthrax letter attacks, killing victims and
creating mass havoc. Other terrorists groups, notably Al Qaeda, have declared their desire to acquire WMD technology and some have made
attempts to do so. President Barack Obama has stated that “the
single biggest threat to US security, in the short,
medium and long term, is the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon”. In
the short and long term, the economic consequences of a terrorist nuclear attack would be
calamitous. A study by the RAND corporation estimated that, if a nuclear weapon were detonated in a US port, the
direct immediate economic costs to the global economy could reach US$ 1 trillion. Council members agreed
that even if nuclear weapons remain out of the reach of terrorists, inexpensive and more technically feasible weapons may
prove accessible. For example, a low-casualty radiological “dirty bomb” attack, or a biological or chemical
event, could have disastrous consequences. Some analysts have asserted that the catastrophic use of such
weapons is almost inevitable in the near future . The 2003 spread of the naturally-caused SARS virus, which originated in
China, demonstrated the calamitous international consequences that the intentional spread of a similarly dangerous disease might have. In
recent months, US-funded projects intended to improve defences against the H5N1 bird flu have raised concerns about the vulnerability of
laboratories conducting research on lethal emerging infectious diseases to accident or theft. Even apparently minor, or successfully contained,
bioterrorist incidents can do great damage. Over the years, the 2001 anthrax letter attacks have cost billions in building decontamination,
business relocation, lost working hours, opportunity costs, US mail shortfalls, compensatory law suits, and a lengthy criminal investigation. In
the aftermath of the attacks, the US Government invested even more billions in biodefence initiatives to protect the public against similar
terrorist microbial attacks.
Terrorist attacks disrupt the supply chain
Meade and Molander 6 (Charles, and Roger, August 16th, 2006, reporter for the RAND corporation.
“Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack”
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR391.pdf )
Economic Implications in the Weeks and Months After the Attack The early costs of the Long Beach
scenario could exceed $1 trillion, driven by outlay for medical care, insurance claims, workers’
compensation, evacuation, and construction. The $50 billion to $100 billion for 9/11 puts this figure into
perspective. In general, consequences would far outstrip the resources available to cope with them. In
addition, over time, the economic effects of the catastrophe are likely to spread far beyond the initial
attack, reaching a national and even international scale. Decisionmakers would face two particularly
difficult challenges: keeping the global shipping supply chain operating and restoring orderly
economic relationships. Keeping the Global Shipping Supply Chain Operating In the aftermath of the
attack, different stakeholder groups affected might have differing interests. Consequently, their
decisions might often be at odds. How to contend with such con- flicting interests is the key challenge
for policymakers. In terms of global shipping, the main tension might be between the political aim of
preventing a future attack and the business interest in seeing that U.S. ports and the global shipping
supply chain continue to operate. The only way to completely mitigate the risk of a second strike
would be to close all U.S. ports and suspend all imports indefinitely. This would be the national
security community’s likely position. Yet in business terms, this position would be untenable. The loss
of the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles alone, which handle 30 percent of U.S. shipping imports,
would already be substantial. All U.S. ports combined carry out 7.5 percent of world trade activity.
Accordingly, the business community would likely call for ports to stay open, or to reopen as early as
possible. But harsh realities facing the financial and real estate communities might prove a barrier. The
Long Beach attack might cripple an insurance industry struggling to absorb massive losses from claims.
Insurance would be in tremendously short supply—particularly for terrorist and nuclear risks. Without
it, ports and related infrastructure could not operate. Further complicating the issue is the high
probability that people would flee port cities, severely depleting local labor supplies. Given these
conditions, all U.S. ports would likely close indefinitely or operate at a substantially reduced level
following the attack. This would severely disrupt the availability of basic goods and petroleum
throughout the country
Yes Nuclear Terrorism
Nuclear terrorism is very likely – no barriers, no lack of motive, high risks, enormous
consequences
Goodspeed, 12 (Peter Goodspeed, Senior Reporter of International Affairs at the National Post,
“Nuclear terror threat; A 'dirty bomb' could make cities uninhabitable, destroy global economy”, March
24 2012, National Post, Full Comment, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/24/preventingdevastating-nuclear-terrorist-attack-aim-of-world-leaders-meeting/, //nikp)
Six months after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorists attacks on New York, Henry Kelly, then president
of the Federation of American
Scientists, warned U.S. leaders there may be worse to come. "Recent events make it necessary to take almost inconceivably evil
acts seriously," he told members of the U.S. Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. In a calm, determined voice he described the threat posed by
nuclear terrorism - a risk so grave it looms over a today summit of 53 world leaders that opens in Seoul, South Korea, Monday. Terrorists
or a rogue state may some day acquire a nuclear weapon and threaten to kill millions of people in a
single devastating blow, he said. But the greater risk comes from a malicious radiological attack or "dirty
bomb" that uses common industrial or commercial nuclear material to create panic, threaten the
health of thousands over a prolonged period, make entire cities uninhabitable, cause billions of
dollars in damage and destroy the global economy. Mr. Kelly outlined what would happen if terrorists exploded a
bomb, containing a single, 12 inch-long, piece of radioactive cobalt taken from a food irradiation plant, at the lower tip
of Manhattan, near the former World Trade Center. "An area of approximately one-thousand square kilometres, extending over three
states, would be contaminated," he said. "Over an area of about three hundred typical city blocks, there would be a one-in-ten risk of death from
cancer for residents living in the contaminated area for forty years." "The entire borough of Manhattan would be so contaminated that
anyone living there would have a one-in-a hundred chance of dying from cancer caused by the residual
radiation. It would be decades before the city was inhabitable again, and demolition might be
necessary." On Monday, the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit, the largest gathering of world leaders since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, aims to
create a global system that will deny terrorists access to nuclear materials through improved security, decreased use of potent materials, enhanced regulatory and
export controls, increased intelligence sharing, expanded use of radiation detectors and improved disposal and recycling of nuclear material. A follow-up meeting to
a nuclear summit, convened by U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington in 2010, the Seoul meeting is tightly focused on keeping nuclear weapons and
radiological materials out of the hands of terrorists. It will deal only tangentially, in sideline discussions, with nuclear proliferation threats posed by countries such as
Iran and North Korea. But the threat of devastating death and destruction will still dominate the talks. "We believe the
potential for nuclear
terrorism remains high ," said Page Stoutland, vice-president for nuclear security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington-based think-tank.
"There are currently thousands of tons of nuclear materials in the world and those materials today are
stored at hundreds of sites in over 30 countries." he said. "Some of those sites are well secured. Many are not,
leaving weapons-usable nuclear materials vulnerable to theft or sale on the black market to terrorist
organizations. "The elements of a perfect storm are in place: an ample supply of weapons-usable
nuclear materials , an expansion of the knowledge and technical know-how to build a crude nuclear
bomb accessible by the Internet or through rogue scientists and the determination of terrorists
organizations to do it." The single greatest nuclear threat remains terrorists acquiring nuclear
weapons. Scientists have estimated that, if detonated at New York's Grand Central Station, a ten-kiloton bomb (two-thirds the
yield of the world's first nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima) would kill over 500,000 people immediately, injure hundreds of
thousands more, permanently destroy most of Lower Manhattan and force the evacuation of all of New York City. Damage
would be in the trillions of dollars. "A nuclear attack would be among the most difficult types of attacks for terrorists to accomplish," concludes
a report prepared by Harvard University's Project on Managing the Atom. But, with the necessary fissile materials, "a capable and
well organized terrorist group plausibly could make, deliver and detonate at least a crude nuclear
bomb capable of incinerating the heart of any major city in the world." The amounts needed to build a
crude nuclear bomb are small. With an efficient implosion design, a baseball-sized lump of plutonium weighing as little as four kilograms or a
softball-sized lump of highly enriched uranium weighing 12 kilograms would be enough. To build a less efficient, but still devastating, gun-type bomb, terrorists
would need 48 to 60 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. " There
is an immense difference between the difficulty of making
safe, reliable weapons for use in a missile or combat aircraft and making crude, unsafe, unreliable weapons for
delivery by truck," said Matthew Bunn, a professor at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. " With highly
enriched uranium, a gun-type bomb - like the one that obliterated Hiroshima - is very plausibly within the capabilities
of a sophisticated terrorist group," he said. With weapons-usable nuclear material stored in hundreds of
buildings in dozens of countries, under security situations that range from very stringent to virtually
nonexistent, the risk of terrorists acquiring bomb-making materials remains great. " Theft of only
0.01% of the world stockpile could cause a global catastrophe ," Mr. Bunn said. And terrorists have shown a
definite interest in obtaining the materials needed to make both nuclear fusion and radioactive dirty
bombs. Before he was killed last May, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda had spent a decade trying to obtain nuclear weapons and may already have experimented
with limited quantities of nuclear material. In 1998, as Russia reeled from an economic crisis, officials uncovered a conspiracy in which insiders at one of Russia's
largest nuclear weapons facilities tried to steal 18.5 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Just last June, officials in Moldavia arrested six people for smuggling 4.4
grams of weapons-grade uranium as part of a plot to sell up to nine kilograms of highly enriched uranium on the black market for $31-million. The Russian
ringleader of the group is still at large and, according to news reports, may still have as much as a kilogram of uranium. In 2007, a group of attackers came within a
breath of stealing the ingredients for a nuclear bomb, when they launched a midnight raid on South Africa's Pelindaba nuclear research centre, just west of Pretoria.
South Africa developed nuclear weapons in 1979 and became the only state in the world to voluntarily abandon their nuclear arsenal in 1991. But the country still
stores enough weapons-grade material for 25 nuclear bombs at the Pelindaba site. On November 8, 2007, two teams of armed, well-trained men attacked
Pelindaba from two different directions. They deactivated several layers of security, including a 10,000 volt electrical fence, and entered the facility's control centre,
where they shot a security guard, who still managed to trip an alarm. The attackers fled before they were able to take any nuclear material. But they spent 45
minutes alone inside the nuclear centre and have never been caught. Existing
nuclear weapons stocks in countries like Pakistan,
threatened by terrorism, corruption and jihadist radicals, or Russia, which still boasts the world's largest stockpile
of tactical nuclear weapons, are always under threat. But it is radioactive material, the heart of any "dirty
bomb," stored in thousands of nuclear power plants, research reactors, hospitals, laboratories, blood banks, factories and food
processing plants around the world that may be most vulnerable to terrorists . "In the United States, a radioactive source is
which is
lost, stolen or missing about once a day," said Charles Ferguson, current president of the Federation of American Scientists. Khammar Mrabit, head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency's Office of Nuclear Security, said he investigates roughly 200 incidents of improperly secured nuclear material each year. " The
threat of malicious radiological attack is quite real, quite serious and deserves a vigorous response ," Mr.
Kelly warned 10 years ago in the aftermath of Sept. 11. "We must face the brutal reality that no technological remedies
can provide complete confidence that we are safe ," he said. "Determined malicious groups might still find
a way to use radiological weapons when their only goal is killing innocent people. "
Yes nuclear terrorism – experts – they don’t assume dirty bombs followed by US
escalation
Chibarirwe 7/7 Anthony Chibarirwe; “IAEA Chief Warns of Threat of Nuclear Terrorism;” July 7, 2013;
theTrumpet.com http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10787.19.0.0/world/terrorism/iaea-chief-warnsof-threat-of-nuclear-terrorism RMJ
At a conference on enhancing global nuclear security efforts, the director general of the United Nations International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, warned of the possibility of terrorist attacks involving
radioactive material. The conference, held at the organization’s headquarters in Vienna last Monday, was attended by over 1,300
delegates from 120 countries and 20 international and regional organizations. Amano’s chief concern was the potential use of a
crude nuclear device—a “dirty bomb,” as it’s often called. Such a bomb may not necessarily be a weapon of “mass destruction”
but rather of “mass disruption.” Experts believe dirty bombs are much more likely to be detonated than actual nuclear
bombs because of the relative ease in obtaining radioactive materials . How serious is the threat of crude radioactive
bombs? To answer that question, Amano referred to a foiled smuggling and trafficking incident in Moldova two years ago. The smugglers had
tried to avoid detection by using special radiation shields, showing “a worrying level of knowledge.” The case ended well, but “unfortunately,”
said Amano, “we cannot be sure if such cases are just the tip of the iceberg.” Every
year, the IAEA receives hundreds of
reports of thefts and unauthorized activities involving radioactive materials. While there hasn’t yet been a
terrorist attack involving nuclear bombs or dirty bombs, Amano
cautioned: “[T]his must not lull us into a false sense of
security. If a ‘dirty bomb’ is detonated in a major city, or sabotage occurs at a nuclear facility, the
consequences could be devastating. The threat of nuclear terrorism is real, and the global nuclear
security system needs to be strengthened in order to counter that threat.” George Moore, a senior IAEA analyst
from 2007 to 2012, noted that “many experts believe it’s only a matter of time before a dirty bomb or another type of radioactive dispersal
device is used, with some expressing surprise that it hasn’t happened already.” The destruction and disruption that could be caused by dirty
bombs can be seen in the fairly simple pressure cooker bombs that paralyzed Boston in April. As our article “Death by a Thousand Cuts” noted,
the Boston bombing cost three lives as well as hundreds of millions of dollars. Makeshift radioactive bombs could be similarly costly. Cleaning
up nuclear contamination could take months, and for some buildings, decontamination could be a greater challenge than to destroy and
rebuild. As unpleasant as this reality is, the fact of the matter is that the
world remains vulnerable to nuclear terrorism,
and the United States, Britain and Israel face the greatest risk. These nations have enemies determined to
destroy them, or at least cripple them structurally or economically. Some of these foes are undeterred
by religion, morals or death. For some, what they perceive happening after death actually motivates them.
Terrorists can get nukes- they exploit security gaps and have incentive
Brill and Luongo 12 (KENNETH C. BRILL and KENNETH N. LUONGO, March 15, 2012, Kenneth C. Brill
is a former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A.Kenneth N. Luongo is president of the Partnership for Global
Security. Both are members of the Fissile Material Working Group, a nonpartisan nongovernmental
organization. “Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-clear-danger.html?_r=0 MB )
Terrorists exploit gaps in security. The current global regime for protecting the nuclear materials that
terrorists desire for their ultimate weapon is far from seamless. It is based largely on unaccountable,
voluntary arrangements that are inconsistent across borders. Its weak links make it dangerous and
inadequate to prevent nuclear terrorism. Later this month in Seoul, the more than 50 world leaders who will gather for the
second Nuclear Security Summit need to seize the opportunity to start developing an accountable regime to prevent nuclear terrorism. There is
the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, not a Hollywood confection.
President Obama, the leaders of 46 other nations, the heads of the International Atomic Energy Agency
and the United Nations, and numerous experts have called nuclear terrorism one of the most serious
threats to global security and stability. It is also preventable with more aggressive action. At least four
terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, have demonstrated interest in using a nuclear device. These
groups operate in or near states with histories of questionable nuclear security practices. Terrorists
a consensus among international leaders that
do not need to steal a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to make an improvised nuclear device from
highly enriched uranium or plutonium being used for civilian purposes. And there is a black market in
such material. There have been 18 confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable nuclear material . In 2011,
the Moldovan police broke up part of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one
member is thought to remain at large with a kilogram of this material . A terrorist nuclear explosion
could kill hundreds of thousands, create billions of dollars in damages and undermine the global
economy. Former Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear
terrorism “would thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty” and create “a second death toll
throughout the developing world.” Surely after such an event, global leaders would produce a strong
global system to ensure nuclear security. There is no reason to wait for a catastrophe to build such a
system. The conventional wisdom is that domestic regulations, U.N. Security Council resolutions, G-8
initiatives, I.A.E.A. activities and other voluntary efforts will prevent nuclear terrorism. But existing
global arrangements for nuclear security lack uniformity and coherence.
AT: Terrorism = Low Probability
Probability models for border security terror are flawed- default to magnitude
Rosenblum et al 13 (February 21, 2013. Marc R. Rosenblum , Specialist in Immigration Policy ,
Jerome P. Bjelopera, Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism , Kristin M. Finklea , Specialist in
Domestic Security, From the Congressional Research Service. “Border Security: Understanding Threats
at U.S. Borders”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42969.pdf MB)
Understanding Border Threats The likelihood-times-consequences framework is a standard way to evaluate
risk, but the use of such a framework to understand border threats presents unique challenges and
therefore remains somewhat controversial.95 Even where such models are well developed, as in industrial engineering and the insurance and
finance industries for example,
risk projections are probabilistic and may have a high degree of uncertainty.
Predicting the likelihood of border threats may be far more difficult. Moreover, traditional risk
management approaches were designed as unilateral decision systems. Yet when it comes to border
security, risk models must accommodate strategic adversaries:96 threat actors like terrorists , criminals,
and unauthorized migrants, who may change their behavior in response to U.S. defenses, making likelihood
even more difficult to predict. In addition, whereas traditional risk models are designed primarily to measure economic and
physical consequences of certain events, the consequences of border threats may affect American society in much
more complex ways; and the evaluation of such consequences is likewise more complex. The remainder of this report explores these
challenges, and then uses the likelihood-times-consequences approach to assess selected border threats. Estimating the Likelihood of Border
Threats DHS defines likelihood as the “chance of something happening, whether defined, measured or estimated objectively or subjectively, or
in terms of general descriptors (such as rare, unlikely, likely, almost certain), frequencies, or probabilities.”97 In general, there are two main
approaches to estimating likelihood: based on observations of historical trends (past frequency), which may be used to calculate the probability
that an event will occur, or based on analytic predictions about expected frequencies. Both approaches confront certain limits, however. How
often a particular threat event has actually occurred within a given time period can be defined as its frequency. Over the long run, the
frequency with which an event occurs may be used to estimate its probability, as scientists do, for example, in describing (based on previous
observation) the probability that a category 5 hurricane will occur in a given year.98 For certain types of border threats, analysts may have
historical data that allow them to describe such frequencies. In the case of unauthorized migration, for example, CBP and the legacy
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have used apprehensions of unauthorized migrants by the border patrol as a proxy to estimate
unauthorized inflows.99 Analysts also use U.S. Census data to estimate the stock of unauthorized migrants within the United States.100
Apprehensions and survey data also may offer insight into illegal drug flows, in this case by analyzing drug seizures and data on the availability
of illegal drugs within the United States.101 Yet deriving probabilities from historical observations is problematic. On
a basic level, how exactly should illegal flows be counted? Historical frequencies may focus on illegal incidents— the number of illegal
crossings—or on quantities, such as the number of individual migrants, or pounds (or tons) of illegal drugs or contraband.
A given threat
such as drug smuggling or illegal migration does not occur with equal frequency along all parts of the border,
but varies between the Southwest versus the Northern and coastal borders, as well as among different portions of the
Southwest border and by mode of entry (air, land, or sea). More importantly, measures of past frequencies are only of known
frequencies and not actual flows. For instance, while data from the National Seizure System indicate that over 1.7 million kilograms of illegal
drugs were seized along the Southwest border in 2010,102 this is not indicative of the total amount of illicit drugs smuggled across the
Southwest border and into the United States for that time period. Estimates
of successful illegal inflows—whether of illegal
just that: estimates. Learning from past history is even
more problematic when it comes to rare events like attempted terrorist attacks. Probability models
drugs, unauthorized migrants, or some other illicit flow—are
based on historical frequencies are poorly equipped to describe one-in-a-million chances , or to
distinguish between, say, chances that are one-in-amillion versus one-in-a-billion or one-in-onehundred-thousand.103 Especially when combined with the fact that the stakes may be high, as in the
case of terrorism, rare event probability models may not be sufficiently accurate to generate
quantitative predictions about the probability of a future incident.104 Partly for this reason, the intelligence
community often describes likelihood in terms of qualitative ranges, such as “remote,” “unlikely,” “probable,” etc.105 More generally,
historical analysis is limited because “past performance is no guarantee of future results.” Changes to
the underlying model may invalidate long-term probabilities. Scientists use long-term frequencies to calculate the
probability of severe weather, for example; but some people believe that rising temperatures and sea level may have altered climate dynamics
so that probability models describing “500-year” floods and “100-year” storms may no longer be accurate. Similarly, some social scientists
believe labor market and demographic changes in the United States and migration countries of origin, along with the decades-long escalation in
U.S. enforcement, may have fundamentally altered regional immigration dynamics.
Even if threat of nuclear terrorism is low, a small risk outweighs everything
Levi and Zenko, 12 (Michael Levi and Micah Zenko, fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations,
“Nuclear terror threat goes 'POOF'; We're losing focus on a danger with unimaginable consequences.
We can still stop it.”, October 29 2012, USA Today, Columnist,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/28/column-nuclear-terror-goes-poof/1664299/,
//nikp)
Post-9/11 focus In the years that followed, Bush
pumped money and diplomatic muscle into efforts to secure
nuclear weapons and materials around the world. Barack Obama, upon entering office, seized on
nuclear terrorism as a priority , turbocharging previous initiatives and launching a series of Nuclear
Security Summits to galvanize global efforts to prevent it. Yet if the recent debates are any indication, the cycle of shock
and trance is setting in again, as politicians and the public tire of worrying about the threat. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney
referred to it obliquely Monday night when he claimed that Russia is abandoning Nunn-Lugar, a core U.S. program aimed at securing nuclear
materials. Obama quickly asserted
that it would be "unacceptable" to allow Iran "to be able to provide
nuclear technology to non-state actors" and then moved on. This is a far cry for the attention that
nuclear terrorism received in the past. Crying 'wolf'? This can partly be explained by excessive hype about the
possibility that terrorists might acquire nuclear arms , particularly prominent in the years after 9/11. With no attack in the
years since, some might be tempted to recall the boy who cried wolf. That has made warnings about nuclear terrorism
less powerful today. But one needn't believe that a nuclear attack is probable to conclude that it should be a top-tier priority.
Nuclear terrorism, however unlikely , is one of the few prospects that could truly devastate the USA .
An atomic bomb detonated in a crowded downtown area could kill hundreds of thousands of
Americans promptly. On this scale, no other threat -- such as fears of a cyber Pearl Harbor or ongoing
turmoil in the Middle East -- compares . Act now The good news is that there are still steps that the U.S. and
the world can take to reduce the odds of a catastrophic attack. The United States should work with the
thirty-four countries that still have weapons-useable nuclear materials to remove those whenever possible.
It should help others reduce the risk that corrupt or extremist workers at nuclear facilities could
divert any dangerous materials that remain. The next president should also broker a new agreement with Russia
to build on the gains of the past 20 years in securing the former Soviet arsenal. The threat of nuclear terrorism has
diminished markedly over the past decade, but it has not been eliminated . The next U.S. president will still face a vital challenge
that he cannot ignore. Michael Levi and Micah Zenko are fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations.
AT: Terrorists Don’t Have Nukes
Reject their evidence- probability studies in the context of immigration are flawed
Rosenblum et al 13 (February 21, 2013. Marc R. Rosenblum , Specialist in Immigration Policy ,
Jerome P. Bjelopera, Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism , Kristin M. Finklea , Specialist in
Domestic Security, From the Congressional Research Service. “Border Security: Understanding Threats
at U.S. Borders”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42969.pdf MB)
Likelihood as Expected Frequency An argument can be made that historical frequency—how many terrorists
traversed the U.S. border in 2010, for example—fails to capture the likelihood of certain border threats.
Frequency only attempts to measure events that have occurred in the past. But how can the likelihood
of a dreaded event such as the smuggling of WMD into the United States be evaluated if it has few
precedents or is unprecedented? And even where a track record exists, as with unauthorized migration and illegal drugs and other
contraband, what can be done to increase the accuracy of estimated probabilities? The observations of past frequencies may be supplemented
with analysis by subject field experts to make more informed predictions about the expected frequency of future events. With respect to the
threat of terrorism, for example, federal law enforcement and intelligence analysts help estimate the likelihood of a terrorist attack. This
involves many factors aside from historical frequency, such as probing and evaluating the motives of threat actors, their organizational
structures, and their capabilities, as well as estimating the impact of broad social, political, or economic forces on these actors. Intelligence
analysts and others may look at similar data to estimate the future likelihood of illegal drug flows and other contraband, and social scientists (as
well as analysts) may examine market and social forces to model future migration flows. A key component in these processes is the
development of indicators or milestones to warn of increased likelihood. For example, indicators may be used to evaluate whether a specific
terrorist group is coming closer to realizing its plans to smuggle operatives into the United States. In such a scenario, milestones may include
evidence of the group’s efforts to recruit document forgers or specialists with experience smuggling people into the United States. One scholar
has suggested that “Warning seeks to turn a mystery—‘Are they going to attack?’—into a puzzle by identifying indicators along the path to war
and then monitoring them.”106 Ideally, as indicators are met (or not), the chances of an attack are reevaluated and updated. Analysts use
established analytical processes to gauge likelihood as new information rolls in about the targets they study.10 Yet models
of illegal
flows also are characterized by uncertainty, meaning that analysts never know precisely what data to
look for. To be useful as a threat indicator, information must be valid relative to the threat being analyzed—that is, it must relate to the
actual evolution of the threat. Indicators also should be reliably and consistently observable, and the earlier they are visible in the evolution of a
threat, the more valuable they are to decision makers. Likewise, an indicator’s persistence over time allows for its repeated measurement and
reevaluation.108 Finally, the more visible and the more unique indicators are, the easier it is to use them. For example, the actual
attainment of a particular milestone by a terrorist group—such as the successful recruitment of a document forger—
may not be especially observable or visible to U.S. intelligence agencies. This makes it a poor
indicator. In other words, effectively identifying a terrorist group’s achievement of an indicator requires
the capacity to witness it or obtain evidence of it.
AT: No Motive
Terrorists have shown strong interest in obtaining nuclear bombs – unsecured nuclear
materials increase likelihood of a terrorist bomb
Goodspeed, 12 (Peter Goodspeed, Senior Reporter of International Affairs at the National Post,
“Nuclear terror threat; A 'dirty bomb' could make cities uninhabitable, destroy global economy”, March
24 2012, National Post, Full Comment, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/24/preventingdevastating-nuclear-terrorist-attack-aim-of-world-leaders-meeting/, //nikp)
And terrorists
have shown a definite interest in obtaining the materials needed to make both nuclear
fusion and radioactive dirty bombs. Before he was killed last May, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda had spent a
decade trying to obtain nuclear weapons and may already have experimented with limited quantities
of nuclear material. In 1998, as Russia reeled from an economic crisis, officials uncovered a conspiracy in which insiders
at one of Russia's largest nuclear weapons facilities tried to steal 18.5 kilograms of highly enriched
uranium. Just last June, officials in Moldavia arrested six people for smuggling 4.4 grams of weapons-grade
uranium as part of a plot to sell up to nine kilograms of highly enriched uranium on the black market for $31-million. The
Russian ringleader of the group is still at large and, according to news reports, may still have as much as a kilogram
of uranium. In 2007, a group of attackers came within a breath of stealing the ingredients for a nuclear
bomb, when they launched a midnight raid on South Africa's Pelindaba nuclear research centre, just west
of Pretoria. South Africa developed nuclear weapons in 1979 and became the only state in the world to voluntarily abandon
their nuclear arsenal in 1991. But the country still stores enough weapons-grade material for 25 nuclear bombs at the
Pelindaba site. On November 8, 2007, two teams of armed, well-trained men attacked Pelindaba from two
different directions. They deactivated several layers of security, including a 10,000 volt electrical fence, and entered the
facility's control centre, where they shot a security guard, who still managed to trip an alarm. The attackers fled before they
were able to take any nuclear material. But they spent 45 minutes alone inside the nuclear centre and have never
been caught. Existing nuclear weapons stocks in countries like Pakistan, which is threatened by
terrorism, corruption and jihadist radicals, or Russia, which still boasts the world's largest stockpile of tactical nuclear
weapons, are always under threat . But it is radioactive material, the heart of any "dirty bomb," stored
in thousands of nuclear power plants, research reactors, hospitals, laboratories, blood banks, factories
and food processing plants around the world that may be most vulnerable to terrorists. "In the United
States, a radioactive source is lost, stolen or missing about once a day," said Charles Ferguson, current president of the Federation of American
Scientists. Khammar Mrabit, head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency's Office of Nuclear Security, said he
investigates roughly 200 incidents of improperly secured nuclear material each year .
Terrorist organizations are still trying to obtain nuclear materials
Dahl, 7/1 (Fredrik Dahl, Specialist Correspondent at Reuters UK, “Governments warn about nuclear
terrorism threat”, July 1 2013, Reuters UK Edition, World, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/01/uknuclear-security-idUKBRE96010G20130701, //nikp)
Holding up a small lead container that was used to try to traffic highly enriched uranium in Moldova two years ago, the U.N. nuclear chief said it
showed a "worrying level of knowledge on the part of the smugglers". "This case ended well," he said, referring to the fact
that the material was seized and arrests were made. But he added: "We cannot be sure if such cases are just the tip of the iceberg." Dirty bomb
Obtaining weapons-grade fissile material - highly enriched uranium or plutonium - poses the biggest
challenge for militant groups, so it must be kept secure both at civilian and military facilities, experts say. An apple-sized
amount of plutonium in a nuclear device and detonated in a highly populated area could instantly kill
or wound hundreds of thousands of people, according to the Nuclear Security Governance Experts Group (NSGEG) lobby
group. But experts say a so-called "dirty bomb" is a more likely threat than a nuclear bomb. In a dirty
bomb, conventional explosives are used to disperse radiation from a radioactive source, which can
be found in hospitals or other places that are generally not very well protected. More than a hundred
incidents of thefts and other unauthorised activities involving nuclear and radioactive material are
reported to the IAEA every year, Amano said. "Some material goes missing and is never found," he said. US
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said al Qaeda was still likely to be trying to obtain nuclear material for a
weapon. "Despite the strides we have made in dismantling core al-Qaeda we should expect its
adherents... to continue trying to achieve their nuclear ambitions," he said.
Yes US Retaliation
Obama will retaliate, even if he says he won’t
HotAir ’10; “New Obama policy: No nuke retaliation for bio or chemical attack?” Apr 5 2010;
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/05/new-obama-policy-no-nuke-retaliation-for-bio-or-chemicalattack-mr-obama%E2%80%99s-new-strategy-is-bound-to-be-controversial-both-among-conservativeswho-have-warned-against-diluting-america/
Unless I’ve misunderstood, we reserve the right to nuke the following, whether in self-defense or otherwise:
(1) nuclear states, (2) non-nuclear states that are in violation of the NPT (i.e. Iran), (3) non-nuclear
states that attack the U.S. with bioweapons, but only if they possess a stockpile large enough to pose
a risk of a “devastating strike.” I hope I’ve misunderstood that last one; the idea of Obama explaining to Americans that, yes, 50,000
people may be dead of smallpox but we can’t nuke country X because they don’t have a big enough stockpile of the virus yet is dark comedy
gold. The idea here, of course, is deterrence — comply with the NPT and you have nothing to fear — but (a)
no one, least of all Iran, thinks Barack Obama’s going to use nuclear weapons against targets inside a non-nuclear state whether it’s following
the NPT or not, and (b) everyone, including Iran, understands
that a devastating attack on the U.S. by whatever
means will create such unbearable pressure on the president to retaliate that these rules will be
revisited instantly. It’s the nuclear equivalent of his interrogation protocol, essentially. America does not and will not torture captured
terrorists as a matter of national policy — but if the CIA really, truly believed that a bomb was about to go off
somewhere, don’t be surprised to see that policy politely ignored, to great public acclaim for Obama afterwards for
having done what he needed to do to try to get the information. All this is, really, is a symbolic gesture of good faith to
put pressure on Russia and China to reduce their own stockpiles. Why we think they can be trusted to do that,
especially when the United States is handing them a tactical advantage by reducing its own stockpiles unilaterally, is beyond me. But then it’s
also beyond me why Obama would suspend development on any new forms of nuclear weapons, which the new policy also demands. New
weapons, I assume, would be smaller and more precise, in the bunker-buster mold; there’s certainly no pressing need for state-of-the-art 100megaton monsters when the
Qaeda.
chief nuclear threat at the moment comes from small non-state groups like Al
AT: CIR Solves Illegal Immigration
Immigration bill only solves a quarter of the immigration problem—other action
necessary
Dinan, 13 (Stephen H. Dinan, graduate from Stanford University in human biology and master's in
East-West Psychology from California Institute of Integral Studies, author of Radical Spirit: Spiritual
Writings from the Voices of Tomorrow and Sacred America: The Next Evolution of Our Country, created
the Esalen Institute's Center for Theory & Research, a think tank, and a writer for The Washington
Times, “CBO: Bill hardly slows illegal immigration; Projected to cut flow only by 25%”, June 19 2013,
Newspaper, LexisNexis, //nikp)
The Senate immigration bill will be a major boost to the federal budget but does relatively little to
clamp down on illegal immigration - cutting the future flow by only about 25 percent - according to
the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill, released Tuesday afternoon. Under the bill, which legalizes illegal
immigrants and invites in foreign workers, immigration will total 10.4 million more people over the next decade and 16.2 million by 2033. Those
findings will give ammunition to both supporters and opponents of the bill, which the Senate is debating. On one hand, the boost in federal
revenue over the next decade, which the CBO said will total $197 billion, will help quell concerns that taxpayers will be stuck with a large bill.
But the
CBO's estimate that the bill solves only about a quarter of the illegal immigration problem will
undercut the sponsors' claims that they are serious about border security and interior enforcement.
The CBO said the bill does include stiffer enforcement and workplace checks, which will make a dent in
illegal immigration. But the nonpartisan agency said it expects many guest workers will refuse to go
home when their time is up, meaning that illegal immigration will continue . "Other aspects of the bill
would probably increase the number of unauthorized residents - in particular, people overstaying
their visas issued under the new programs for temporary workers," the agency said. "CBO estimates that, under
the bill, the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to
what would occur under current law." That works out to about 1.6 million fewer people in the U.S. in
2023 than would otherwise come, and about 2.5 million fewer people by 2033. About 7.7 million current illegal
immigrants will have obtained legal status by 2018, the CBO said. Current estimates say there are about 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the
U.S., but not all of them arrived early enough to qualify for the bill's legalization and some others won't seek legal status.
AT: E-Verify Solves
E-Verify is not useful in the SQ
Hanson, 6/24 (Gordon Hanson, professor in the economics department and School of International
Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California at San Diego, holds the Pacific Economic
Cooperation Chair in International Economic Relations, director of the Center on Emerging and Pacific
Economies at UCSD, specializes in international migration, trade and investment issues, and U.S.
immigration policy to border security, “Want tough border security? Hope for an awful economy”,
Interview by Dylan Matthews – Transcript, The Washington Post, WonkBlog,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/24/want-tough-border-security-hopefor-an-awful-economy/, //nikp)
The problem with E-Verify is that, given American sensitivities about privacy and civil rights, we make it
hard for a program like E-Verify to work. We are unwilling to demand consistency across individuals in
terms of birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and other forms of identification. Inconsistencies make EVerify prone to high false negative rates (that is, finding that people are ineligible for legal employment
when they in fact are eligible). If we are in a moment when hiring pressures aren’t that intense, employers will tolerate E-Verify. But
if job growth picks up, E-Verify would become more of a hindrance, creating frustrations for
employers and political opposition to intense monitoring of worksites. Also, E-Verify doesn’t work for
many occupations. It doesn’t apply very well to housekeeping, yard care, home renovation,
agricultural labor, and some construction jobs. What fraction of employment is accounted for by occupations that will be
outside of E-Verify? I don’t have a hard and fast number, but I’d be shocked if that share is less than about 35 percent of current employment
of undocumented migrants. Large
establishments will have a hard time hiring illegal workers, which is already
the case, but in other significant swathes of the economy, it’s going to be hard for E-Verify to make a
dent.
AT: Alt Cause – US-Canada Border
SQ solves US-Canada border security threat – significant improvements being made
now
Neubauer, 12 (Chuck Neubauer, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, M.S. degree from the Medill
School of Journalism at Northwestern University, journalist at the Washington Times, “Homeland
Security unveils new Canadian border strategy”, June 5 2012, The Washington Times,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/5/homeland-security-unveils-new-canadian-borderstra/, //nikp)
The Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday unveiled a new strategy for enhancing security along
the U.S.-Canada border that seeks to deter and prevent terrorism, drug trafficking and illegal
immigration while encouraging and safeguarding the flow of lawful trade and people. The Northern
Border Strategy calls for Homeland Security "to improve information sharing and analysis" within the
department and other government partners, and to enhance coordination with Canada. The department
said it also will deploy technologies to aid joint security efforts and continue to update infrastructure to
facilitate trade and travel. The strategy is the first departmentwide plan to guide its policies and operations along a border that Sen.
Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in 2011 was
"grossly underprotected" when it comes to terrorists, drug smugglers and other illegal activity. The
new strategy says the 5,525-mile border with Canada is the "single-greatest security threat" for
terrorists and other violent extremists to get into the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano said the
report provides "a unifying framework for ... enhancing the security and resiliency along our northern border while expediting legitimate travel
and trade with Canada." Canada is the U.S.'s largest trading partner. "With communities and businesses that reach both sides of the border, the
economies and security of the United States and Canada are inextricably linked," Ms. Napolitano said She noted that the U.S.-Canada border
"presents unique security challenges based on geography, weather and the immense volume of trade and travel." She said 300,000 people and
$1.5 billion in trade crosses the border every day. Rep. Candice S. Miller, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House subcommittee on
border and maritime security, was "encouraged by the release" of the plan. Mrs. Miller said she had been calling on Homeland Security to focus
on the unique challenges on the border by putting a stronger emphasis on sharing information, facilitating trade, and decreasing wait times for
cargo and people who cross the border. She said that while she was "pleased" the
new strategy emphasizes a partnership
with Canadian officials, "More work needs to be done to understand the security challenges and gaps." Other common
threats along the border include illegal migration in both directions and the smuggling of illicit drugs.
It notes that Canada is the primary source country for Ecstasy smuggled into the United States and is
also a major source of high-potency marijuana. It also says cocaine is the largest-volume drug
smuggled from the U.S. into Canada.
AT: Illegal Immigration Turn
Guest workers directly lead to a decrease in illegal immigration—Bracero proves
Nowrasteh 13 (Alex Nowrasteh is the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute; BA in
Economics @ George Mason and MSc in Economic History @ the London School of Economics ‘Guest
Workers Key to Reform’ Published on March 5th, 2013
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/guest-workers-keyreform?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+(Ca
to+Recent+Op-eds) ) Lshen
If there is a model for a successful guest-worker program, however, the Bracero Program is it. Under
Bracero, immigrants could work temporarily, but they had to leave the United States every season. American
farms got the labor they demanded, immigrant workers made money, and agricultural production
increased. The program was so successful that it was extended until 1964. It combined enforcement that
funneled migrants into a legal system with an unlimited temporary migration system. Often, Border Patrol agents enrolled
unauthorized immigrants they arrested in the Bracero Program and let them return to work — this time lawfully. Mexican workers
thinking of entering the United States illegally overwhelmingly chose the legal Bracero option
instead . Throughout the 1950s, unauthorized immigration declined by 95 percent. If a Bracero-type
guest-worker visa existed today, one that allowed migrants to switch jobs and work in nonagricultural
areas, unauthorized immigration would dramatically decrease.
Illegal Immigration Bad – Racist Stuff
Immigrants distract from other social services by leeching off of the innocent
American Citizen and cheat us of our future
CIS 2/8, 2013 (Legalizing illegal immigrants a bad idea http://www.cis.org/OpedsandArticles/DavidSeminara-Legalizing-illegal-immigrants-a-bad-idea%20 By David Seminara)
Strain on social services. Legalizing millions of mostly poor people, many of whom have no job security
or health insurance, will put a strain on already strapped social services agencies. A study by the
Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 57 percent of immigrant households (legal and illegal)
used at least one welfare program in 2009. Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for most benefits, but once
this group has legal status, they'll be eligible for the full range of benefits.
Immigrants lead to the collapse of the economy, IRS and eventually the destruction of
America
Heritage Foundation 6/14 (2013 Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A.
Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundatin
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/senate-immigration-bill-does-not-requirepayment-of-all-back-taxes All Research Reports Commentaries Factsheets Multimedia Testimonies
Lectures
Immigration Senate Immigration Bill Does Not Require Payment of All Back Taxes)
The immigration bill, as it currently stands after passage by the Senate Judiciary Committee, does not
specify how tax authorities are to collect back taxes from illegal immigrants before they are granted
legal status if they have not previously filed tax returns. Instead, it states on page 952, in proposed
section 245B: An alien may not file an application for registered provisional immigrant status…unless the
applicant has satisfied any applicable Federal tax liability…the term “applicable Federal tax liability”
means all Federal income taxes assessed in accordance with section 6203 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986. An applicant may demonstrate compliance with this paragraph by submitting appropriate
documentation, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Treasury.[2] This language may seem clear enough, but section 6203 of the tax code
reveals the problem: The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the
office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Upon
request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of the
assessment.[3] How is this assessment made? Section 6201 of the tax code provides guidance: The
Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes
(including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this
title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the
time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following: (1)
Taxes shown on return The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the
Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.[4] The tax code gives the Treasury
Secretary broad authority to determine the correct tax liability of someone who has filed a tax return. If
an illegal immigrant filed a tax return every year, then the immigration bill gives the necessary
authority to the Treasury Secretary to collect the appropriate back taxes owed. However, the bill gives
no instruction as to how the Secretary is to determine the tax liability of someone who has not filed a
tax return. Many illegal immigrants work off the books for cash. They would not report that income to
the IRS by filing a tax return. How the Secretary would collect back taxes on that unreported income is
unclear. IRS Would Likely Eschew Enforcement The Treasury Secretary may have the authority to collect
taxes on reported income under existing laws, but without further instructions in the immigration bill,
it is not possible to know how the Secretary would interpret that authority as it pertains to assessing
back taxes, interest, and penalties owed by illegal immigrants who did not file tax returns.
Presumably, these illegal immigrants would likely account for the vast majority of illegal immigrants
seeking legal status. Most troubling, it is possible that the Treasury Secretary would waive the
assessment process because of the difficulties illegal immigrants might face providing a full historical
record of their income. If their employers paid them in cash, then the employer likely did not issue
them a W-2 form and report their income to the IRS. The likelihood of the Secretary absolving these
non-tax compliant individuals is high because, by waiving the requirement to pay back taxes,
Treasury, the IRS, and illegal immigrants themselves would escape the seemingly unsolvable burden
of determining how much back taxes illegal immigrants owe . The IRS is already terribly
overburdened administering the existing federal tax system and implementing Obamacare . And the
immigration bill leaves unaddressed whether the IRS would receive the necessary additional
appropriations to carry out this latest daunting task. The IRS is also devoting a large amount of its
resources determining how and why some employees of the agency used its considerable power to
target certain conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny regarding their tax-exempt status. The
IRS’s unpardonable politicization in this case calls into question whether the agency can handle the
politically sensitive issue of collecting back taxes owed by illegal immigrants. Hatch–Rubio Amendment
an Improvement but Falls Short Senators Orrin Hatch (R–UT) and Marco Rubio (R–FL) have proposed an
amendment to the immigration bill that would make illegal immigrants responsible for proving to the
Treasury Department and the IRS that they have paid their federal income and payroll tax liability
before gaining legal status.[5] This moves the burden from the Treasury Department to those seeking
legal status. It is a good start, but it falls short. The proposal does not detail how those illegal
immigrants without income documentation could determine their back tax liability. Rather, it still
leaves that determination wholly up to the discretion of the Treasury Secretary. It could also be
interpreted as giving the Treasury Secretary the ability to negotiate with illegal immigrants to relieve
them of some or even all of their tax burdens instead of ensuring that they pay their income and
payroll tax liability, including interest and penalties, in full. Illegal Immigrants Could Still Be Eligible for
Refundable Tax Credits Left unaddressed in the bill is whether illegal immigrants who do pay back
taxes and attain legal status would be eligible to claim refundable tax credits—specifically the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC)—that could give them cash payments. Current
law precludes them from claiming EITC payments, because taxpayers claiming the credit and its
refundable portion must have a legitimate Social Security number. The immigration bill, however,
should make clear that illegal immigrants cannot use their legal status once granted to claim the credit
for previous years that they were in the U.S. illegally. The CTC is a bigger problem. The tax code does
not require that taxpayers have a Social Security number to claim it. As a result, it is rife with fraud
and abuse. Because it lacks the Social Security number requirement, illegal immigrants could claim it
when they pay their back taxes . Congress should prohibit this in the immigration bill, since the CTC
was always intended to help legal working families . Congress should also fix the loophole in the law
that does not require a Social Security number to claim the CTC.[6] Basic Issue of Fairness The
requirement to pay back taxes should be the same for illegal immigrants as it is for U.S. citizens. That is
only fair, as citizens and immigrants in the country legally are responsible for paying these taxes. If they
do not pay tax at the appropriate time and in the required amounts, the IRS and ultimately the courts
will force them to pay what they legally owe and apply penalties and interest. Members of the Gang of
Eight know that their bill does not really require payment of back taxes, but they have refused to fix
the problem—even though many in the group indicate that they support such a requirement. They
have deemed the task too difficult.[7] There is little doubt that it is a tough issue, but that does not
absolve the authors of such sweeping legislation from blame for writing a bill that does not meet a
basic test of fairness.
US-Mexico Advantage
US-Mexico Relations Low
US-Mexico relations sour in the squo – Immigration is the determining factor for
relations
Smith 13 (Molly J. Smith, Crokonite Borderlands Initiatives, Editor for AzCapitol times, the non-daily AP
newspaper of the year, “Immigration reform poses challenges for farmers along two borders” June 3,
2013 http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/06/03/immigration-reform-poses-challenges-for-farmersalong-mexico-canada-borders/\\CLans)
“We would ask people why they would put themselves in such danger when they could just do it legally,” Moroney
says. “And they would say, ‘It takes 15 years to get the permits … We can’t wait. There are no jobs at home.
We’re hungry, our family is suffering.’” In addition to immigration reform, the proposed 2013 Border Security
Act calls for increased surveillance in “high risk” sectors along the southern border, defined as areas with over 30,000
apprehensions of individuals per year. The bill would appropriate $3 billion to increase the number of Border Patrol
agents and expand the use of drones and surveillance equipment. Moroney would rather see a more welcoming
relationship between the United States and Mexico, similar to the relationship that the U.S. has with
Canada. According to U.S. census data, Mexico is the country’s third-largest trade partner behind Canada and China.
While President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper have worked together on a shared vision for security along the northern
border, Moroney feels that international
relations between the United States and Mexico are sour. “My personal
view is that our own government is not looking at this whole situation in a rational way,” Moroney says.
“Working with Mexico to bring about a little more economic parity for the poor people would seem to
have been a better mission for Hillary Clinton than shuttling around the Middle East where we don’t seem to have
done a damn bit of good in my whole lifetime.” Instead, Moroney says, the U.S. has poured its efforts into building up a
wall to divide, rather than unite. “When I was a kid, crossing the border meant firecrackers and when I was a bit older it meant being able
to walk into a bar and buying a beer when you were 16 years old,” Moroney says. “To me, the border now… It’s a politically
determined line that, much like a boundary between housing lots in a neighborhood, is related to land ownership and
some history and culture differences. Essentially, the two sides of the border are the same piece of land,
the same biological community.”
US-Mexico relations are down – Nieto moving towards Canada
Clark 6/17 (Campbell, Foreign Affairs Reporter for The Globe and Mail, “Mexico pushes for direct ties
with Canada, apart from U.S. influence” June 17, 2013
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mexico-pushes-for-closer-direct-ties-with-canadaapart-from-us-influence/article12594783/\\CLans)
New Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto wants ties with Canada to be a priority in the country’s foreign
policy, rather than the on-again, off-again interest of two countries distracted by relations with the
United States, Mexico’s ambassador says. Ambassador Francisco Suarez Davila arrived in Ottawa a week ago with a
mandate to pursue a new deepening of relations between the two countries – not just for dealing with
the U.S., but also as direct trading partners, and potential diplomatic allies on the world stage. “I think I
have arrived at a very opportune time. The political stars are aligned,” Mr. Suarez said in an interview with The Globe and Mail. “That’s the
indication I have received from President Pena, to go beyond the rhetoric to really establish that
Canada is a priority for Mexico’s foreign policy. It’s a real priority: Canada, itself, apart from the North
American [regional dynamic].” It is a simple but important signal in Canada-Mexico relations: that the two
countries should see each other as important for more than just what that means in dealing with the
United States. They have been trade partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement since 1993, and from time to time expressed a
desire for stronger ties. But the interest has blown hot and cold. Both countries’ perspectives on North America are, of course,
dominated by relations with the U.S. “It’s a fact of life that we have this big elephant in between. It’s there. But we don’t at all like
the idea of an off and on approach,” Mr. Suarez said. “Sort of, you know, oh now Mexico is important, but
until that time, no, it’s more important for us just to have a relationship with the United States. ”
US-Mexico relations low- policy trends have angered Nieto
Latino News Today 6/26 (Latin America News Site, “The Shortcomings and Failures of President
Obama’s War on Drugs in Mexico” June 26, 2013 http://latinonewstoday.com/the-shortcomings-andfailures-of-president-obamas-war-on-drugs-in-mexico/\\CLans)
The drug war has continued to inflict a viscerally brutal devastation on Mexico throughout the last decade.
Despite promises for improvements during his administration’s tenure, United States President Barack Obama has
maintained a series of disturbing policy trends, in addition to implementing a few new unsavory
practices in the course of this foreign agenda debacle. Evidently, President Obama is not doing enough to
satisfactorily resolve the war on drugs; instead, his administration is violently meddling in volatile
international affairs. The primary outcome of the United States’ current tactics is simply more
bloodshed. As Time Magazine has reported, Mexican drug cartel activity has resulted in over 60,000 homicides that were in connection
with narcotic trades. If Obama wants to demonstrate seriousness regarding the issue, he would tackle the
realm of drug supply and demand. One major way for his administration to address the massive illegal markets would be to issue
a federal decree for marijuana legalization. This would save American anti-drug forces approximately $10 billion each year, while
simultaneously siphoning $30 billion of Mexican drug cartel profits on an annual basis. This initiative would allow the operations of both
countries to focus on the substances that are more dangerous.
One primary way to eliminate demand is to provide
funding for affordable rehabilitation services in areas that have rampant addiction troubles.
Unfortunately, the United States’ national government has shown little interest in pursuing these
common-sense policy changes. They have yet to issue a formal response to the passage of marijuana legalization efforts in the
states of Colorado and Washington, but all official statements have expressed strict opposition to the newly
signed laws. There is no indication within the Obama administration of a liberalized stance on the war
on drugs, even though it is profoundly clear that the current positioning fosters institutionalized distrust between the two countries.
Diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico have become increasingly strained under
the budding regime of President Enrique Peña Nieto.
US relations with Mexico low now- pivoting towards Asia now
Montealegre 13 (Oscar Montealegre, Contributor to the Diplomatic Courier, A Global Affairs
Magazine, “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor” January 24, 2013
http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331\\CLans)
In matters of foreign policy, Mexico is an afterthought—our attention and resources are diverted to the Middle
East or to grand strategies based on ‘pivoting’ our geopolitical and economical capacity towards Asia.
With the U.S. economy performing at a snail-like pace, an emphasis on exports has re-emerged, but the bulk of the exporting narrative revolves
around Asia.
This is unfortunate, because our neighbor to the south has quietly positioned itself to be the
next jewel in the emerging markets portfolio. For example, Market Watch (a Wall Street Journal subsidiary) recently
published a bullish article on Mexico with the following headline: “Mexico: Investor’s New China”. The Economist published an opinion piece
titled “The Global Mexican: Mexico is open for business”, highlighting Mexican companies that are investing locally and in the U.S. and arguing
that Mexico is fertile ground for more investment, especially in the manufacturing sector. And according to The Financial Times, BRIC countries
(Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are no longer the flavor of the month; Mexico is now taking over that distinction. In
essence,
immigration and the drug trade will no longer anchor the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico;
instead, economics, finance, trade, and commerce will dictate the terms between the neighboring
countries.
US relations with Mexico strained- Linkage now is key
Montealegre 13 (Oscar Montealegre, Contributor to the Diplomatic Courier, A Global Affairs
Magazine, “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor” January 24, 2013
http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331\\CLans)
President Obama cannot respond by merely paying lip service to the Latino community . Latino voters have
overwhelmingly backed President Obama for two elections now, but no favor is done with complete altruism.
Surprisingly, during President Obama’s first term, there were 30 percent more deportations than during
George W. Bush’s second term. Yet there is hope that President Obama will fix the broken system with
a more humane approach, contrary to laws that are being pushed and backed by the Republican Party in Arizona, Georgia, and
Alabama. Some may ask—what does this have to do with Mexico, or even Latin America? It is all about messages, and in the
next four years the President must use the available tools to solidify relationships with its partners,
paving the road for more trade and commerce, which ultimately will further strengthen the U.S. economy . What
happens in the U.S. means a lot to many countries, and immigration is perhaps one of the most important matters in Mexico, Central, and
South America. The
U.S. must first focus on re-branding its relationship with Mexico. President Obama and
need to formulate a new agenda between the two countries—one that resonates with
the 21st century, linking the two countries economically; where the U.S. can envision Mexico as a vibrant emerging market in its
own backyard. Obstacles do exist, like the current Mexican drug war and political corruption. But don’t India and China
have corruption problems as well?
Mexican President Peña Nieto
Relations at a turning point- actions taken now determine the relationship of USMexico
Reyes 13 (Raul A., Attorney and Columnist, Writer for NBC, “Opinion: President Obama has the chance
to improve US/Mexico relations” April 29, 2013 http://nbclatino.com/2013/04/29/opinion-presidentobama-has-the-chance-to-improve-usmexico-relations/\\CLans)
Politically, Obama cannot afford to take Mexico for granted. Consider that Mexico has been fully engaged with
Cuba since the revolution in 1959 (which was launched from Mexico). And although the U.S. has not recognized
Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro as successor to Hugo Chavez, Mexico recognized his election on April 19. So Mexico is
not an ally that automatically falls in lockstep with American interests. Perhaps with more attention
from the Obama administration, Peña Nieto could be persuaded to be more supportive of U.S. policies
for the region. True, there are legitimate reasons why Mexico has been viewed warily by past administrations. Mexico has historically
been the largest source of our undocumented population. Border towns have long feared spillover violence from the drug cartels. But illegal
immigration is at net zero, and the fears of violence on the U.S. side of the border have proved largely
unfounded. Obama should take the lead in encouraging more communication and cooperation with
Mexico. Already, Peña Nieto favors opening Mexico’s energy sector to private investment, and he may even allow
foreign investment in its state oil company. President Obama has the chance to turn a page in
U.S./Mexico relations, and he should not miss it. It’s time for a foreign policy with Mexico based on its
potential, not on its problems.
Relations low now- disagreements on security and the economy
Falk 13 (Jeff, Associate Director of National Media Relations at Rice University, “More diplomacy and
political skill required in US-Mexico relations, Baker Institute expert says” May 1, 2013
http://news.rice.edu/2013/05/01/more-diplomacy-and-political-skill-required-in-us-mexico-relationsbaker-institute-expert-says/
HOUSTON – (May 1, 2013) – As President Barack Obama prepares to visit Mexico and meet with still-new Mexican President Enrique
Peña Nieto tomorrow, the relationship between the two countries may be poised for a rocky time; more
diplomacy and political skill will be required from Washington if the relationship is to work, according to
Tony Payan, a scholar for immigration studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The two main issues to be discussed during
Obama’s visit are security and the economy, Payan said. “On
the surface, both countries appear to agree that these
issues are central to the binational relationship. The agreement, however, ends there. The two countries do not
see eye-to-eye on the order of priority, the level of importance or even the approach to each of these issues, particularly
security.” Payan said the underlying disagreements are the result of important shifts in the Mexican
political landscape. “What has changed in Mexico is at once simple and complex,” he said. “At a simple level, the Institutional
Revolutionary Party (PRI) is back in power after 12 years out of office. Naturally, a different party in power implies a different
approach to the binational agenda. At a more complex level, the PRI’s return entails two important changes
that Washington may not like but will have to digest.” In addition to being a Baker Institute scholar, Payan is an associate
professor of political science at the University of Texas at El Paso and serves on the graduate faculty of the Universidad Autónoma de Juárez in
Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. His area of study is international relations, with an emphasis on U.S. and Mexican foreign policy and U.S.-Mexico
relations. He is the author of “The Three U.S.-Mexico Border Wars: Drugs, Immigration and Homeland Security” and other books.
AT: US-Mexico Relations High
Relations with Mexico improving but continued cooperative immigration policy is key
O’Neil 13 (Shannon K., senior fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR), a nonpartisan foreign-policy think tank and membership organization, director of the U.S.-Mexico
Initiative at CFR, “Mexico Makes It A Transformed Society, Economy, and Government” March/April
2013 http://www.embassyofmexico.org/tweets/MexicoMakesItForeignAffairs.pdf\\CLans)
Four tons of cocaine confiscated by U.S. authorities off the California coast; 35 bodies dumped by the side of a busy
Veracruz highway in broad daylight; an attack by gunmen on a birthday party in Ciudad Juárez killing 14, many of them teenagers: tragedies
like these, all of which occurred over the past two years and were extensively covered by the media, are common in Mexico
today. Prominent Mexican news organizations and analysts have estimated that during the six-year term of Mexico's last president, Felipe
Calderón, over 60,000 people were killed in drug-related violence, and some researchers have put the number at tens of thousands more.
Mexico's crime rates are some of the worst in the Western Hemisphere. According to Latinobarómetro, an annual
regionwide public opinion poll, over 40 percent of Mexicans say that they or a family member has been the
victim of a crime at some point in the last year. Hidden behind the troubling headlines, however, is
another, more hopeful Mexico -- one undergoing rapid and widespread social, political, and economic transformation. Yes,
Mexico continues to struggle with grave security threats, but it is also fostering a globally competitive
marketplace, a growing middle class, and an increasingly influential pro-democracy voter base. In addition, Mexico's ties with the
United States are changing. Common interests in energy, manufacturing, and security, as well as an
overlapping community formed by millions of binational families, have made Mexico's path forward increasingly
important to its northern neighbor. For most of the past century, U.S.-Mexican relations were
conducted at arm's length. That began to change, however, in the 1980s and, even more, after the 1994 North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) spurred greater bilateral economic engagement and cooperation. Mexico's democratic transition has further eased the
wariness of some skeptics in Washington. Still, the
U.S.-Mexican relationship is far from perfect. New bilateral
policies are required, especially to facilitate the movement of people and goods across the U.S.Mexican border. More important, the United States needs to start seeing Mexico as a partner instead of a
problem.
Immigration Key US-Mexico Relations
Reform provides a boon for cooperation
Stratfor 13 (May 2 , 2013; Evolving U.S. – Mexico Relations and Obama’s visit; http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/evolving-us-mexicond
relations-and-obamas-visit)
Though the passage of these reforms will similarly be determined solely by U.S. domestic political
factors, their success would be a significant boon for bilateral relations with Mexico. Indeed, for
Obama and Pena Nieto, the effects each feel of the other's policy decisions will be magnified by the
unique demographic, geographic and economic ties binding their countries. Yet, the domestic
environment and political calculations in each country will ultimately shape the effects of this period
of political change. The U.S. political decision-making process is largely isolated from international
influence, and the Pena Nieto administration likewise appears to be consolidating key policy areas under
Mexican control at the expense of U.S. influence. Still, Mexico's steady emergence as an economic
power in North America sets the stage for a bilateral relationship much more heavily focused on
opportunities for economic cooperation.
Recent election makes plan even more critical to relations
Garza 12 (Antonio Garza, 12/3/12; Antonio Garza is former U.S. ambassador to Mexico (2002-2009). He is counsel in the Mexico City
Office of White & Case and is chairman of Vianovo Ventures, a cross-border consultancy; A first step is to get rid of outdated perceptions—on
both sides, http://www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-be-us-mexican-relations)
For President Obama, it’s important to signal that his new team is completely schooled in the reality
of today’s Mexico and that they are prepared to take advantage of the moment to recast the
relationship to the benefit of both countries. Delivering on immigration reform and the Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade agreement are rare opportunities for a U.S. administration to fundamentally alter
Mexicans’ perceptions of their northern partner. As Mexico’s place in the world rises and the U.S.
continues to recalibrate its foreign alliances, there’s a unique opportunity to move the bilateral
relationship to a more strategic level—but it will take some work.
Plan boosts competitiveness – You can’t fight geography
Leycegui 12 (Beatriz Leycegui, 12/3/12; Senior Fellow at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
in Geneva. She served as Mexico’s undersecretary for foreign trade at Mexico’s Ministry of Economy for five years (2006-2011);
Mexico and the United States cannot fight geography; http://www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-beus-mexican-relations)
The most important elements of the North American competitiveness agenda should include:
expediting the work to create a twenty-first-century border (infrastructure, risk management, preclearance, customs cooperation); strengthen regulatory cooperation (mutual recognition of
regulations); liberalization of strategic services (e.g. telecommunications, air, land and sea
transportation), and the improvement in the enforcement of intellectual property laws. The TransPacific Partnership negotiations can be an opportunity to advance some of these issues. Mexico and the
United States cannot fight geography. Why would Mexico forego the benefit of being next to the
most important economy of the world? Why would the United States ignore the possibility of further
integrating with a country that has proven to be a partner in production more than a competitor?
Now is the best time to bolster partnerships with Mexico – manufacturing and
political standing
Farnsworth 12 (Eric Farnsworth, 12/3/12; vice president of Americas Society/Council of the Americas in Washington DC.
From 1995 to 1998, he was senior adviser to the White House special envoy for the Americas; A joint economic agenda is now
more achievable than before. http://www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-be-us-mexican-relations)
A joint economic agenda is now more achievable than before . The Hispanic community in the United
States has found its voice politically, manufacturing is returning to the United States due to lower
prices for natural gas, and, despite ongoing concerns about violence and the drugs trade, Mexico is
doing well enough economically to entice investors back from China. Now is perhaps the best
opportunity in recent memory to intensify economic collaboration. It should be the top bilateral
priority.
Nieto administration reducing cooperation now – plan reverses that – cooperation is
key
Schaefer 13 (Agnes Gereben Schaefer, 5/29/13; Senior political scientist and professor at Pardee RAND graduate school; If
U.S.-Mexico Get Security Right, Other Good Policy Will Follow; http://www.rand.org/blog/2013/05/if-us-mexico-get-securityright-other-good-policy.html)
But while security will remain central to the U.S.-Mexico relationship, the two sides may well change
how they handle it. The new Peña Nieto administration is re-evaluating Mexico's recent close
cooperation on security. The new Mexican leader's overall security strategy is evolving, but he has
embarked on some important reforms to defense institutions. Peña Nieto has called for a more
centralized approach to security issues that would eliminate inefficiencies and redundancies across
government agencies. He is also pushing to develop a new National Intelligence Agency — similar to the
U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence set up after the 9/11 Commission to quarterback the
U.S. intelligence community — that would streamline Mexico's intelligence collection and analysis,
which is now conducted by many disparate agencies. The most important unanswered question is how
involved Peña Nieto and his Institutional Revolutionary Party want the U.S. to be in future efforts to
decrease drug-related violence. Some Mexican leaders and commentators are calling for the U.S. to
back off, and some are explicitly asking to roll back the cooperative mechanisms of the past several
years. As Peña Nieto refines his national security strategy, he will need to navigate these domestic
pressures — and, ultimately, decide how much U.S. assistance he will consider, and in what form.
Peña Nieto isn't the only one facing domestic pressures, of course. Obama could almost hear the heated
debates in Congress on immigration reform and border security from Mexico City. So the two leaders
emphasized economic cooperation at their summit not because security issues have gone away, but
because the new rules of the game in this nascent relationship between Obama and Peña Nieto are
evolving. Economic cooperation is of course also exceedingly important. The United States is still
Mexico's largest trading partner. In 2011, U.S. trade with Mexico totaled $500 billion, and Mexico was
the United States' second-largest goods export market in 2012. But let's not assume that economic
issues will displace security issues at the top of the U.S-Mexico agenda. Because security issues are not
going away, the two sides need to tackle them as best they can . The Obama and Peña Nieto
administrations should build on the unprecedented levels of cooperation developed over the past six
years — and if they get security right, they will be far better-positioned to broaden the relationship
to focus on other issues such as economics, energy and the environment. If the two sides continue to
invest together in security today, they may find themselves with far more opportunities for broader
cooperation tomorrow.
Guest Worker Program Solves US-Mexico Relations
A guest worker program will revitalize bilateral US-Mexican relations – spills over
Bickerton 2k (Maria Elena Bickerton, J.D. @ University of Texas Law School; University of Texas @
Austin; Founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerson; Member of the Texas Law Review // ‘Prospects for
Bilateral Immigration Agreement With Mexico: Lessons from the Bracero Program; From the Texas Law
Review Volume 79:895 Page 895-920) // L S
This Note will examine the bilateral nature of the Bracero Program, and the various factors that made the program possible from 1942
until 1964. That is, what brought about the air of cooperation, what drove it away, and what was accomplished in the interim. Ultimately, this
exam- ination will demonstrate that the economic and political conditions that exist today are similar to those that
existed when the Bracero Program was established, providing hope that a new bilateral labor
agreement between Mexico and the United States may be forthcoming. A bilateral immigration
program could provide significant advantages over bilateral immigration policy. First, the two countries
could more effectively achieve their migration goals through a cooperative effort since the policies of
either nation can influence migration patterns.‘ Additionally, cooperation and compromise in the area
of irmnigration can improve overall relations between Mexico and the United States so that
cooperation will continue in other fields, such as trade.’ However, differences in the sociopolitical atmosphere of the two countries
and weaknesses in the Bracero Program itself indicate that a new agreement would not and should not follow the Bracero model. Nonetheless, the failures in
cooperation and the weaknesses of the earlier program can provide some of the best insight on how any future bilateral immigration program should be structured.
Guest Worker Program Solves – AT: Alt-Causes
Guest worker programs overcome alt-causes to relations
Bickerton 2k (Maria Elena Bickerton, J.D. @ University of Texas Law School; University of Texas @
Austin; Founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerson; Member of the Texas Law Review // ‘Prospects for
Bilateral Immigration Agreement With Mexico: Lessons from the Bracero Program; From the Texas Law
Review Volume 79:895 Page 895-920) // L Shen
Over the next two decades, the U.S. government transported five million "braceros" 13 from Mexico, providing growers
and ranchers in twenty-four states with an "endless army" of cheap labor. 14 Initially, the (now defunct) Farm Security Administration, which was part of the
Department of Agriculture, conducted recruitment and contracting. 15 However, control slipped into the hands of the individual growers from 1948 until 1951. 16
In 1951, Congress enacted Public Law 78, granting, for the first time, specific statutory authority for the United States to negotiate an agreement with Mexico to
import Mexican farmworkers under contract. l ? Under this authority, the U.S. government negotiated the 1951 Bracero accord, an agreement that reestablished
the government-to-government contract system and set forth elaborate guarantees and benefits for the Mexican laborers. IS This accord served as the
international framework for importing Mexican contract workers until the program's demise in 1964. 19 III. The 1942 Bilateral Agreement A. Political
Circumstances in the Early 1940s 1. US. Relations
with Mexico.-Relations between the United States and Mexico were relatively cordial
during this time period, despite the tensions of the previous decade. 20 In the 1930s, the Mexican
government decided to nationalize the nation's oil industry. 21 This strained relations as powerful U. S. oil
interests found their property expropriated by the Mexican government. 22 However, in November of 1941 an
agreement settling the outstanding problems with the expropriation was reached, "finally placing the two governments on
a firm basis of friendship and co- operation.
Immigration Key To Relations
Immigration agreements key to US-Mexico relations
Shifter 13 (Michael, Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown
University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for
the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue, “A More
Ambitious Agenda” February 2013
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf\\CLans)
No country has sent more of its people to the United States than Mexico. One of every 10 Mexican citizens now
lives in the United States, and more than 10 percent of the US population is of Mexican origin. Among foreign-born residents in the United
States, one-quarter are from Mexico, as are 40 percent of non-US citizens and 60 percent of unauthorized residents. In light of these numbers,
it is hardly surprising that immigration
is a central issue in both the United States and Mexico—although viewed
through very different lenses. US citizens tend to see the main problem as the large number of
undocumented immigrants, Mexican or otherwise, and continuing flows of unauthorized migrants.
Americans, rightly or wrongly, fear that undocumented immigrants compete with them for jobs, bring down wages, increase financial burdens
on schools and social welfare programs, and contribute to crime rates. Mexicans
have different concerns, led by how their
compatriots are treated in the United States, what their rights are and should be, and how the US government
deals with the 6 to 7 million undocumented Mexicans within its border. It is no wonder that, for decades, immigration to
the United States has been an unsettling factor in US-Mexico relations.
Immigration is the Most Important Issue in US-Mexico Relations
Esmeralda Rodriguez-Scott, 6-30-02, Esmeralda Rodriguez-Scott is the head researcher at Center for
International Studies at the University of St. Thomas, “Patterns of Mexican Migration to the US”,
http://www1.appstate.edu/~stefanov/proceedings/rodriguez.htm
Mexican migration to the United States has been a major area of contention for U.S.-Mexico bilateral
relations since the 1920s. Despite restrictive U.S. immigration law, Mexico continues to be the leading
country of origin for legal and illegal migrant workers into the United States. Mexicos migration was initially
encouraged by the United States with the construction of the railroad system across borders and with the Bracero Accords in which Mexican workers were recruited
to help ease labor force shortages in their economy that resulted due to a number of factors. However, in periods of adequate labor supply, U.S. immigration
policies have reflected a restrictive approach, geared towards discouraging the flow of Mexican migrants into the U.S. with polices that include the Immigration
Reform and Control Act (IRCA) with its various amendment. I will analyze the social, economic and political factors that explain Mexican migration patterns to the
United States from the 1920s to present-day. The paper will incorporate the
major elements of the Mexico-United States bilateral
relationship that have impacted Mexican migratory flow and incorporate U.S. immigration policies
that have influenced Mexican migration patterns both legally and illegally. Understanding Mexican
migration patterns is a timely project since it is now placed at the top of the list of policy priorities for
both countries. Mexican migration to the United States has been a major area of contention for U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations since the 1900s.
Historically, there have been periods of shared interests in promoting migratory flows. Today, U.S. immigration legislation has become more restrictive, partly
reflecting an American concern for the high level of Mexican immigration. Nevertheless, Mexico continues to be the leading country of origin for migrant workers,
legally and illegally, into the United States. Mexico cannot easily be ignored for many reasons. Among those reasons is the unavoidable reality that both countries
share the same 2,000-mile border. This close proximity makes each other susceptible to the consequences of domestic events: the issues of one affects the other. In
addition, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has helped tie the countries further by making Mexico the U.S. second largest trading partner. The
issue of Mexican immigration, its impact, and contributing factors had not been an issue of great concern in North America until the 1900s. It was only when events
around the world affected the United States in which it found itself entering a war, sending its men to fight and quickly having to recruit individuals from other
countries for the left behind jobs. Businessmen in various U.S. sectors found themselves in a difficult position. Women were the only answer to fulfill the increasing
number of job vacancies that existed in manufacturing and agriculture sectors. On the other hand, American women were concerned about the care and education
of their children. If women worked they would then have to incur the extra costs of daycare. In addition, hard hit sectors such as agriculture could no longer employ
minors due to child labor laws established with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). FLSA legislation established minimum ages for employment in
agriculture. Because of Mexicos close proximity, negotiations over a guest worker program occurred between U.S. President Roosevelt and Mexican President Avila
Camacho in the 1940s. This guest worker program would permit migration of Mexicans into the United States under contracts in order to relieve needing sectors.
This Mexican Farm Labor Program (MFLP) came to be known as the Bracero Program. However, this was not the first time that migration had been encouraged by
the United States. Guest worker programs were the beginning to legal and illegal immigration, an issue that continues to be controversial between the U.S. and
Mexico Immigration issues were not as important to deal with in presidential administrations and in Congress after the passing of the Immigration and
Naturalization Act of 1965. However, President Jimmy Carters administration (1977-1980) knew the importance and potential that Mexico held as its next close
neighbor and as one of the larger countries in Latin America. However, Congress did not do much to on his proposed immigration legislation during his
administration. Both President Carter and Mexican President Lopez Portillo were inaugurated around the same time. Mexico was experiencing a time of stability
with its newly discovered oil fields. GDP levels were on the rise again and the once overvalued peso was returning to more appropriate levels. Foreign capital was
flowing back into Mexico as a result of its positive comeback. At the same time Mexico was slowing gaining its independence politically and economically by
restricting foreign investors capabilities and refusing to cut ties with countries that the U.S. did not want other to negotiations with (ex.Cuba). President
Carter first met with Mexican President Lopez Portillo before any other diplomat of any other country
thus establishing his agenda in regards to bilateral negotiations with Mexico. The Carter
administration wanted to develop their foreign policies in order to address Latin Americas integration
into the world economy, secondly to address the increase of illegal immigrants, and U.S. interest to
obtain oil from Mexico (Rosenblum 2000, 15). Mexico, on the other hand, wanted to ensure human
rights protections for all legal and illegal Mexicans in the U.S., cease its dependence on the U.S. for
economic and political issues, increase nationalism in Mexico and wanted U.S. bilateral policies to be
sensitive and responsive to Mexicos position over issues in a manner that would "reflect the bilateral
character" of their issues (Rosenblum 2000, 16). Basically, Mexico wanted to be consulted in the
policy making process in regards to bilateral issues. Historically, Mexico had had no say in the majority of bilateral matters that had
concerned both countries and had no choice but to accept U.S. policies. Mexico had been too involved in its own domestic matters to hold talks with the U.S.
regarding immigration policies. Mexican officials remained "silent, treating the legislation as an internal matter of the U.S. about which it would be inappropriate to
comment" or what is called a "no policy" policy in which it would only comment as necessary to "protect the human rights of its nationals in the U.S. (Weintraub
1998, 1231). Rafael Fernandez de Castro (1998) also notes Mexicos non-engagement policy on migration from the end of the Bracero program in 1964 up until the
1980s. As the silent country, Mexicos
position on the issue of migration had been unclear. Yet it would not stop
Mexicans from crossing the border. Mexican officials believed that by stopping Mexicans from
transiting into the U.S. would mean taking away a constitutional guarantee provided by the Mexican
constitution, the right to free transit. In addition, Mexico considered the Mexican migration process as
a "straight forward supply-demand model" (Fernandez de Castro 1998, 30). This model dictates that
as long as opportunities were available in the U.S. and labor was in surplus in Mexico, Mexicans would
cross the border to jump at these opportunities and no one could do anything to avoid it. The change in their
attitude came with the help of Ascencio and IRCA. According to Weintraub (1998), credit can be given to U.S. Congress created Commission for the Study of
International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development or commonly referred to the Ascencio Commission for establishing an environment or agenda in
which Mexico could provide input on migration issues. This commission was established to "deal with the root causes of illegal immigration to the US" (Migration
Review 1994). This Ascencio Commission was what first helped open dialogue between the two countries in order to better deal with migration issues. The passing
of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in 1986 also prompted Mexicans officials to change their attitude toward dealing with migration. Mexicans in
Mexico and the United States placed pressure on Mexican government officials in Mexico and the U.S. to speak out on IRCA. Mexicans began to see an increase in
U.S. hostility toward migrants. In addition, the Mexican government began to recognize the importance of migrants to their economy with the sending of
migradollars. These remittances were and still are Mexicos safety valve. The free trade agreement of the 1994 with U.S. and Canada along with the growth of
political pluralism increased pressure on Mexican government to approach U.S.-Mexico migration policy differently (Fernandez de Castro 1998). However, Mexican
Presidents Salinas de Gotardi and Zedillo addressed the migrant issue differently in NAFTA. Mexican President Salinas de Gotardi optimistically viewed NAFTA as a
means of retaining Mexicans in Mexico. He hoped that Mexicans would not find it necessary to migrate to the U.S. for employment opportunities and better wages
that they desperately sought by crossing the dangerous river or deserts connecting the U.S. and Mexico. He strongly believed that NAFTA would keep Mexicans
from migrating legally and illegally and leaving their families and friends in search of a better future. On the other hand, President Zedillo believed NAFTA was an
opportunity to address, improve, and expand economic situations for migrant workers.
AT: Relations Resilient – Economy
Even if Mexico and US are economically interdependent, sustained cooperation is key
Shifter 13 (Michael, Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown
University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for
the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue, “A More
Ambitious Agenda” February 2013
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf\\CLans)
Mexico and the United States are more closely tied to one another than any other sovereign nations in the world, and the
pace of their economic and demographic integration is accelerating. For both, sustained cooperation on
an array of bilateral, regional, and global issues is essential. They have no choice: No other country
affects the lives of US citizens more than Mexico, and none affects the lives of Mexicans more than the United States. No
two countries have more to gain from pursuing closer and more robust ties. A continued reinforcement and expansion of
bilateral economic relations is fundamental for both countries. Much still must be done to improve cross-border
access to markets, investment capital, technology, human resources, and energy supplies. Even with its current economic problems, the United
States’ $16 trillion economy is a vital destination for Mexican products and a critical source of capital and technology. And
there is room
for it to contribute even more to Mexico’s economic performance. For its part, the rising Mexican economy, which
some experts predict will emerge as the world’s fifth largest by midcentury, will inevitably become more and more central to the United States’
economic future. The
United States and Mexico would also benefit from working harder and smarter to
resolve their differences and to address some crucial shared problems. Immigration and public
security are the central priorities for the coming period.
AT: Relations Resilient – Security
Nieto administration putting economic issues at the forefront – security is taking a
back seat
Fosset 13 (Katelyn, writer for the Inter Press Service, an international journal focusing on global affairs,
“In U.S.-Mexico Relations, a Shift from Security to Economy” April 30, 2013
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/04/in-u-s-mexico-relations-a-shift-from-security-to-economy\\Clans)
WASHINGTON, Apr 30 2013 (IPS) - Ahead of President Barack Obama’s trip to Mexico and Costa Rica, experts here are
expecting that security will take a back seat to issues of economic cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico.
Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Credit: cc by 2.0 But some Washington advocacy groups are sounding alarms about shifting away too
soon from critical security and rights concerns. “A
lot of the focus is going to be on economics,” President Obama told
reporters Tuesday. ”We’ve spent so much time on security issues between the United States and Mexico that
sometimes I think we forget this is a massive trading partner responsible for huge amounts of commerce and huge numbers of
jobs on both sides of the border. “We want to see how we can deepen that, how we can improve that and
maintain that economic dialogue over a long period of time,” he continued. This shift is notable, as issues
of security, law enforcement and combating crime formed the backbone of U.S.-Mexican relations
during the previous Mexican administration. “Even before [former Mexican President Felipe] Calderon took office, it was part of the discussion
with the U.S., and the U.S. and Mexican administrations went on to develop a close and complex relationship on security matters,” Eric Olson,
associate director of the Latin America programme at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank, told IPS. President Obama is
slated to meet with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto later this week before meeting with Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla.
“President Obama
having a visit [early in his second term] symbolises the importance of Mexico to the U.S.,” Chris
United States is Mexico’s largest trading
Wilson, an associate at the Mexico Institute, a think tank here, told IPS. The
partner, and the two countries engaged in nearly 500 billion dollars worth of trade in 2012. Much of that trade is in what are known as
intermediate inputs, referring to semi-finished U.S. goods that are finalised with Mexican resources, a process seen as increasing the
competitiveness of both countries. Remittances
sent home from Mexican immigrants living in the United States
are also a substantial factor in the countries’ economic ties, totalling more than 20 billion dollars last year. The
upcoming summit’s focus on economics squares with a narrative gaining traction in media coverage and
academic circles in recent years that paints a picture of an economically booming Mexico. “During the
administration of Calderon, the perception of Mexico in the media was largely one of drugs and
violence – the headlines about Mexico were about drugs and trafficking, organised crime, gruesome violence,” Wilson recalls. “But the
new [Mexican] administration has come in at a time when economic growth is pretty robust. They are trying
their best to shift the narrative of Mexico by talking more about these economic issues: the reforms that are happening in
Mexico that will promote growth, new investments coming into Mexico that will promote growth.”
Coop Spillover LA
Immigration and coop with Mexico spills over to Latin America co-op
Murphy 13 (David, Reporter for MSNBC, citing NBC Latin American Policy Analyst Jorge Castaneda,
“Time is now for US-Latin American outreach” March 13, 2013
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51163791/t/time-now-us-latin-americanoutreach/#.UeBDmEGTjps\\CLans)
The U.S. relationship with Latin America has long been defined by cold war politics and a smattering of new
economic opportunities...but times may be changing. America’s influence in Latin America is “not what it used to be.” But there
are plenty of opportunities to change that, says NBC News Latin American Policy Analyst, Jorge Castañeda. After the
death of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, President Obama said he would seek to begin a new era in U.S.Venezuelan relations. But the disappearance of America’s chief antagonist in the region could signal an overall warming of relations.
Castañeda, who also served as Mexico’s foreign minister, said on The Daily Rundown Wednesday that the ball is now in President Obama’s
court. “(The
U.S.) doesn’t have an agenda with Latin America…(but) the President has a great opportunity
as his second term begins.” Part of the reason for that opportunity is the chance for action on U.S.
policy issues that are most meaningful to Latin American nations, namely immigration reform and gun
control. “If there is comprehensive immigration reform…and there is some form of cooperation with sending
countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and the Caribbean countries, that would have an enormous
impact in part of Latin America,” Castañeda said.
US-Mexico Good – Economy/Terrorism
Mexican-American cooperation key to the economy and anti-terror efforts
Selee and Wilson ‘12
Dec. 13, 2012 A New AgeNdA with Mexico Andrew Selee & Christopher Wilson Andrew Selee is Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute. He can be reached at
Andrew.Selee@wilsoncenter.org. Christopher Wilson is an associate with the Mexico Institute. Christopher Wilson is an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, where he develops the Institute’s research and programming on regional economic integration and U.S.-Mexico border affairs. He is the author of Working Together:
Economic Ties between the United States and Mexico (Wilson Center, 2011). Chris is regularly consulted by national and international media outlets regarding U.S.-Mexico relations and has
coauthored op-ed columns for the Wall Street Journal and Dallas Morning News. Chris previously served as a Mexico Analyst for the U.S. Military and as a researcher at American University’s
Center for North American Studies. In Mexico, he worked with the international trade consultancy IQOM, Inteligencia Comercial, and with American students studying regional political and
social issues. He completed his M.A. in International Affairs at American University, focusing on U.S. foreign policy and hemispheric relations.
Few countries will shape America’s future as much as Mexico. The two countries share a 2,000 mile
border, and Mexico is the second largest destination for U.S. exports and third source of oil for the
U.S. market. A quarter of all U.S. immigrants are from Mexico, and one in ten Americans are of
Mexican descent. Joint security challenges, including both terrorist threats and the violent operations
of drug cartels, have forced the two governments to work more closely than ever. What’s more,
cooperation has now extended to a range of other global issues, from climate change to economic
stability. Nonetheless, the landscape of U.S.-Mexico relations is changing. Illegal immigration is at the
lowest level in four decades, and organized crime violence, which has driven much of the recent
cooperation, is finally declining. Violence will remain a critical issue, but economic issues—bilateral and
global—have risen to the fore as both countries struggle to emerge from the global slowdown. Trade
has increased dramatically, connecting the manufacturing base of the two countries as never before,
so that gains in one country benefit the other. To keep pace with these changes, U.S. policymakers will
need to deepen the agenda with Mexico to give greater emphasis to economic issues, including ways to
spur job creation, and they will have opportunities to strengthen cooperation on global issues. Security
cooperation will remain critical, and determined but nuanced followthrough to dismantle the
operations of criminal groups on both sides of the border will be needed to continue the drop in
violence. With less illegal immigration, it will be easier to address legal migration in new ways. However,
economic issues are likely to dominate the bilateral agenda for the first time in over a decade.
Strengthening economic tieS and creating JobS In most trading relationships, the U.S. simply buys or sells
finished goods to another country. However, with its neighbors, Mexico and Canada, the U.S. actually
co-manufactures products. Indeed, roughly 40 percent of all content in Mexican exports to the
United States originates in the United States. The comparable figures with China, Brazil, and India are
four, three, and two percent respectively. Only Canada, at 25 percent, is similar. With the economies
of North America deeply linked, growth in one country benefits the others, and lowering the
transaction costs of goods crossing the common borders among these three countries helps put
money in the pockets of both workers and consumers. Improving border ports of entry is critical to
achieving this and will require moderate investments in infrastructure and staffing, as well as the use of
new risk management techniques and the expansion of pre-inspection and trusted shipper programs to
speed up border crossing times. Transportation costs could be further lowered — and competitiveness
further strengthened — by pursuing an Open Skies agreement and making permanent the cross-border
trucking pilot program. While these are generally seen as border issues, the benefits accrue to all U.S.
states that depend on exports and joint manufacturing with Mexico, including Michigan, Ohio,
Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, New Hampshire, and Georgia, to name just a few. Mexico also has both
abundant oil reserves and one of the largest stocks of shale gas in the world. The country will probably
pursue a major energy reform over the next couple years that could spur oil and gas production, which
has been declining over the past decade. If that happens, it is certain to detonate a cycle of investment
in the Mexican economy, could significantly contribute to North American energy security, and may
open a space for North American discussions about deepened energy Cooperation reinforcing Security
cooperation Organized crime groups based in Mexico supply most of the cocaine, heroin, and
methamphetamines, and some of the marijuana, to U.S. consumers, who, in return, send six to nine
billion dollars to Mexico each year that fuels the violence associated with this trade. The U.S. and
Mexican governments have significantly improved intelligence sharing, which has helped weaken many
of these criminal networks and disrupt some of their financial flows. At the same time, the
congressionally funded Merida Initiative, which has provided $1.6 billion to Mexico for national and
public security since 2008, has been successfully strengthening the Mexican government’s capacity and
rule of law institutions. These efforts appear to be yielding some success as violence has dropped
noticeably since mid-2011. Going forward, the two countries will need to do more to disrupt the
southbound flows of illegal money and weapons that supply the criminal groups, strengthen
communities under the stress of violence, and improve the performance of police, prosecutors, and
courts in Mexico. In many ways, Mexico has been successful at turning a national security threat into a
public security threat, but the country now requires significant investment to create an effective and
accountable criminal justice system and to slow the flow of illegal funds from the U.S. that undermine
these efforts. As Mexico’s security crisis begins to recede, the two 3 A New AgeNdA with Mexico
countries will also have to do far more to strengthen the governments of Central America, which now
face a rising tide of violence as organized crime groups move southward. Mexico is also a U.S. ally in
deterring terrorist threats and promoting robust democracy in the Western Hemisphere, and there
will be numerous opportunities to strengthen the already active collaboration as growing economic
opportunities reshape the region’s political and social landscape. managing LegaL migration fLowS Since
2007, the number of Mexican migrants illegally entering the United States has dropped to historically
low levels, with a net outflow of unauthorized immigrants from the U.S. over the past three years. The
drop is partially because of the weak U.S. economy, but it also has to do with more effective U.S. border
enforcement and better economic opportunities in Mexico. This shift offers the potential for both
countries to explore new approaches to migration for the first time in a decade. In the United States,
policymakers have an opportunity to look specifically at how to reform the legal immigration system.
Almost all sides agree that the current immigration system, originally developed in the 1960s, fails to
address the realities of a twenty-first century economy. A renewed discussion on this issue could focus
on how to restructure the U.S. visa system to bring in the kinds of workers and entrepreneurs the
United States needs to compete globally in the future. This includes both high-skilled and lowerskilled
workers, who fill important gaps in the U.S. economy. Policymakers should consider whether those
already in the United States, who have set down roots and are contributing effectively to the economy
and their communities, might also be able to apply through a restructured visa system Mexican
policymakers, on the other hand, have huge opportunities to consolidate Mexico’s burgeoning middle
class in those communities where out-migration has been a feature of life so as to make sure that
people no longer need to leave the country to get ahead. There are a number of ambitious efforts,
including some led by Mexican migrants that can serve as models for this. Mexican policymakers could
also facilitate U.S. reform efforts by indicating how they could help cooperate with a new U.S. visa
system if the U.S. Congress moves forward on a legal immigration reform. addreSSing maJor gLobaL
iSSueS with mexico Over the past few years, the U.S. and Mexican governments have expanded
beyond the bilateral agenda to work closely together on global issues, from climate change to
international trade and the economic crisis. The U.S. government should continue to take advantage of
the opportunities this creates for joint problem-solving. Mexico’s active participation in the G-20, which
it hosted in 2012, and in the U.N. Framework on Climate Change, which it hosted in 2010, have helped
spur this collaboration, and the recent accession of Mexico into the Trans-Pacific Partnership
negotiations provides one obvious avenue to continue it. The two countries also coordinate more
extensively than ever before on diplomatic issues, ranging from the breakdown of democratic order in
Honduras to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mexico is likely to play an increasingly active role on global
economic and environmental issues, areas where the country has significant experience, and through
cooperative efforts the U.S. can take advantage of Mexico’s role as a bridge between the developed
and developing worlds, and between North America and Latin America. The bilateral agenda will remain
critically important —and the increasingly deep integration of the two economies and societies means
that efforts on trade, security, and migration will remain vital for the future of both countries. In
addition, the maturation of the bilateral relationship means that it may one day resemble that between
the United States and Canada, in which global issues can be as important as the strictly bilateral issues.
A balanced and wide-ranging U.S.-Mexico agenda—one that seeks creative and collaborative
approaches on topics ranging from local gangs to global terrorist networks and from regional supply
chains to international finance—promises significant mutually beneficial results in the coming years.
US-Mexico Good – Economy
Economic interdependence makes economic engagement most effective for
cooperation
Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Calderón; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior
Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill
Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary
of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)
One of the most important strategic drivers in the relationship today is the economic relationship .
While the other top issues on the bilateral agenda are primarily understood as problems to be solved,
the economic relation is strong and growing. A greater focus on business, investment, and trade has
the potential to reframe the entire U.S.-Mexico relationship , to create a discourse based as much on
opportunity and mutual benefit as it is on risk and shared responsibility. Both countries’ economies
depend on each other more than most citizens realize. Mexico is the United States second largest
export market, and the U.S. is Mexico’s largest. The two countries trade more than a billion dollars in
goods each day, but as important as the volume of the trade is its quality. With a process known as
production sharing, Mexico and the United States jointly manufacture goods, sending parts back and
forth across the border as a final product is built. This integration of our manufacturing sectors means
that to a large extent we will sink or swim together in today’s fiercely competitive global economic
environment.
Plan spills over to broader trade relations boosting BOTH the US and Mexican
economies
Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Calderón; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior
Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill
Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary
of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)
Mexico is also at a crossroads where it may be able to stimulate investment in its energy sector and
make it a major global producer of oil and shale gas, reversing a long-term decline in production. If
Mexico can achieve this dramatic turnaround, it would revitalize the Mexican economy, serve as a
motor for growth for the next two decades , and create enormous opportunities for cooperation in
North America, where Canada and the United States are also major global producers. There is also
strong potential for renewable energy in the border region, an area of abundant sunshine and wind. To
take advantage of these economic opportunities, Mexico and the United States (and, in many cases,
Canada) will need to work together to fix inefficient border crossings, simplify customs procedures,
and harmonize production standards. Improving the basic infrastructure—physical and regulatory—
that link the two countries will eliminate an unnecessary drag on trade and help create the building
blocks for greater mutually beneficial integration. In a time of budgetary constraints, strategic shifts to
improve efficiency and security, such as the expanded use of trusted traveler and trusted shipper
programs, may be the most cost-effective way to facilitate trade at the border.
Cooperation with Mexico bolsters their economies and strategic interests abroad –
Especially in Asia
Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Calderón; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior
Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill
Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary
of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)
For the United States, Mexico is a key partner in international affairs . Mexico works hard to protect
the United States from terrorist threats and to weaken transnational organized crime groups. It is a
middle income country, currently holds the presidency of the G-20, and is expected to grow steadily
for many years to come. Jim O’Neil of Goldman Sachs, for example, expects Mexico to have the
seventh largest economy in the world by 2020. Mexico has long served as a bridge between the
developed and developing worlds, and the U.S. can take advantage of this fact by working closely with
Mexico on issues of common interest. Mexico, too, has much to gain from working in partnership with
the United States. Despite significant success in its role as host of the recent United Nations Climate
Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico has punched below its weight on foreign policy for several
years. To increase international clout, Mexico must become even more active in international
institutions, perhaps getting involved in UN peacekeeping operations, among other things. Mexico has
an opportunity to reclaim its role as a regional leader by working with other hemispheric partners to
help Central America fight transnational organized crime and strengthen the rule of law. The United
States, with its strong capabilities and weighty voice, should support Mexico’s desire to take on more
leadership on the regional and global stages. Such a foreign policy partnership does not mean that
Mexico must adopt U.S. positions; it just entails recognition that on many issues the countries have
shared interests and objectives. A more active support of mutual goals, such as the consolidation of
democracy in the Americas, could benefit both nations. The best forum for joint regional efforts may
often be the Organization of American States. Mexico, the United States, and Canada have each
begun to reorient their foreign policy to focus more attention on the Asia-Pacific region. The question
now is whether they will pivot individually or do so as members of a North American strategic and
economic partnership . In efforts to strengthen relationships with nations throughout Asia, grow
trade, or push nations to respect their WTO obligations, the countries of North America are more
competitive and convincing when working together. North American cooperation brings together
three distinct and important voices: Canada, the consummate multilateralist; Mexico, a large and
important growth market; and the United States, still the world’s top superpower. The Trans-Pacific
Partnership is an obvious place to begin to articulate and enact such a stance. The TPP has the
potential to strengthen North America’s own integration while taking steps forward toward the
strategic goals of both the United States and Mexico .
US-Mexico Good – Terrorism
Empirics prove – Co-op thwarts terrorism
Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Calderón; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior
Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill
Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary
of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)
At the same time, the United States faces a major challenge in ensuring the safety of its citizens
against terrorist attacks, and it depends significantly on intelligence sharing and law enforcement
cooperation from its two neighbors, Mexico and Canada. Indeed, this cooperation has been one of the
untold stories of engagement between U.S. and Mexican federal agencies over the past decade, with
the result that the U.S.-Mexico border has not yet been used for terrorist activities. However,
continued vigilance and more sophisticated forms of cooperation will be needed to avoid the
evolving threats from terrorist organizations .
Relations key to solve better border security – laundry list
Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Calderón; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior
Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill
Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary
of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)
Indeed, one of the greatest opportunities for binational cooperation on security, which would help
address both Mexican concerns about transnational organized crime and U.S. concerns about
terrorism, would be to develop more sophisticated approaches to managing ports of entry at the
border. By using risk management techniques and the latest technology, the two countries could
develop more effective ways of detecting potential threats , ranging from drugs to firearms to
bombs , and simultaneously facilitate commerce and the exchange of people across the border. While
much attention has been focused on beefing up security between ports of entry, the reality is that
most of the real threats to the two countries are at the ports of entry rather than between them. A
new focus on these could be a win-win for both countries and for both security and trade.
Specifically in the context of nuclear terrorism- magnitude outweighs probability
Tsoulfanidis 13 (Nicholas, Nuclear Technology Editor citing ROBERT A. MEYERS, RAMTECH LIMITED, Larkspur, CA, USA Editorial Board
RITA R. COLWELL, Distinguished University Professor, Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, College
Park, MD, USA ANDREAS FISCHLIN, Terrestrial Systems Ecology, ETH-Zentrum, Zu¨rich, Switzerland DONALD A. GLASER, Glaser Lab, University of
California, Berkeley, Department of Molecular & Cell Biology, Berkeley, CA, USA TIMOTHY L. KILLEEN, National Science Foundation, Arlington,
VA, USA HAROLD W. KROTO, Francis Eppes Professor of Chemistry, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The Florida State University,
Tallahassee, FL, USA AMORY B. LOVINS, Chairman & Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, USA LORD ROBERT MAY, Department
of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK DANIEL L. MCFADDEN, Director of Econometrics Laboratory, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, USA THOMAS C. SCHELLING, 3105 Tydings Hall, Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
CHARLES H. TOWNES, 557 Birge, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA EMILIO AMBASZ, Emilio Ambasz & Associates, Inc., New York, NY,
USA CLARE BRADSHAW, Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden TERRY COFFELT, Research Geneticist, Arid
Land Agricultural Research Center, Maricopa, AZ, USA MEHRDAD EHSANI, Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX, USA ALI EMADI, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL,
USA CHARLES A. S. HALL, College of Environmental Science & Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY, USA RIK LEEMANS,
Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands KEITH LOVEGROVE, Department of Engineering
(Bldg 32), The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia TIMOTHY D. SEARCHINGER, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ, USA “Nuclear Energy Selected Entries from the Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology”
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-5716-9.pdf\\CLans)
Since the attacks in the USA on September 11, 2001, terrorism’s threat against a country’s national security has come under increased scrutiny.
Although few terrorist organizations will implement acts of such devastation, it is considered by many
experts that nuclear terrorism cannot be ruled out, and, because the devastation of a nuclear attack
would be unmatched, the risks must be mitigated regardless of the low probability [38–40]. To mitigate these
risks, one may increase security at the storage locations (strengthen nuclear safeguards), dispose of the nuclear materials in such a way that
they are unavailable to the terrorists, strengthen methods to detect their misuse and transport once they have fallen into the wrong hands, and
also develop methods through which illegal activity may be attributed to a particular national or subnational group. Rigorous nuclear
safeguards, which have been described previously, are only one layer in a defensive system against the use of
nuclear materials by a subnational or terrorist organization. In addition to nuclear safeguards, the other layers of
mature protection system would include monitoring of nuclear material in transit, robust intelligence collection and analysis, consequence
management, and a vigorous response capability to a nuclear emergency or event to mitigate it prior to a detonation. Each
of these
layers relies on, at least in part, the ability to detect and characterize nuclear or radiological materials at
various points in their life cycle. Nuclear smuggling is difficult to stop due to the small size of the materials required by the terrorist
to make a nuclear bomb; the weak radiation many of these materials emit; the large number of smuggling routes; the large amount of
legitimate traffic crossing these borders every year; and the existence of established smuggling networks for other contraband, such as illegal
drugs. A
recent analysis of 174 illicit radiological material trafficking incidents that have occurred since
1991 found little evidence of clear trends that can be used by nuclear security personnel [41]. It did note
that the incidents involved a variety of radionuclides; however, approximately 60% of the cases involved Cesium-137, which happens to be an
attractive isotope for radiological dispersal devices.
US-Mexico Good – Drug Trafficking
Increased cooperation is key to combating drug trafficking – the Nieto administration
is holding the reigns tight
NYT – 13 (April 30, 2013; Randal C. Archibold, Damien Cave, and Ginger Thompson; reporters reporting in Mexico City and
NYC; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/americas/friction-between-us-and-mexico-threatens-efforts-ondrugs.html?pagewanted=all)
MEXICO CITY — In their joint fight against drug traffickers, the United States and Mexico have forged
an unusually close relationship in recent years, with the Americans regularly conducting polygraph tests
on elite Mexican security officials to root out anyone who had been corrupted. But shortly after
Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, took office in December, American agents got a clear
message that the dynamics, with Washington holding the clear upper hand, were about to change.
“So do we get to polygraph you?” one incoming Mexican official asked his American counterparts,
alarming United States security officials who consider the vetting of the Mexicans central to tracking
down drug kingpins. The Mexican government briefly stopped its vetted officials from cooperating in
sensitive investigations. The Americans are waiting to see if Mexico allows polygraphs when assigning
new members to units, a senior Obama administration official said. In another clash, American security
officials were recently asked to leave an important intelligence center in Monterrey, where they had
worked side by side with an array of Mexican military and police commanders collecting and analyzing
tips and intelligence on drug gangs. The Mexicans, scoffing at the notion of Americans’ having so much
contact with different agencies, questioned the value of the center and made clear that they would put
tighter reins on the sharing of drug intelligence. There have long been political sensitivities in Mexico
over allowing too much American involvement. But the recent policy changes have rattled American
officials used to far fewer restrictions than they have faced in years. Asked about security cooperation
with Mexico at a news conference on Tuesday, President Obama said: “We’ve made great strides in
the coordination and cooperation between our two governments over the last several years. But my
suspicion is, is that things can be improved .”
US-Mexico coop is key to solve drug trafficking
Gallaher & Schneider 13 (Carolyn Gallaher and Dan Schneider are professors in the School of International Service at American
University; 5/2/13; Obama, Peña Nieto must save a vital part of effort to fight drug trafficking;
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0502/Obama-Pena-Nieto-must-save-a-vital-part-of-effort-to-fight-drugtrafficking/(page)/2)
With President Obama visiting Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, today, it’s time to ask
what the future holds for US-Mexican cooperation in reducing drug trafficking – an effort known as
the Mérida Initiative. The Mexican government is radically restructuring that cooperation. Instead of
spreading the work across multiple ministries, which have been working with numerous US agencies,
it is coordinating everything under the single roof of its Interior Ministry. We appreciate Mr. Peña
Nieto’s desire to change course in the fight against cartels, but the far-reaching cooperative structures
Mérida established should continue. We recently traveled to Mexico City, where we examined security
cooperation between Mexico and the United States. After speaking with senior officials in several
Mexican federal agencies, we can say that changes in cross-border cooperation are dramatic. Some
context. In 2006, President-elect Felipe Calderón decided to make the fight against organized crime a
central part of his presidency. He had good reason to do so. Drug-related violence was soaring and
becoming more gruesome. Since then, more than 60,000 Mexicans have lost their lives to drug-related
violence. The violence is not, however, just a Mexican issue. American demand for drugs fuels the
trade, and guns from the US are the cartels’ weapons of choice. In Chicago, the murder rate is on the
rise, partly because of drug trafficking. In March 2007, President Calderón and President George W.
Bush agreed to significantly increase cooperation in fighting drug trafficking. Under the resulting Mérida
Initiative, the US pledged $1.4 billion in assistance over four years, a fraction of what Mexico spends
on the effort. Initial funds were earmarked for hardware; later allotments were to help Mexico
transform its judicial sector to be more transparent and accountable. Equally important, Mérida
sparked the creation of multiple binational working groups. Fast forward to 2012. Despite the
importance of organized crime as an issue in the Mexican presidential race, Peña Nieto’s administration
has focused almost exclusively on the economy since the election. Its first major security announcement
came a few days ago. Instead of Mexican agencies working directly with their counterparts in US
agencies, all communication, intelligence sharing, and joint maneuvers will run through one ministry –
Interior. As a public relations strategy in Mexico, it makes sense to lower the volume on the cartels and
drug violence. Mexicans are worn out after six years of constant media coverage of gruesome violence
and Mr. Calderón’s war on those perpetrating it. However, violence continues, and broad bilateral
cooperation can help to stop it . Indeed, during our research we have met US state prosecutors who
exchanged information with their Mexican counterparts that led to arrests and prosecutions in both
countries. We also heard positive assessments about coordination on cargo inspection. Officers in both
countries have also used the US e-trace system, which tracks weapons found at crime scenes. Despite
such progress, our discussions with senior Mexican officials suggest the future of bilateral cooperation
is in doubt. Many newly appointed senior officials were shocked at the full extent of cooperation with
the US during Calderón’s administration. Several officials used words like “penetration” and
“infiltration” to describe US involvement – words that suggest suspicion about US motives.
Cooperation will be instrumental in solving drug trade
Gallaher & Schneider 13 (Carolyn Gallaher and Dan Schneider are professors in the School of International Service at American
University; 5/2/13; Obama, Peña Nieto must save a vital part of effort to fight drug trafficking;
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0502/Obama-Pena-Nieto-must-save-a-vital-part-of-effort-to-fight-drugtrafficking/(page)/2)
Peña Nieto’s administration says it will take its time crafting a new security strategy. It should
consider three things while doing so. First, it should focus on violence reduction, targeting crimes that
contribute to public insecurity, such as kidnapping and extortion. Second, it must complete longpromised judicial reform, especially at the federal level. The Mexican Congress needs to pass new
criminal and procedural codes. Without them, the status quo – wide-scale impunity – continues. Third,
Mexico should harness the cooperative structures of Mérida to achieve these goals. At their best,
Mérida’s working groups put people on both sides of the border in touch with their counterparts,
allowing for practical cooperation on security issues big and small. Presidents Obama and Peña Nieto
should find a way to preserve these groups even as they refocus how they will be used.
US-Mexico Good – Organized Crime
Cooperation key to prevent organized crime and end Mexican police overstretch
Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Calderón; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior
Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill
Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary
of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)
Moreover, the U.S. and Mexico can do much more to target violent transnational organized crime
groups together . Given that law enforcement has a limited capacity, a more focused strategy with
clear priorities could improve public safety while degrading criminal groups. One option would be to
select the most violent groups and simultaneously dismantle their operations on both sides of the
border , sending a signal that high levels of violence will lead to increased law enforcement pressure.
A more focused strategy could also concentrate law enforcement capacity on punishing, and therefore
preventing, the most violent and high-social-impact crimes, like mass killings or attacks on police. These
do not require any new legislation , but do entail getting federal and state agencies to coordinate
their support of Mexico’s designated priorities. Much more could be done to expand intelligence
cooperation between the two countries, and both governments should be as open as possible about
the nature of their collaboration, which public opinion in Mexico strongly supports.
US-Mexico Good – Energy Coop
Plan spills over to energy cooperation with Mexico
Stratfor 13 (May 2 , 2013; Evolving U.S. – Mexico Relations and Obama’s visit; http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/evolving-us-mexicond
relations-and-obamas-visit)
Domestic political factors will determine the success of the pending overhauls. But the labor reform
could improve bilateral commerce and investment with the United States, as would a successful
liberalization of the country's energy sector in the coming years. Mexico is already the United States'
third-largest trading partner, and economic coordination between the two countries has become a
routine matter at the ministerial level, but there is still a need to ease bureaucratic trade and
investment barriers.
US-Mexico Good – Prolif
US-Mexican relations key to checking Latin America prolif
Sotomayor 13 (Arturo C., Assistant Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the
Naval Postgraduate School, political scientist and international studies scholar, held fellowships at Ford
Foundation, Fulbright-Garcia Robles Grant Program, International Studies Association, Tulane University,
Institute for the Study of World Politics, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the
Defense Threat Assessment Agency, “BRAZIL AND MEXICO IN THE NONPROLIFERATION REGIME”,
February 26, 2013, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700.2013.769377\\CLans)
This leads us to the third and final question: Which is the ideal country to help reinvigorate nuclear disarmament
and nonproliferation discussions in the region? For decades, the leading Latin American partner was
Mexico, the country that had chosen nuclear restraint and whose embrace of disarmament initiatives
helped propel global and regional nonproliferation norms. If anything, the nonproliferation regime
requires more than just solid norms and principles to work; it also needs norm entrepreneurs and leadership. As Australian National
University expert Maria Rost Rublee argues, nuclear threshold states that have chosen restraint play a significant role on this regard. Their
commitment to a non-nuclear status provides ‘‘a moral stance against nuclear weapons that lends itself to energetic support’’ for global
disarmament.84 Yet, Mexico’s
support for the nonproliferation regime is slowly eroding, in part due to
domestic politics and US influence. This, too, can undermine both regional and global disarmament
efforts. Two dynamics are in operation in Mexico. First, the traditional role of the armed forces is being revised
because of the government’s offensive launch against drug cartels. Increasingly, internal security has become the main
issue of concern, with nuclear proliferation occupying a secondary role. Recent survey polls conducted by one of
Mexico City’s leading public research institutes show that Mexicans feel threatened by drug-trafficking and organized
crime, global warming, AIDS, food shortages, and the global economic crisis, in that order.85 In a country that has just recently democratized,
politicians and diplomats alike feel compelled to follow their constituents’ wishes. In this context, the armed forces are being asked to perform
policing missions, thus occupying a more active and present role in politics than in the past. Not surprisingly, Mexico’s diplomatic corps pays
increasing interest to promoting and establishing an international regime for small weapons and gun control, which, ironically, is inspired by the
nonproliferation regime. At the same time, the
shadow of the Cuban Missile Crisis has vanished, as few Mexicans
seem to remember the negative consequences of nuclear proliferation. Mexico’s unconditional
support for the nonproliferation regime is thus in question.
Realism consistent with prolif- US influence is key to securing any prolif threats
Sotomayor 13 (Arturo C., Assistant Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the
Naval Postgraduate School, political scientist and international studies scholar, held fellowships at Ford
Foundation, Fulbright-Garcia Robles Grant Program, International Studies Association, Tulane University,
Institute for the Study of World Politics, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the
Defense Threat Assessment Agency, “BRAZIL AND MEXICO IN THE NONPROLIFERATION REGIME”,
February 26, 2013, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700.2013.769377\\CLans)
To examine these variations of policies towards the nonproliferation regime, this article assesses several hypotheses
regarding the opposition to, or support for, nonproliferation efforts, including resource constraints and economic interests, threat
perceptions, and discrimination. It concludes that several of these structural hypotheses lack sufficient
comprehensive utility to explain the divergent nonproliferation strategies of Brazil and Mexico. Instead,
the main argument focuses on two, mutually reinforcing explanatory variables: US influence (systemic politics) and domestic politics. Together,
they account for the variation in terms of support/opposition to the nonproliferation regime. Specifically, Washington’s
nonproliferation policies towards Latin America alienated countries with advanced nuclear
development programs, such as Brazil, demonstrating how US foreign policy plays a key role in shaping
policy preferences in Latin America. This is consistent with structural approaches to international relations*such as
realism*which argue that major powers have an important independent effect on the behavior of states in the
international system, including the structure of alliances and the balancing of coalitions, including in the developing world.3 As noted
realist and Harvard University professor Stephen Walt argues, ‘‘weak states are also likely to be especially sensitive to
proximate power. Where great powers have both global interests and global capabilities, weak states will be concerned
primarily with events in their immediate vicinity.’’ 4 The reality is that at the international level, Latin
America’s security complex is largely shaped, although not fully determined, by the US sphere of influence, which
includes power, statecraft, and a unique geography in the Western Hemisphere.5
Even one Latin American nuke causes rapid regional proliferation
Trinkunas, ’11. Harold Trinkunas is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of National
Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. “Latin America: Nuclear
Capabilities, Intentions and Threat Perceptions.” Florida International University 9-1-2011
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=whemsac – clawan
Latin America has been a hotbed of liberal international institution building, ranging from the Organization of American States through various regional economic
forums and pacts such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) and MERCOSUR, and new initiatives such as UNASUR and the South
American Defense Council. The international regime prohibiting the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons in South America is particularly robust, resting
on the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco that initiated the process of creating a nuclear weapons free zone in the region.19 However, there are also a number of failed or
ineffective international regimes in the diplomatic history of the region, and the
acquisition of nuclear weapons ― however
unlikely it seems at present ― would represent a „realist shock‟ to the system that would undoubtedly
cause some regional powers to reconsider their adherence to a nuclear weapons-free regime. Nuclear
weapons acquisition by a South American State would lead its neighbors to reconsider their own security, much as realist or neorealist international relations theory
describes, and decide whether they should conciliate the new nuclear weapons State or balance against it. Some
would consider
strengthening military and other capabilities or react by fostering alliances to balance threats,
particularly when the State acquiring nuclear weapons is perceived as having offensive intentions. 20
Stephen Walt argues that States do not just pay attention to relative capabilities when making calculations of threat, but also the identity and nature of other
powers, particularly whether their intentions are offensive or benign. When
it comes to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by
Argentina, Brazil or Venezuela, clearly, the perceptions of States in the region as to the intentions of
these countries in acquiring the weapons would play a significant part in determining their reactions.
Venezuelan prolif likely – deliberate attempts and Iranian alliance
Trinkunas, ’11. Harold Trinkunas is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of National
Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. “Latin America: Nuclear
Capabilities, Intentions and Threat Perceptions.” Florida International University 9-1-2011
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=whemsac – clawan
Even though it lacks almost any capability to develop nuclear technology at this time, assessing Venezuela‟s future as a nuclear proliferation risk is difficult
because of its leader‟s periodic declarations of a desire to develop a nuclear power program have not been matched with
improving capabilities. In the 2005, Venezuela began discussions with its MERCOSUR partners, Argentina and Brazil, about acquiring nuclear power reactors,
although these negotiations were unproductive.9 Since then, it
has sought actively to further collaboration with Russia on
the development of a nuclear energy program, signing a nuclear cooperation agreement in 2008.
There have also been discussions of possible cooperation with Belarus and France in the area of
nuclear technology.10 Perhaps paving the way for its own future activities, Venezuela has taken positions on proliferation
issues that run directly against the mainstream of international public opinion, pursuing a highly
publicized rapprochement with Iran, a potential nuclear supplier, and supporting both Iran‟s right to pursue
nuclear technology without constraints and North Korea‟s periodic missile tests. It has also opposed
international sanctions over nuclear issues on both powers.11 Venezuela‟s stated concern of a U.S. invasion has led it to
officially orient its Armed Forces towards a policy of prolonged popular war and asymmetric warfare. This has translated into changes in doctrine and educational
programs, and the creation of a militia. 12
Mexico Key Drug Trade
Mexico drug trade key country in trafficking- US’s importer
Manwaring 11 (General Douglas MacArthur Chair and Prof of Military Strategy @ U.S. Army War
College, Ret U.S. Army Colonel, Adjunct Professor of International Politics @ Dickinson College,
“FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE IN CHILE: ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFICKING THREATS” March 21, 2011
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA560442\\CLans)
Nevertheless, the main drug-producing countries in Latin America must not only face the challenges
derived from the production control, but also all of the problems resulting from a complex process that involves
traffic of arms, organized crime, money laundering, and corruption, among many others. Therefore, in some Latin
American countries, especially in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, this problem has surpassed the capacities of the police
organisms and the governments have had to use their Armed Forces. This phenomenon also appears currently in
Mexico. Although is not a country that produces cocaine, its proximity to the United States - the largest
consumer of illicit drugs – has transformed it into the main route of operation trafficking drugs northward.
Therefore, it faces the greatest impact of negative effects that the drug trade has to offer disrupting their
government and society
Mexico is key to cocaine shipment and production
Manwaring 11 (General Douglas MacArthur Chair and Prof of Military Strategy @ U.S. Army War
College, Ret U.S. Army Colonel, Adjunct Professor of International Politics @ Dickinson College,
“FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE IN CHILE: ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFICKING THREATS” March 21, 2011
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA560442\\CLans)
The third prominent trend in Latin America in the last decades has been the proliferation of smaller trafficking organizations due to the fall of
the Colombian Cocaine Cartels. 28 The
structure of cocaine trade in Colombia effectively changed in 1995 and
ended the dominance of the most powerful cartels of Medellin and Cali. This appeared to be the end of Colombia’s role in
cocaine trafficking. However, the proliferation of a number of minor trafficking organizations quickly
emerged assuming a lower, less violent profile in Latin American society and politics in an effort to avoid detection and arrest. According to
Bagley, this is ―the cockroach effect‖ defined as ―the displacement of criminal networks from one city/state/region
to another within a given country or from one country to another in search of safer heavens and more pliable state authorities‖ 29 These
phenomena caused another effects in the region: 1) The cocaine cultivation began to diminish in Colombia, but it subsequently
increased in Peru and Bolivia while traffickers in both countries also increased their own capacity to
produce cocaine. 30 This is almost exactly like an inverse process that happened in the 1980’s when the United States carried out
programs for cocaine eradication in Bolivia - during the government of President Victor Paz administration - and when President Alberto
Fujimori leaded his own hard operations against the drug trafficking in Peru. 2) Neighboring
countries to the production
centers (Colombia, Peru and Bolivia) were added in the transit chain, such as Mexico, Central America,
Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, among others. In addition to the increase in levels of internal illicit
drug consumption, these countries also became ―bridges‖ for distribution of cocaine destined for the United States and
Europe. According to the 2010 World Drug Report, the main concern for the United Nations is the impact of cocaine trafficking on transit
countries in Americas where the drug traffickers become powerful enough to take on the state through violent confrontation or high-level
corruption. The 2010 World Drug Report affirms that the region worst affected is the Northern Triangle of Central America: Guatemala,
Honduras and El Salvador, where drug-related violence
has posed a serious challenge to governance. 3) Mexican
organized crime groups have become progressively more involved in the cocaine trade that originates
in the Andes. They also have effectively displaced Colombia’s cartels with smaller, successor Colombian criminal groups or ―cartelitos‖
(small cartels) as the primary traffickers of South American-refined cocaine through Mexican territory into the United States. 31 Mexico
continues to be the primary transshipment country for United States-bound cocaine from South
America, with an estimated 90% of annual cocaine movements toward the US stopping in Mexico. 32
The global flows of cocaine in Figure 2 represents that cocaine is mainly transported from Colombia to Mexico or Central America by sea and
then by land to the United States and Canada. The shipments from Peru and Bolivia are more common for Europe than for the United States
Drugs Impacts
Narcotics cause Latin America instability, civil wars, and destruction of US-Latin
America ties
Messing and Hazelwood 12 (F. Andy Messing is the Executive Director of the National Defense
Council Foundation, Bruce Hazelwood wa a member of the Milgroup at the U.S. Embassy, “US Drug
Control Policy and International Operations” 2012
http://ndcf.dyndns.org/ndcf/Publications/US_Drug_Control_Policy_and_Int_Ops.htm#_Toc449503510\
\CLans)
Presently, many drug producing countries are beset with guerrilla war. Therefore, in order for our overseas drug control programs to be successful U.S. planners and field operators should have a full understanding of narco-guerrilla warfare and related activities. The following generic
. As will be demonstrated, of
the three major players in a narco-guerrilla situation (the traffickers, the guerrillas, and the
government), it is the drug traffickers who are the most adept at manipulating the other two. As a starting
outline of the Three Phases of Narco-Guerrilla Warfare represents a typical progression and details the levels of involvement of the narco organization, the insurgent forces and the likely responses of the foreign government
point, it can be said that countries with narco-guerrilla problems did not see both the drug and insurgent activities begin simultaneously. Each
organization clearly had a separate birth and a separate agenda. On the other hand, the guerrillas see themselves - as liberators of the
oppressed, defenders of social justice and fighters against corruption. In sharp contrast, the drug organization is a business representing free
enterprise at its extremes. The
insurgents' goals are to challenge the government's legitimacy and ability to
provide security to the rural population, always searching for the moral high ground. Their long term objective is to
collapse the government. In sharp contrast, the drug trafficker's goals are to gain control by using their
immense financial advantages and propensity for violence to corrupt and intimidate at all levels of
society. Their long-term objective is to incorporate the government. The government's goal is to maintain itself in power. Most narcoguerrilla situations can usually be divided into three phases. PHASE 1: Phase One is the incipient stage. Here the conflict is generated because of
the grave social, economic and political imbalance. The governmental forces are set on maintaining the status quo and the opposition guerrilla
forces are dedicated to change. The insurgents
will usually opt for a Maoist type strategy based in the rural
areas where the government's control is the weakest. Their plans are to work from the countryside into the metropolitan
areas. Neither side is preoccupied with funding sources as both envision an opportunity for early victory, in spite of rhetoric to the contrary. It is during this phase that the military and organizational structure of both the government and the guerrillas are defined. Both sides believe
they are reaching for the moral high ground in an attempt to get support from the masses. During this early stage, activities by the drug traffickers are covert and large scale narco actions are limited. Both drug dealings and insurgent battlefield preparations are on going but largely
. Because the guerrillas are ideologically motivated and as yet possess limited armed capability,
they have no need or desire to be identified with the criminal narco dealers.
unrelated
Therefore, both elements operate and pursue their goals on separate
paths. During this phase, the government, with its untrained policy and military forces, views the guerrillas as bandits who can easily be eliminated by increasing its repressive activities in the affected areas usually outside of the country's capital. At the same time, some ruling civilian and
military officials begin to see the drug business as a way to augment their low income. They conveniently rationalize that the drug problem is one of external use and not their internal responsibility. Therefore, the lucrative drug trade is allowed to operate and flourish
. This
lack of government concern and understanding allows the drug operators as well as guerrilla forces to
develop their essential underground infrastructure and their operational apparatus.
By the latter part of Phase I, two important facts
start to become evident: Through police actions the narco/guerrilla connection is dearly exposed. This results in the government finally having to admit that separating the two is difficult. That as efforts become more aggressive, corrupt government officials begin to actively throw
obstacles in the path of the program designed to stop the drug trade. PHASE II By Phase II, the government and guerrillas both realize that the conflict may be protracted. Each side tries to extend their combat power to get the advantage.
Accordingly, the
costs in terms of "money, resources, manpower and political risks escalate. Money becomes central in
the conflict, whether it is denying it or making it. As the moral reasoning of the war blurs and the "end justifies the
means" rational emerges within elements of the fighting factions, the lure of easy money takes hold. Narcotics activity quickly emerges as a
leading moneymaker with the drug dealers taking the driver's seat. The principle objective of the narcos at this point is to export increasingly
large quantities of the product for sale abroad. Key
government and guerrilla leaders will use the military structure
of their organizations to facilitate the trafficker's goal in the name of maximizing the profits for "the
cause." Narco business elements make informal alliances with key leaders on both sides. In the case of the guerrillas, the overwhelming
majority of drug profits are initially directed to the insurgent's formal structure; however, the first incidents of major skimming occur. On the
government side, informal organizational structures are developed to distribute drug profits and formal discipline starts breaking down.
Inflation of the price for drug protection services; graft and corruption are becoming routine. During
Phase lithe guerrillas expand their bases and build up their fighting forces for the introduction of coordinated small unit combat activities. Their
increasing need for supplies and equipment make them more vulnerable and dependent on narco involvement.
Deals are made for
the protection of clandestine airfields and safe passage, and in the process money changes hand. The guerrilla
leadership uses the money to buy weapons, ammunition and other war materials. This drug income,
coupled with insurgent "battlefield acquisition" from the government forces, allows the insurgents to expand their area of
control and further challenge the government's authority and ability to maintain law, order and
security. The guerrillas help justify their association with the narcos as a way of assisting the campesino drug farmer rise above the
subsistence level. Therefore they use the government's attempts to conduct manual and aerial eradication of drug plants as rallying cries to
incite the former to protest. Using this "window of opportunity'. The guerrillas establish more control
and introduce their
dedicated cadres to the civilian population. The insurgents condition the farmers to believe that
growing drugs is not wrong, and that the government, its military forces and the U.S. supporters are
the enemy. Many become vulnerable to insurgent political propaganda and indoctrination and are slowly
incorporated into the guerrilla masses with some becoming full time combatants. Throughout Phase II, a sharp
increase in drug production and trafficking occurs. Towns within the harvest areas actually start to grow and thrive off of the narco dollars. This
further complicates the government's problems, because if state sponsored eradication and interdiction programs are successful, the results
will lower the standard of living and possibly serve to drive more people into the hands of the guerrillas. However, any
success of the
government's anti-drug programs is unlikely due to the "widespread corruption of government
officials by the narco dollars, which guarantees a half-hearted effort at best to implement programs designed to suppress the drug
trade. As the war between the insurgents and government forces intensifies, the balance of real campesino farmers vs. new entrepreneurs begins to change. Given the constant increase in drug demand, the narcotics growing areas start to attract entrepreneurs from economically
depressed urban cities. Many of the original farmers, who only wanted peace and quiet, move into the safer government controlled towns. This makes it even easier for the new drug growers to flood into the drug growing areas. This displacement further serves to consolidate the narco's
power and causes an increase in drug related activities. In many cases, the narco organization will even go so far as to provide crop growing assistance such as fertilizer and farming technique advice to drug growers. Under these deteriorating circumstances, crop substitution is presented
by the government as an option. However, the reality is no harvest can compete financially with drug cultivation. In addition, programs that encourage growing other crops soon find that the lines of communication (roads, the important accesses from the field to the market) are
controlled by guerrillas and often closed. Developing alternatives such as local processing plants are tried, but prove difficult to maintain because of guerrilla attacks. Air lifting commodities is considered as a course of action but soon proves to be expensive and not cost effective.
In
the end, the
government perceives that it has no option but to declare the area an emergency and turn
major authority over to the army. This serves to further escalate the level of violence. Quickly, existing
divisions between host country drug police and the military units deepen. Each has their role: the police fighting
drug dealers, the army waging their war in the countryside against the guerrillas. Both are competing for resources and
greater operating authority.
The army's point of view is that the guerrillas pose the most dangerous threat to national security, mostly because of existing civilian and military drug involvement and as sociated corruption, the idea of
directing all available resources at winning the guerrilla war is given serious consideration by government officials in the capital. This serves to demonstrate bow fully involved government officials have become in assisting and protecting the narcotics traffickers.
It is during
Phase II that the drug
dealers begin to gain significant amounts of control and influence over the
government, its armed forces and the guerrilla movement.
Both the insurgents and the government consider the narco element as a necessary evil to be used in order to better their
individual or group financial position and increase their power base. In most cases, countries with rural civil defense forces will see the people in drug growing areas transfer ring their attention from fighting insurgents to providing protection for drug operations. This change of focus
. It is at the end of Phase II that narco front personnel, in a move to increase their
power and security, will campaign and possibly be elected to official office. Other members of the drug
leaves the isolated rural towns vulnerable to further guerrilla penetration
organization will gain sensitive positions in the government by official appointments to seek to influence the government through front groups
like drug growers' unions. Laundered
narco dollars are used to purchase or establish legitimate corporations
which are as important to the long-term survivability of the drug organization as the drug trafficking itself. This eventually results in
an economy that becomes quite dependent on drug activities to keep the country afloat. PHASE III In Phase III, both
the governmental and guerrilla factions are in the process of becoming shells. Real power is being effectively transferred to leading narco
elements. Every part of the society has yielded, to one degree or another, to the drug organization within their territory. Narco
elements
turn inward to domestic markets to squeeze out every last peso and firm up local control of the
population. Cross-pollination of domestic and international drug elements occurs. Throughout each phase, the insurgents have tried to
control more of the drug system. At the same time, police and military forces have demanded more from the drug dealers for protection. The
drug lords switch back and forth between the coups as it suits their purposes. It
is this technique of keeping both elements
off balance and dependent on the drug trade that the narcos have mastered. They play each against the other as
if they were musical instruments. Both are maintained at a safe arm's length, their roles increased and decreased as it suits the drug dealers. If
this situation is left unchecked the drug organizations will succeed in their attempt to dominate the
country's institutions. By this late stage the narcos clearly wield more power than the guerrilla apparatus. Although both have
mastered clandestine operations and the ability to survive in challenging environments; by this point, the reach of the drug dealer's
money, weapons and infrastructure is much longer than that of the guerrillas. In some cases there will even be
increased involvement by the drug organizations in promoting guerrilla and government negotiations, mainly because they view continued
guerrilla instability as a potential threat to their control. As
the threatened government wakes up and tries to apply
serious pressure, the narco organization responds violently with brutal acts of revenge. Some government
officials will then plead for compromise; they will propose that the government and drug organizations coexist. If this idea is accepted it will be
a sure win for the drug dealers. Only
if some brave high government official declares all out war can the
country and its institutions be saved. It is then that the country's moral warriors (civilian, military and police) step out to defy the
odds. It is with these individuals that responsibility for success is placed. Recognizing the drug dealer's strategy, and after several successful
attacks, a special protection package will have to be developed around these key people. The
critical need to strengthen the
judicial system, which does not work well against normal criminal acts, much less those involving drugs, is quickly
realized. It is at this late stage that the narco-guerrilla war has entered its most critical phase, a war of
will and sustainment. The first to quit loses.
Drug trade leads to US narcoguerilla wars
Messing and Hazelwood 12 (F. Andy Messing is the Executive Director of the National Defense
Council Foundation, Bruce Hazelwood wa a member of the Milgroup at the U.S. Embassy, “US Drug
Control Policy and International Operations” 2012
http://ndcf.dyndns.org/ndcf/Publications/US_Drug_Control_Policy_and_Int_Ops.htm#_Toc449503510\
\CLans)
Almost automatically when Americans think about insurgent and narcotic warfare we mentally refer back to
Third World Latin, Asian and African countries. Most Americans can not bring themselves to believe that this country's social, political
and economic conditions could deteriorate to a level where narco-guerrilla warfare could emerge as a feature of U.S. society. But the fact
is that Americans have a long history of violent resistance and for the last two decades they have also become
increasingly more involved in the drug trade. Both of these factors are precursors to narcoguerrilla warfare.
To fully appreciate this danger requires an understanding of how social, economic and political events affect the possibilities that a
narcoguerrilla conflict could emerge. One should look at Washington, D.C., New York City, Detroit or other critical urban areas nationwide.
History has shown that in addition to having a segment of the nation's population willing to resist, narco-guerrilla warfare is to require that
certain other critical elements be present. The
existence of violent clandestine political movements, economic
depression in both rural and urban areas, existence of a narco infrastructure, a violent underground criminal
organization and economic instability are all preconditions to a narco-guerrilla situation. The trend of U.S.
citizens becoming increasingly more involved in the drug trade will skyrocket in the 1990's, and not only because of an increase in domestic
demand or population expansion. Several external factors will effect this dramatic rise in the percentage of Americans that become involved in
the narcotics trade. To start with' the early 1990's will be the years that the infamous foreign drug barons will choose a strategy to
significantly lower their previous high visibility profile. Now, they will opt for a plan that includes decentralizing (cellular organization) their drug
operations and the creation of an expanded network of mini drug lords. This will
have the benefit of making it more difficult
for any outside penetration and will make the loss of their drugs, capture of their personnel and destruction of their
processing sites less probable. Next, in order to farther shield themselves from the continuing judicial onslaught and camouflage their
connection with drug dealers,
the drug kingpins will become more amenable to sharing their immense drug
profits with foreign middlemen. Wisely, they will adopt a business attitude of we will harvest and process the merchandise,
someone else will traffic and distribute it. All of these adjustments will be made in order to preserve their most
valuable drug market--the United States. From this process will emerge the first American drug
barons. Prior to 1980, most American citizens were not mentally conditioned to accept drug dealers and related activities as a way of life.
Then for the past ten years, the United States has been protected from widespread insurgent and narco-criminal actions primarily because of
this country's relative economic well being. An additional factor preventing the drug trade's cancerous growth during that period was the fact
that foreign drug lords wanted to maintain control of the entire narcotics apparatus by installing their own resident managers at the major drug
entry and distribution points throughout the U.S. It was the nation's previous psychological barriers to drug dealings, the country's economic
well-being and the foreign drug lord's micro-management style, that has kept the American entrepreneur on the fringe of the drug trade and
was an additional obstacle to any serious narco-guerrilla development. Many government officials and noted academicians would say that the
United States could never succumb to any type of narco-guerrilla conflict. On the other hand, some
drug and insurgent warfare
experts would declare that (he U-S. is already involved in a limited ad hoc narcoguerrilla conflict. Whether we are or not
could possibly be better determined by reviewing the aforementioned Three Phases of Narco-guerrilla Warfare.
Extinction
James Pinkerton 03, fellow at the New America Foundation, , Freedom and Survival, p.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2003/freedom_and_survival
Historically, the only way that the slow bureaucratic creep of government is reversed is through revolution or war. And that could happen. But
there's a problem: the
next American revolution won't be fought with muskets. It could well be waged with
proliferated wonder-weapons. That is, about the time that American yeopersons decide to resist the encroachment of the United
Nations, or the European Union—or the United States government—the level of destructive power in a future conflict
could remove the choice expressed by Patrick Henry in his ringing cry, "Give me liberty, or give me death." The next big war could kill
everybody, free and unfree alike.
Drug trafficking kills Mexican econ
Beittel 12 (June, Analyst of Latin America, Congressional Research Service, “Mexico’s Drug Trafficking
Organizations: Source and Scope of the Rising Violence” April 15, 2012
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41576.pdf\\CLans)
As the violence in Mexico has sharply increased over the past several years, it has also shifted locations. Drug
trafficking-related
violence once highly concentrated near Mexico’s northern border with the United States shifted geographically in
2011 and 2012 moving from northwestern and north-central Mexico to northeastern and central Mexico.130 As it has
spread to new locations, the fear of violence has closed businesses and had an impact on tourism .
American investors in Mexico have grown concerned about the violence and businesses have sent home
dependents or closed operations altogether in some cities. Small and medium-sized businesses have been
particularly hard hit, without the resources to hire private security firms and provide for employee safety as have the larger
businesses and multinational corporations.131 In 2011, the Mexican government published a report indicating that foreign
direct investment (FDI) has continued to pour into some of the most violent states at levels exceeding the investment
prior to 2006, but others argue that job-creating investment was moving into safer cities where drug traffickingrelated violence was lower
Drug trafficking prevents economic growth
Sterling 12 (Eric E, Former Assistant Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, “The War On Drugs
Hurts Businesses and Investors” March 1, 2013 http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/03/01/thewar-on-drugs-hurts-businesses-and-investors/2/\\CLans)
“The drug war is weakening state institutions, infiltrating judicial systems and undermining rule of
law,” all of which is bad for business, César Zamora, Nicaraguan businessman and vice president of the Association of American
Chambers of Commerce in Latin America (AACCLA) told the Christian Science Monitor on February 16, 2012. A criminal cancer is
spreading through the global economy, taking its nutrition from the world-wide illegal drug business.
In many countries, your travel agent, your lawyer, your banker or your telephone installer is as likely as an assassin or brothel manager to be
working for a criminal organization. Almost everywhere, narco-dollars corrupt government
officials and business
agencies and fuel criminal opportunities. The global illegal drug economy is not capable of precise measurement, but according
to the latest report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the retail market in illegal opiates is $68 billion
(mostly heroin) and in cocaine, $85 billion. Their last valuation of the cannabis market was $142 billion in
2005. Excluding the significant markets in methamphetamine, Ecstasy, psychedelics and other drugs, this is a criminal
retail market in the range of $300 billion annually.
Most of the markup is at the retail level. This enormous market is evidence that our efforts to stop the drug supply create the incentives that have
grown a global criminal infrastructure of countless drug prohibition enterprises. In 1984, 1986 and 1988, Congress injected t he U.S. anti-drug effort with legal steroids. As counsel to the House Crime Subcommittee during the “war on drugs,” I helped write many of those laws. But those
laws, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in enforcement, have not protected business from the consequences of drug pr ohibition. This is in large part because neither Congress nor the business community have ever thought systematically about the drug business, drug enforcement
and the economy. In the early 1980s, I helped Congress investigate how drug money laundering was compromising legal casino gambling as the drug business responded to the Bank Secrecy Act. Congress heard, but did not understand, how our drug laws hurt a sector of American
business. Congress pushed currency transaction reporting, for example. The 8,000 reports filed in 1985 have grown to over 14,800,000 in FY2011. What had been a minor inconvenience is now a major responsibility that costs banks hundreds of millions of dollars annually
.
Despite this burden, the great untaxed
profits of illegal drug sales worldwide have enabled local drug
trafficking gangs to transform into global criminal organizations. Drug prohibition enterprises corrupt bank officers
and tellers, accountants, lawyers, financial advisors, real estate brokers, securities dealers, freight forwarders, shipping companies, airline
employees, etc. to ship and pay for drugs, and to launder their receipts and profits. In one example, in March 2010, corruption was exposed in
the Wachovia unit of Wells Fargo Bank, now the fifth largest U.S. bank by deposits. Wachovia was forced to disgorge $110 million and was fined
$50 million for failing to internally police $378 billion in transactions with casas de cambio in Mexico that laundered drug profits.
Businesses cannot count on the integrity of their agents or counterparts in such environments, and
Wachovia’s shareholders paid an enormous price. All over the world, drug organizations depend upon
corrupting border guards, customs inspectors, police, prosecutors, judges, legislators, cabinet
ministers, military officers, intelligence agents, financial regulators, and presidents and prime ministers.
Businesses cannot count on the integrity of government officials in such environments. Illegal drug
organizations rely upon violence for conflict resolution, security, employee management, management succession, and influencing policy
makers. Over the last two years, countless business leaders and their families have fled drug violence in
Monterey, Mexico’s once-safe commercial capital, as the country has been rocked by some 50,000 killings related to control of the drug trade.
Violence is pervasive, law enforcement is largely ineffective, and impunity for using violence is
rampant
. Not only in Mexico, but in Central America, the Caribbean, Colombia, West Africa, and parts of Asia where the prohibition-fueled drug trade is extant, business personnel are frequently in danger. Domestically, there are additional consequences. In the 1980s,
America’s crime rates were near historic highs. Congress took for granted that we needed to fight drugs with long sentences. Now crime rates are profoundly lower, but most analysts conclude long prison sentences have not been a major factor. T he political dynamic of being tough on
crime and drugs led to a dramatic expansion of the population with a criminal record. Those records are accessible by nearly every employer
. Yet, few
analysts have calculated the full impact of
expanded criminal punishment that has reduced opportunities for education, job training,
employment, credit, marriage, and ultimately, American productivity and consumer buying power.
Today, tens of millions of Americans — would-be consumers – because they have been convicted of a drug offense, aren’t earning what they
could earn without a record. Our prison population, estimated as high as 2.3 million persons, is out of the car market. Ford and GM should
calculate how many cars they could sell in the U.S. if our imprisonment rates were close to those of their European or Japanese competitors
(instead of 7-to-10 times higher). How many cars could they sell if tens of millions of Americans did not have a conviction-suppressed income?
A reduced average household income and credit capacity suppresses sales of goods and services for
almost every American business. While most of those offenses were instances of youthful bad judgment, the consequences
for the economy last for decades. The business community needs a complete economic analysis of the
impact of drug policy. In the 1980s, war on drugs policies were not on the radar of business or investors at all. Today, the intensity of
global competition and the fragility of our domestic economy require management and investors to fully understand how American drug policy
plays with their profits. Every
investor should analyze how much the costs of drug policy shrink return on
investment.
Latin America drug trade leads to terrorism
Manwaring 11 (General Douglas MacArthur Chair and Prof of Military Strategy @ U.S. Army War
College, Ret U.S. Army Colonel, Adjunct Professor of International Politics @ Dickinson College,
“FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE IN CHILE: ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFICKING THREATS” March 21, 2011
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA560442\\CLans)
In the last four decades, every continent in the world has faced by nonconventional threats . Latin America
has also been a continent that is facing many of them, and all the countries of the region, including Chile, are nowadays
trying to find solutions to a variety of phenomena. One of the largest threats, the illicit drug trade, has permanently
been on the agenda of the Americas like a multi-faceted threat that jeopardizes the security and the
sovereignty of the states. One of the most significant trends in Latin America is related to the close connection existing between illicit
drug trafficking, transnational organized crimes, and illicit trafficking in weapons. Undoubtedly, illicit drugs continue to cause a
health menace to humanity and market activities generate the most income to drug mafias, through illegal transactions. It is a
recognized fact that drug controls by the authority have generated a criminal market of macroeconomic dimensions that uses violence and
corruption to mediate between consumers and suppliers. 23 The
Organization of American States is aware of the threat
of armed violence to citizens is a rising phenomenon in many parts of the Americas. ―The linkage of
illicit manufacturing, sale and distribution of firearms, munitions and even explosive material with drug trafficking,
terrorism, transnational organized crime, and other criminal enterprises has been well established, and the magnitude of
the problem is significant.”24 Remnant items of past conflicts and easy money coming from illegal drug
transactions make easy the access to illegal firearms, ammunition and even explosives ; all those which are going
to be used for cartels or traffickers to protect illegal organizations.
Narco-Guerilla warfare leads to terrorism and creates failed states
Manwaring 11 (General Douglas MacArthur Chair and Prof of Military Strategy @ U.S. Army War
College, Ret U.S. Army Colonel, Adjunct Professor of International Politics @ Dickinson College,
“FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE IN CHILE: ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFICKING THREATS” March 21, 2011
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA560442\\CLans)
The fourth prominent trend is related to those armed groups which at first simply protected the illicit
drugs trade, but they normally became paramilitary groups linked to insurgency and narcoterrorism .
The Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – FARC) got involved with cocaine production and
refining in the early 1980s, primarily as ―guards‖ of the coca cartels’ refining operations and rural landing strips in the Colombian hinterlands.
39 The
large economic profit they obtain from the illicit businesses allows them to count on resources
to try to influence the highest authorities of the State. Terror, murders and kidnappings are the other
alternatives to directly influence the state organization. But overall, the large number of their members, their fighting
equipment, the high-technology weapon systems, and adequate training could provide them sufficient
military capabilities to fight against the regular Armed Forces of the State. This high level of influence,
over all powers of the state and their military capabilities to fight against regular forces of the State, constitutes
the uppermost risk
for any Nation-State. Analyzing the Colombian conflict in 2002, President Uribe modernized the Colombian military, especially its
intelligence community, allowing them to develop 18 special operations against high-value targets and to reduce the criminal capacity of the
terrorist organization, as well as, its command and control structures. It is for this reason that these narcoterrorist
groups have
sought safety across borders to evade the state effective actions, establishing safe-havens where they
plan and execute terrorist acts. 40 Regarding to the Colombian Insurgency, Dr. Manwaring offers this description: The narcoinsurgent-paramilitary alliance utilizes a mix of aggressive, widespread, and violent politicalpsychological, economic-commercial, and military-terrorist strategy and tactics primarily to control
human (but also physical) terrain in Colombia and other countries in which it operates. The generalized result of the
intimidating and destabilizing activities of this alliance of violent non-state actors is a steadily
increasing level of manpower, wealth, and power that most nation-states of the world can only envy.
Failed states cause multiple scenarios for extinction
TI ‘7 (Transnational Institute A report prepared by: The African Studies Centre, Leiden, The
Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, The Peace Studies Group (CES, University of Coimbra), and The
Peace Research Center- CIP/FUHEM, Madrid “Failed and Collapsed States in the International System,”
April)
In the malign scenario of global developments the number of collapsed states would grow significantly. This would mean that several more
countries in the world could not be held to account for respecting international agreements in 33 various fields, be it commercial transactions,
debt repayment, the possession and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the use of the national territory for criminal or terrorist
activities. The increase
in failed states would immediately lead to an increase in international migration, which
countries which, having similar politicoeconomic structures, could suffer
increased destabilization and collapse as well. Developments in West Africa during the last decade may serve as an example.
could have a knock-on effect, first in neighbouring
Increased international migration would, secondly, have serious implications for the Western world. In Europe it would put social relations
between the population and immigrant communities under further pressure, polarizing politics. An increase in collapsed states would also
endanger the security of Western states and societies. Health
conditions could deteriorate as contagious diseases like
Ebola or Sars would spread because of a lack of measures taken in collapsed areas. Weapons of mass destruction could come into
the hands of various sorts of political entities, be they terrorist groups, political factions in control of part of a collapsed state or an
aggressive political elite still in control of a national territory and intent on expansion. Not only North Korea
springs to mind; one could very well imagine such states in (North) Africa. Since the multilateral system of control of such weapons would have
ended in part because of the decision of the United States to try and check their spread through unilateral action - a system that would
inherently be more unstable than a multilateral, negotiated regime - one
could be faced with an arms race that would sooner
or later result in the actual use of these weapons . In the malign scenario, relations between the US and Europe would also
further deteriorate, in questions of a military nature as well as trade relations, thus undercutting any possible consensus on stemming the
growth of collapsed states and the introduction of stable multilateral regimes towards matters like terrorism, nuclear weapons and
international migration. Disagreement is already rife on a host of issues in these fields. At worst, even the Western members of the
Westphalian system - especially those bordering on countries in the former Third World, i.e. the European states - could be faced with direct
attacks on their national security
Latin American drug trade is the primary funding mechanism for the terrorism
Steinitz, 2002 (Mark, director of Office of Analysis for Terrorism, Narcotics and Crime - U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence
and Resarch, intelligence analyst @ DEA. M.A. in political science/national security from Georgetown University., The Terrorism and Drug
Connection in Latin America’s Andean Region, http://www.revistainterforum.com/english/pdf_en/pp_steinitz.pdf, Policy Papers on the
Americas Volume XIII, Study 5 )
Drug Money Fuels Colombia’s Terrorism In 1998, the Colombian government estimated that money
from the drug trade was the single greatest source of income for the country’s terrorist groups, on
both the left and the right . That year, they reportedly earned a total of U.S.$551 million from drug
links, U.S.$311 million from extortion, and U.S.$236 million from kidnapping.32 In the case of the
FARC’s income that year, the government estimated that 48 percent came from drug sources, 36
percent from extortion, 8 percent from kidnapping, 6 percent from cattle rustling, and the remainder
from bank robbery and other illegal activities.33 The size of the group’s war chest explains why it has
been able to pay its new recruits three times more than the Colombian army pays its new soldiers.34
The FARC had an estimated 7,000 active members organized into 60 fronts in 1995; by 2000, it had
15,000–20,000 in more than 70 fronts. Although it holds no major cities, the group operates
throughout Colombia and is thought to control about one-third of the nation’s territory.
Drug Production Bad – Bio-D
Cocaine production causes the destruction of key hotspots
Science Daily 11 (Science and Environmental News Source, Article Cites Research from Stony Brook
University “Cocaine Production Increases Destruction of Colombia’s Rainforests” 1/29/11
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128144723.htm)
Scientists from Stony Brook University are reporting new evidence that cultivating coca bushes, the source
of cocaine, is speeding up destruction of rainforests in Colombia and threatening the region's "hotspots"
of plant and animal diversity. The findings, which they say underscore the need for establishing larger protected areas to help
preserve biodiversity, appear in ACS' journal Environmental Science & Technology. Dr. Liliana M. Dávalos, professor in the Department of
Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook, and her colleagues note that the
pace of deforestation in Colombia has accelerated
over the past 20 years, even as population growth has slowed and the economy has shifted from agriculture to other revenue sources.
This increase in deforestation overlaps with an increase in the cultivation of coca for cocaine
production, and the country accounted for 75 per cent of the world's coca in 2000. Earlier reports found that direct deforestation from
coca was surprisingly small, with as little as 150 km2 of forests replaced by coca each year by 2005. Since rainforests contain about
10 percent of the world's plant and animal species -- some of which become the basis of new medicines -deforestation represents a serious threat to global biodiversity. With studies suggesting that coca
cultivation contributes indirectly to deforestation, the scientists set out to further document this
impact. Their analysis of data from 2002-2007 on the effects of coca cultivation on deforestation of
rainforests in Colombia identified several factors that boosted the likelihood that rainforests would be
destroyed. In southern Colombia, a forest close to newly developed coca farms, for instance, was likely to be cut, as was land in areas
where much of the farmland was devoted to coca. This is the first time the indirect impact on deforestation from cultivation destined for the
global cocaine market has been quantified across South America's biodiversity hotpots.
Biodiversity in specific hotspots checks extinction. Key to ag, medicine, and
ecosystems
Mittermeier ‘11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological
Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30
years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is
considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This
evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is¶ irreversible. Human
activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a¶ thousand or more times the natural
background
rate
(Pimm et al. 1995). What are the¶ consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity¶ for
future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species¶ (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the
biology of even fewer¶ (Novotny et al. 2002). As
species vanish, so too does the health security of every¶ human.
Earth’s species are a vast genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for¶ cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen –
cures waiting to be discovered.¶ Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all¶ commercial medicines – even
more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein¶ 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration¶ for a
growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and¶ other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been
compared¶ to burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the content of 90% or¶ more of the books. With
loss of species, we
lose the ultimate source of our crops¶ and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience, the inspiration
for¶ manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems¶ that support humans and all
life on Earth
(McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond¶ material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency,¶
and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).¶ Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual,
and moral costs¶ inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake,¶ and wild plants and animals are integral to the
fabric of all the world’s cultures¶ (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader
ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove
forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and
Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly
connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally
damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing
the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities
that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded
reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance
to humanity (Turner et al.2009).¶ In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in
which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most – and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most
control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do
everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?
Extinction is a global
phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to
it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget – perhaps
90% – originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds
available – in the hundreds of millions annually – be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of
reducing biodiversity loss.¶ The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question.
Given the choice, where
should action toward reducing the loss of biodiversity be implemented first ? The field of
conservation planning addresses this question and revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability
(Margules and Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region – if the species and ecosystems that are highly
threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial
substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several
areas can share the same species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because
the unique species they contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily
concentrated in certain areas, these areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not
all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact.¶ Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the
first application of the principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. Myers
described
ten tropical forest “hotspots” on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat loss, albeit
without quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status. A subsequent analysis added eight additional hotspots, including four from
Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked
with Myers in a first systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to
contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics (¶ >¶ 0.5% of the world’s total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation
(extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts culminated in an
extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and
scientific publication (Myers et al.2000) that introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of both the better-defined criteria
and new data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on
new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redefined
several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufficient data
either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another region – the East
Melanesian Islands – which rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the
“less than 30% of original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.
Drug Cultivation leads to environmental degredation- Soil erotion
Armstead ’92 (Technical Program Officer, Bureau of International Narcotics Matters, Department of State, Washington, D.C., United
States of America, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1992-01-01_2_page002.html, UNDC)
The more severe environmental degradation to tropical forests by illicit narcotics cultivators largely
results from the rapid and damaging techniques used to clear the land. Even today, the most widely
used forest removal method is manual clearing, commonly known as "slash- and-burn" agriculture,
where trees are rapidly felled and destroyed by fire leaving no vegetative matter to stabilize or
replenish the soils. Frequently, fields are utilized for only a few years until the initial nutrient sources
are depleted. The effects are further exacerbated when the narcotics crops are cultivated on steepsloped fragile mountain environments where soil is thin and the potential for a high degree of soil
erosion is great. Other land-clearing techniques, including both the use of petrol and diesel -fuelled
machinery, destabilize the soils and accelerate the rates of soil loss. Chemicals used by many growers
at all stages of illicit drug cultivation and production likewise have a substantial negative impact upon
tropical ecosystems and on human population . Growers of illicit crops, in order to clear and maintain
their fields, frequently use high levels of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Cocaine and heroin
processors each year dump millions of tonnes of toxic chemical substances and waste by-products of
the extraction process indiscriminately onto the land and into countless small streams, rivers and water
bodies. These hazardous chemical wastes perilously impact upon land as well as water life forms.
Ecological experts note that many of the affected tributaries are now almost entirely devoid of many
species of plant and animal life. Contaminated water used to irrigate food crops not only compounds
the environmental damage but poses a substantial public health hazard.
Drug production in Latin America leads to extinction
Armstead ’92 (Technical Program Officer, Bureau of International Narcotics Matters, Department of State, Washington, D.C., United
States of America, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1992-01-01_2_page002.html, UNDC)
Scientists have repeatedly warned of the dire consequences of tropical deforestation. By the same
logic, the environmental damage from illicit narcotics cultivation and production will likewise produce
landscape degradation and flooding, and be followed by declining agricultural and fishing
productivity, and by malnutrition and disease. Humanity cannot afford the loss of species (genetic)
diversity, increases in soil erosion and soil sterility, and the vast destruction of forests and watershed
necessary to grow coca, opium poppy and cannabis. Moreover, the international community can no
longer tolerate the relentless contamination of soils, water and air from poisonous chemicals used for
the processing of narcotics, pesticides, and smoke from the burning down of forests. Whatever the
costs, the benefits of curtailing the irreversible desecration of these fragile forest ecosystems are
certainly greater. In addition to the established programmes designed to decrease the supply and
demand of illicit drugs, there is an immediate need for international bodies to undertake a
multifunctional international approach in order to repress the continued wholesale destruction of
large areas of the tropical environment by the cultivators and processors of illicit narcotics.
Narco-farmers destroy the rainforest and go unnoticed by scientists- worst kind of
deforestation
Armstead ’92 (Technical Program Officer, Bureau of International Narcotics Matters, Department of State, Washington, D.C., United
States of America, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1992-01-01_2_page002.html, UNDC)
Experts attribute deforestation and water pollution in the tropics to population pressures, shifting
cultivation patterns, and the extraction of economic resources. Typically, rain forests are cleared to
permit the creation of new roads, farmlands and ranchlands; the construction of dams and large-scale
hydrological projects; mining and smelting operations; the gathering of fuel wood; and logging for
domestic and export purposes. One significant contributor to the forest removal and water and soil
pollution in these regions, however, whose impact has gone virtually unnoticed by scientists and
journalists, has been the cultivation of illicit narcotic crops - cannabis, coca and opium poppy.
Cultivation of illicit narcotics not only accounts for an increasing share of tropical deforestation, it is
also the cause of some of the most severe environmental damage. Growers commonly plant their
illicit crops in fragile forest environments in remote areas. Moreover, in some areas the illicit
cultivators are often recent migrants from urban centres or other economic pursuits who have moved
into the growing regions to take advantage of quick profits. Unlike an indigenous peasant farmer who
often has a culturally instilled sense of respect for his land and the environment, narcotics cultivators
often have no emotional ties to either farming or the land. Thus, the clearing and cultivation methods
of these "opportunistic" illicit drug growers are usually more devastating than those of a true
agrarian.
Cocinea production causes deforestation, soil erosion, landslides, floods, and
hundreds of deaths
Armstead ’92 (Technical Program Officer, Bureau of International Narcotics Matters, Department of State, Washington, D.C., United
States of America, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1992-01-01_2_page002.html, UNDC)
Cultivators of illicit coca fields, in their relentless pursuit of fertile growing soils, have recklessly
exposed the thin tropical forest soils to increased run-off and erosion. Evidence of the excessive
deforestation became painfully apparent during devastating November 1987 floods in central Peru.
Torrential rains caused major landslides, blocked roads, and impoverished and killed scores of
lowland residents. Postflood inspection of the Huallaga watershed revealed extensive new
sedimentation along rivers and streams throughout the region. The Lima press, calling the deluge "the
worst flooding in Peru's history", attributed the damage to "indiscriminate upland deforestation".
AT: Drones Solve Drugs
Drones only solve for a minor portion of security
Fox News 5/31 (Fox News Latino, “Venezuela Launches Iran-Built Drones To Patrol Drug Trafficking”
May 31, 2013 http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/05/31/venezuela-launches-iran-builtdrones-to-patrol-drug-trafficking/)CL
The Department of Homeland Security hopes that the drones will be able to spot semi-submersible
submarines and nighttime fast boat trips used by drug traffickers to transport cocaine and other drugs from Central America to
Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and other Caribbean islands. Statistics show that the U.S. has apprehended five semisubmersibles in the region, but this is only a small number of those authorities believe travel through Caribbean
waters.¶ "The DHS already uses drones along the US-Mexico border in drug and migrant interdiction functions," according to the security
website Insight Crime. "To date, the craft have had a minor impact on border security, contributing to the
capture of less than two percent of the undocumented migrants apprehended on the U.S.' southwestern border in
the 2011 fiscal year."¶ The site adds that drones are a costly endeavor that requires a crew of up to 20 ground members in a
supporting role. It also said Coast Guard helicopters can do the same job with far fewer people and no
runway.
LA Democracy Good – Instability
Democracy solves Latin America instability
Blanco 10 (Luis, School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, “Income Inequality and Political
Instability in Latin America”, April 2010,
http://www.luismrodriguez.com/home/files/0206publishedpcclas.pdf\\CLans)
This analysis suggests that focusing on policies that promote more political stability in the Latin American region
will increase investment, which consequently will be beneficial for growth. Although it has been argued that
inequality increases political instability, this analysis does not show this type of relationship for the Latin American region. In this analysis,
ethnic and revolutionary wars were robustly associated with lower investment. To avoid ethnic wars in the
Latin America region it is necessary to implement policies that include different ethnic groups in the political
process. Education programs that target marginalized ethnic groups can certainly bring up more stability in the region. Focusing on
educational policy is important since there seems to be an unequal distribution of education closely related to ethnicity. The promotion
of democratic institutions that incorporate ethnic minorities in the political process can also contribute to decreasing
ethnic wars in the Latin American region. Programs that promote more inclusion of marginalized ethnic groups will pay off in
terms of stability for the Latin American region. Educational programs can also be used as a tool to diminish the probability of experiencing a
revolutionary war in Latin American countries. It has been suggested that greater emphasis must be put on primary and secondary school and
that the quality of education must be raised in Latin America (De Ferranti et al., 2004). In fact, it is argued that there is an intergenerational
transmission of poverty (ITP) that tends to increase violence and to decrease social cohesion in the region (Moran, 2003). Parents with little
schooling, who would begin childbearing early, will not be able to provide to their children the resources required for good academic
performance. Therefore, these children will have little schooling as well, and this will lead to higher inequality and marginalization. Breaking
the vicious cycle of ITP will allow for the inclusion of marginalized groups in the economic and political
institutions, which would be reflected on greater stability. Democracy, as suggested by Blanco and Grier (2009) is
one of the main factors explaining instability in the region. For this reason, policymakers in Latin America
should focus on promoting democratic institutions if they want to improve the stability of the political
environment and promote capital accumulation.
Latin American Instability Impact
Latin America instability causes extinction (old card)
Manwaring ‘5,
(General Douglas MacArthur Chair and Prof of Military Strategy @ U.S. Army War College, Ret U.S. Army Colonel, Adjunct Professor of
International Politics @ Dickinson College (Max G, October, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Bolivarian Socialism, and Asymmetric Warfare”, Strategic
Studies Institute, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB628.pdf)
President Chávez
also understands that the process leading to state failure is the most dangerous longterm security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and
failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and
terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can
host “evil” networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of ideological crusade such
as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping,
corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of coercion and persuasion can spawn further
human rights
violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body
parts, trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic
cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and
spill over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict. Peru’s Sendero Luminoso calls violent
and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure “armed propaganda.” Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge
of South America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez
considers these actions to be steps that
must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American socialism
for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and operational objectives, state
and nonstate actors’ strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regime’s credibility and capability in terms of its ability and
willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. Chávez’s
intent is to focus his primary attack
politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments’ ability and right to govern. In
that context, he understands that popular perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right
and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing
with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability and the threat of subverting or
destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtuallyanyone can take advantage of such an
unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a
consequence, failing and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new people’s democracies. In
connection with the creation of new people’s democracies, one can rest assured that Chávez and his Bolivarian
populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given opportunity . And, of
course, the longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states and people’s democracies persist, the
more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.
Yes LA Prolif
Risk of Latin American prolif is high
Trinkunas 10 (Harold A., Associate Professor and Deputy Director for Academic Affairs, CCMR for the
Naval Postgraduate School, “ASSESSING POTENTIAL NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION NETWORKS IN LATIN AMERICA: 2006–2016”, July 29, 2010
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700601071926\\CLans)
Under the present circumstances, why consider nuclear proliferation in Latin America at all? The answer lies in the capabilities
and intentions of important regional actors with regard to nuclear technology. In the Argentine and
Brazilian cases, their (near) nuclear reversal does not mean that they have abandoned their civilian nuclear
programs. Both countries have mastered nuclear technologies to an extent that makes them relatively
autonomous from traditional suppliers in the developed world. Essentially, they have achieved a similar
set of technological achievement in the nuclear arena that Iran has declared that it is currently
pursuing. In the arena of intentions, both President Ne´stor Kirchner of Argentina and President Luiz Ina´cio ‘Lula’ da Silva of Brazil are
nationalist political leaders sympathetic to the pursuit of sovereignty, technological and energy autonomy, and an independent foreign policy.
This means that they
are unlikely to be sympathetic to international efforts to restrict the proliferation of
civilian nuclear technology. However, this does not translate into a desire to acquire their own indigenous nuclear weapons. Both
Argentina and Brazil have a strong interest in maintaining a benign regional security environment, particularly in the case of Argentina, which
lacks the resources to invest in military programs. The
regional wild card when it comes to the proliferation of
nuclear technology is Venezuela. Its president, Hugo Cha´vez, has strongly defended Iran’s nuclear program
and North Korea’s missile development efforts, and he is friendly with the current leadership of Argentina and Brazil.
Cha´vez also has said that he considers the United States the principal threat to the Bolivarian revolution, and he
has expressed the desire to acquire the means to deter external intervention. Access to great oil wealth has
allowed him to pursue rearmament. However, despite some speculation in the U.S. media and blogosphere about the possibility of a nucleararmed Venezuela, it is unlikely that the South American republic will be able to master nuclear technology, let alone weaponize it, in the next
1020 years, nor is it in the interest of Argentina and Brazil to help it do so.
Latin America prolif at crossroads now- instability could spark prolif
Trinkunas 10 (Harold A., Associate Professor and Deputy Director for Academic Affairs, CCMR for the
Naval Postgraduate School, “ASSESSING POTENTIAL NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION NETWORKS IN LATIN AMERICA: 2006–2016”, July 29, 2010
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700601071926\\CLans)
Currently three key actors are relevant in considering future proliferation networks in Latin America:
Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela. Argentina and Brazil are critical because of their relatively advanced nuclear capabilities. These
make them potential participants in a proliferation network, although the probability seems low. Venezuela lacks any capability
but has declared the intention to acquire a civilian nuclear power program. Its leadership also has
repeatedly stated that it considers the United States the principal external threat to the security of the
Bolivarian revolution, which has led some outside observers to raise the possibility that Venezuela may be interested in more than
civilian nuclear power. For the foreseeable future, Argentina and Brazil are committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology within the
region, and they are unlikely to resume efforts to acquire nuclear weapons without some revolutionary change in the international system that
would lead them to perceive an existential threat to the state. The initial rationale for abandoning the pursuit of nuclear weapons in Argentina
and Brazil, the safeguarding of democracy, is fading as their regimes have consolidated. However,
the developing security
community in the Southern Cone, the resolution of all territorial disputes between the major regional
powers (Argentina, Brazil, Chile), and ongoing mutual confidence-building measures mean that any territorial
defense or deterrence rationales for nuclear weapons acquisition have faded as well. However, this does not
mean that they will not expand their own domestic civilian programs or export their nuclear know-how to other states, particularly those
seeking nuclear power programs. In both countries, left-center governments with strong nationalist credentials have sought to rekindle their
civilian nuclear programs. President
da Silva of Brazil has spoken of greatly expanding his country’s use of
nuclear power, including building numerous new reactors.14 Brazil’s ongoing struggle with the IAEA over the inspection
of its enrichment facilities, which Brazil has blocked, arguing that it is protecting industrial secrets, has raised eyebrows as well.15 Argentina has
exported nuclear technology four times in its history, and given that it could earn more than 09 July 2013 $500 million from a new sale, the
incentive to do so again is clear. In both cases, rising energy costs have been used to justify the expansion of civilian nuclear power programs.
Another important consideration is that
for these strongly nationalist governments, nuclear power is a symbol
of modernity, technological autonomy, and sovereignty. However, this has to be balanced against the reality that the
Argentine and Brazilian nuclear programs are plagued with cost overruns and delays. In the Argentine case in particular, repeated economic
crises during the 1990s and 2000s have led to a seriously under-resourced nuclear program.16 Assessing Venezuela as a proliferation risk is
more difficult because the only evidence is its leader’s November 2005 declaration of a desire to develop a nuclear power program. However,
President Cha´vez’s record of achieving his declared intentions is strong, which is why one must take
the announcement seriously. Venezuela’s recent accession to MERCOSUR is only the most recent example of a long-held goal that
seemed farfetched when he first took office in 1999. In fact, Venezuela began discussions with its MERCOSUR partners, Argentina and Brazil,
about acquiring nuclear power reactors.17 Perhaps paving the way for its own future activities, Venezuela has taken positions on proliferation
issues that run directly against the mainstream of international public opinion, supporting both Iran’s right to pursue nuclear technology
without constraints and North Korea’s July 2006 large-scale missile tests.18 Venezuela
also has pursued a highly publicized
rapprochement with Iran, a potential nuclear supplier. 19 Venezuela’s stated concern of a U.S. invasion has led it to
officially orient its armed forces toward asymmetric defense of the state. This has translated into changes in doctrine and
educational programs and the creation of a militia, although few changes within the organization of the armed forces are
evident.20 Certainly, nuclear forces would be the ultimate deterrent against outside intervention. Taken
together, these factors have led some outside observers to claim that Venezuela is a potential nuclear proliferation risk, but if we evaluate the
domestic and international political context, it seems unlikely that this will happen. At the international level, Argentina and Brazil have reacted
very cautiously to the Venezuelan nuclear proposal. On the one hand, they would like the business for economic reasons, but on the other they
are concerned about Cha´vez’s ambitions. Venezuela’s fervent support for Bolivia’s nationalization of natural gas assets owned by Brazil and
Argentina has demonstrated that the interests of these countries do not always run in concert. As members of the NPT and the Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG), Argentina and Brazil are likely to insist on strong international safeguards on any nuclear technology sold to Caracas.21
However, neither
the Kirchner nor da Silva administrations are likely to oppose Venezuela’s nuclear
ambitions publicly, both because they are vulnerable domestically on their left flank, where Hugo
Cha´vez has numerous sympathizers, and because internationally they still have common economic
interests with Venezuela that make them vulnerable to political retaliation from Cha´vez.
Prolif Impact
Prolif escalates and causes nuclear war
Kroenig 9 (Matthew, Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University, was on the Council
on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow in the Department of Defense, former strategist in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, was awarded the Secretary of Defense’s Award for Outstanding
Achievement, Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Co-Chair of the Council’s Term
Member Advisory Committee, has had fellowships from the Council on Foreign Relations, the National
Science Foundation, the Belfer Center for Science and International Security and Cooperation at
Stanford University, and the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California,
“Beyond Optimism and Pessimism: The Differential Effects of Nuclear Proliferation”, November 2009,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Beyond-Optimism-and-Pessimism.pdf\\CLans)
Triggers Regional Instability Nuclear proliferation can embolden new nuclear states, triggering regional
instability that could potentially threaten the interests of power-projecting states and even entrap
them in regional disputes. New nuclear weapon states may be more aggressive and this newfound
assertiveness can result in regional instability. I define regional instability as a heightened frequency (but not necessarily the
intensity) of militarized interstate disputes among states in a given geographical region. The threat that regional instability poses to powerprojecting states is different from the concern about international instability expressed by the proliferation pessimists. Pessimists assume that
international instability is bad in and of itself — and they may be right. But, power-projecting states have a different concern. They worry that
nuclear proliferation will set off regional instability and that, because they have the ability to project
power over the new nuclear weapon state, they will be compelled to intervene in a costly conflict.
Power-projecting states could feel the need to act as a mediator between nuclear-armed disputants,
provide conventional military assistance to one of the parties in the dispute, or because they have the ability to put boots on the ground in the
new nuclear state, potentially
be drawn into the fighting themselves. There is direct evidence that nuclear weapons can
weapon states are more likely to engage
in conflict than nonnuclear weapon states. Michael I lorowit2 extends this analysis to show that aggressiveness is most
contribute to regional instability. Robert Rauchhaus has demonstrated that nuclear
pronounced in new nuclear states that have less experience with nuclear diplomacy.4’ These related findings are not due to the fact that
dispute-prone states are more likely to acquire nuclear weapons; the scholars carefully control for a state’s selection into nuclear status.
Rather, the findings demonstrate that nuclear
weapons increase the frequency with which their possessors
participate in militarized disputes. Qualitative studies have also provided supporting evidence of
nuclear weapons’ potentially destabilizing effects. Research on internal decision-making in Pakistan reveals that Pakistani
foreign policvmakers may have been emboldened by the acquisition of nuclear weapons, encouraging them to initiate militarized disputes
against India.
Proliferation optimists counter that nuclear proliferation should increase regional stability,
but the most recent empirical investigations undermine the stronger versions of the optimism
argument.3’ While nuclear-armed states may be less likely to experience full-scale war providing some support for the optimist position,
the preponderance of evidence suggests that nuclear-armed states are more likely ro engage in other types of militarized disputes.’ This is true
whether only one state or all of the contentious actors in a region possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, for the sake of argument, even if
nuclear proliferation does have stabilizing effects as optimists argue,
as long as regional conflict among nuclear-armed
states is possible, the basic argument presented here still holds. This is because power-projecting states may still feel
compelled to intervene in the conflicts that do occur. These are conflicts that they perhaps could have avoided had
nuclear weapons been absent. There is direct evidence that regional conflicts involving nuclear powers can encourage power-projecting states to become involved in nuclear disputes. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was reluctant to aid Israel in the 1973
Yom Kippur War until Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir threatened that, without U.S. assistance, she might be forced to use nuclear weapons against the Arab armies. In response, Kissinger reversed his decision and provided emergency aid to the Israeli Defense Forces. The Soviet Union
also considered a military intervention to help its Arab proxies in the Kippur War, causing the United States to go on nuclear alert, and leading leaders in both Moscow a nd Washington to consider the very real possibility that a conflict involving a regional nuclear power could spiral into a
expectation that
powerful states will intervene in conflicts involving a nuclear-armed state is so firmly ingrained in the
strategic thinking of national leaders that small nuclear powers actually incorporate it into their
strategic doctrines.
superpower war. Similarly, in 1999 and 2(X)2, the United States became caught in diplomatic initiatives to prevent nuclear war in crises between the nuclear- armed countries of India and Pakistan.
Indeed, the
South Africa’s nuclear doctrine envisioned, in the event of an imminent security threat, the detonation of a nuclear weapon, not against the threatening party, but over the Atlantic Ocean in a n attempt to jolt the United States into
intervening on South Africa’s behalf.’ Israel’s nuclear doctrine was also constructed along similar lines. While the Israelis are notoriously silent about the existence and purpose of their nuclear arsenal, Francis Perrin, a French official who assisted in the development of Israel’s nuclear
program in the 1950s and I 960s, explained that Israel’s arsenal was originally aimed “against the Americans, not to launch against America., but to say ‘If you don’t want to help us in a critical situation, we will require you to help us. Otherwise, we will use our nuclear bombs.” Similarly,
Pakistan’s surprise raid on Indian-controlled Kargil in 1999 was motivated partly by the expectation that Pakistan would be able to retain any territory it was able to seize quickly, because Pakistani officials calculated that the United States would never allow an extended conflict in nuclear
South Asia
. For these reasons,
stability.
power-projecting States worry about the effect of nuclear proliferation on regional
U.S. officials feared that nuclear proliferation in Israel could embolden Israel against its Arab enemies, or entice Arab states to launch a preventive military strike on Israel’s nuclear arsenal. In a 1963 NIE on Israel’s nascent nuclear program, the consensus view of
the IT.S. intelligence community was that if Israel acquired nuclear weapons, “Israel’s policy coward its neighbors would become more rather than less tough.. .it would seek to exploit the psychological advantage of its nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs.” President Kennedy
concurred. In a letter to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, Kennedy wrote that Israel should abandon its nuclear program because Israel’s “development of such (nuclear) weapons would dangerously threaten the stability of the area.” Similarly, in the case of China’s nuclear
program, U.S. officials believed that a nuclear-armed China would “be more willing to take risks in military probing operations because of an overoptimistic assessment of its psychological advantage.” More recently, U.S. officials have continued to fear the effect of nuclear proliferation on
regional stability. In a 1986 Top Secret CIA Assessment, U.S. intelligence analysts predicted that a nuclear North Korea would have “a free band to conduct paramilitary operations without provoking a response.”
Similarly, a U.S. expert testified
before Congress in 2006 that “A
nuclear arsenal in the hands of Iran’s current theocratic regime will be a
source of both regional and global instability.” U.S. officials assessed that regional instability set off by
nuclear proliferation could compel them to intervene directly in regional conflicts. In the early I 960s, U.S.
officials speculated that Israel could potentially leverage its nuclear arsenal to compel the United States to intervene on its behalf in Middle
Eastern crises.’4 Similarly, in 1965, Henry Rowen, an official in the Department of Defense, assessed that if India acquired nuclear weapons, it
could lead to a conflict in South Asia “with a fair chance of spreading and involving the United States.”4 Ar the time of writing, U.S. defense
strategists are planning for the possibility that the
United States may be compelled to intervene in regional conficts
involving a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea and their neighbors. Leaders in power-projecting states
also fear that regional instability set off by nuclear proliferation could entrap power-projecting states
in a great power war.
Other power- projecting states, facing a mirror-image situation, may feel compelled to intervene in a crisis ro secure their own interests, entangling multiple great powers in a regional conflict. In a 1963 NIE, U.S. intelligence
analysts assessed that “the impact of (nuclear proliferation in the Middle East) will be the possibility that hostilities arising out of existing or future controversies could escalate into a confrontation involving the major powers.” President Johnson believed that a nuclear Israel meant
increased Soviet involvement in the Middle East and perhaps superpower war.” If historical experience provides a guide, U.S. strategists at the time of writing are undoubtedly concerned by the possibility that China may feel compelled to intervene in any conflict involving a nuclear-
. Power-projecting states, other than the United States, are also
threatened by the possibility that nuclear proliferation will generate regional instability that could
potentially require their intervention.
armed North Korea, making the Korean Peninsula another dangerous flash-point in the uncertain Sino-American strategic relationship
During the Cold War Soviet intelligence estimated that a South African bomb, “would lead to a sharp escalation of instability and tension in southern Africa.” The Soviet Union also
assessed that nuclear proliferation in Israel could trigger regional instability that could lead to a broader war. For exampl e, the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs notified the Soviet embassies in Egypt and Israel, “The establishment of nuclear weapons production in Israel will make the
situation.. .even more unstable, and is liable to trigger a serious conflict that can spill over the borders of the region.” More recently, South Korean officials believed that they could become entangled in regional instability s et off by nuclear proliferation in neighboring North Korea. In the
.” In 2006, a Turkish analyst argued that nuclear
may be enough to ‘explode’ the entire region in almost every meaning of the
mid-I 990s, Seoul prepared military forces for participation in a possible second Korean Var as North Korea’s nuclear program advanced
proliferation
word.
in Iran could be a “spark (that)
Otherization Advantage
Otherization Advantage 1AC
We begin this advantage with an introduction to our vision of the status quo. As
“Americans,” we conceal ourselves from global conflict, war, genocide, and violence
behind our television screens – we look through one lens to develop a scholarship and
“Truth” of what is actually occurring.
In this process we subjugate what we are told – we integrate and process this
information into our perspectives of the world
Specifically, the U.S.-Mexican border serves to constitute Mexicans as the, “dirty,
foreign Other” through a politics of fear – mobilization is key
Žižek, 07 - Slavoj Žižek is a Slovene philosopher and cultural critic. He is a senior researcher at the Institute for Sociology and
Philosophy, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and a professor of philosophy and psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School
(“Censorship Today: Violence, or ........ Ecology as a New Opium for the Masses”, Nov. 26, 2007, http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm)
Last but not least, new forms of apartheid, new Walls and slums. On September 11th, 2001, the Twin Towers were hit; twelve
years earlier, on November 9th, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. November 9th announced the "happy '90s," the Francis Fukuyama dream of the "end
of history," the belief that liberal democracy had, in principle, won, that the search is over, that the advent of a global, liberal world community
lurks just around the corner, that the obstacles to this ultra-Hollywood happy ending are merely empirical and contingent (local pockets of
resistance where the leaders did not yet grasp that their time is over). In contrast to it,
9/11 is the main symbol of the
forthcoming era in which new walls are emerging everywhere, between Israel and the West Bank, around the
European Union, on the U.S.-Mexico border . So what if the new proletarian position is that of the
inhabitants of slums in the new megalopolises? The explosive growth of slums in the last decades, especially in the
Third World megalopolises from Mexico City and other Latin American capitals through Africa (Lagos, Chad) to India, China,
Philippines and Indonesia, is perhaps the crucial geopolitical event of our times. It is effectively surprising how many
features of slum dwellers fit the good old Marxist determination of the proletarian revolutionary subject: they are "free" in
the double meaning of the word even more than the classic proletariat ("freed" from all substantial ties; dwelling in a free space, outside the
police regulations of the state); they are a large collective, forcibly thrown together, "thrown" into a situation where they have to invent some
mode of being-together, and simultaneously deprived of any support in traditional ways of life, in inherited religious or ethnic life-forms. While
today's society
is often characterized as the society of total control, slums are the territories within a
state boundaries from which the state (partially, at least) withdrew its control, territories which function as white spots,
blanks, in the official map of a state territory. Although they are de facto included into a state by the links of black economy, organized crime,
religious groups, etc., the state
control is nonetheless suspended there, they are domains outside the rule of
law. In the map of Berlin from the times of the now defunct GDR, the are of West Berlin was left blank, a weird hole in the detailed structure
of the big city; when Christa Wolf, the well-known East German half-dissident writer, took her small daughter to the East Berlin's high TV tower,
from which one had a nice view over the prohibited West Berlin, the small girl shouted gladly: "Look, mother, it is not white over there, there
are houses with people like here!" - as if discovering a prohibited slum Zone... This
deprived of everything, situated in a non-proletarized urban environment,
is why the "de-structured" masses, poor and
constitute one of the principal horizons of the
politics to come . If the principal task of the emancipatory politics of the XIXth century was to break the monopoly of the bourgeois
liberals by way of politicizing the working class, and if the task of the XXth century was to politically awaken the immense rural population of
Asia and Africa, the
principal task of the XXIth century is to politicize - organize and discipline - the "de-structured masses"
biggest achievement is the politicization (inclusion into the political life, social
mobilization) of slum dwellers; in other countries, they mostly persist in apolitical inertia. It was this political mobilization
of the slum dwellers which saved him against the US-sponsored coup: to the surprise of everyone, Chavez included,
of slum-dwellers. Hugo Chavez's
slum dwellers massively descended to the affluent city center, tipping the balance of power to his advantage. How do these four antagonisms
relate to each other? There is a qualitative difference between the gap that separates the Excluded from the Included and the other three
antagonisms, which designate three domains of what Hardt and Negri call "commons," the shared substance of our
social being
whose privatization is a violent act which should also be resisted with violent means, if necessary: the
commons of culture, the immediately socialized forms of "cognitive" capital , primarily language, our means of
communication and education (if Bill Gates were to be allowed monopoly, we would have reached the absurd situation in which a private
individual would have literally owned the software texture our basic network of communication), but also the shared infrastructure of public
transport, electricity, post, etc.; the commons of external nature threatened by pollution and exploitation (from oil to forests and natural
habitat itself); the commons of internal nature (the biogenetic inheritance of humanity). What
all these struggles share is the
awareness of the destructive potentials, up to the self-annihilation of humanity itself, if the capitalist logic of
enclosing these commons is allowed a free run. It is this reference to "commons" which justifies the resuscitation of the notion of Communism or, to quote Alain Badiou: The communist hypothesis remains the good one, I do not see any other. If we have to abandon this hypothesis, then
it is no longer worth doing anything at all in the field of collective action. Without the horizon of communism, without this Idea, there is nothing
in the historical and political becoming of any interest to a philosopher. Let everyone bother about his own affairs, and let us stop talking about
it. In this case, the rat-man is right, as is, by the way, the case with some ex-communists who are either avid of their rents or who lost courage.
However, to hold on to the Idea, to the existence of this hypothesis, does not mean that we should retain its first form of presentation which
was centered on property and State. In fact, what is imposed on us as a task, even as a philosophical obligation, is to help a new mode of
existence of the hypothesis to deploy itself. So where do we stand today with regard to communism? The first step is to admit that the solution
is not to limit the market and private property by direct interventions of the State and state ownership. The
domain of State itself is
also in its own way "private": private in the precise Kantian sense of the "private use of Reason" in State administrative and
ideological apparatuses: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about
enlightenment among men. The private use of one's reason, on the other hand, may often be very narrowly restricted without
particularly hindering the progress of enlightenment. By public use of one's reason I understand the use which a person makes of it as a scholar
before the reading public. Private use I call that which one may make of it in a particular civil post or office which is entrusted to him. What one
should add here, moving beyond Kant, is that there is a
privileged social group which, on account of its lacking a determinate place in
the "private" order of social hierarchy, directly stands for universality: it is only the reference to those
Excluded, to those who dwell in the blanks of the State space, that enables true universality . There is
nothing more "private" than a State community which perceives the Excluded as a threat and worries how to keep the Excluded at a proper
distance. In other words, in the series of the four antagonisms, the one between the Included and the Excluded is the crucial one, the point of
reference for the others; without it, all others lose their subversive edge: ecology turns into a "problem of sustainable development,"
intellectual property into a "complex legal challenge," biogenetics into an "ethical" issue. One can sincerely fight for ecology, defend a broader
notion of intellectual property, oppose the copyrighting of genes, while not questioning the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded
- even more, one can even formulate some of these struggles in the terms of the Included threatened by the polluting Excluded. In
this
way, we get no true universality, only "private" concerns in the Kantian sense of the term. Corporations like Whole Foods and
Starbucks continue to enjoy favor among liberals even though they both engage in anti-union activities; the trick is that they sell products that
contain the claim of being politically progressive acts in and of themselves. One buys coffee made with beans bought at above fair-market
value, one drives a hybrid vehicle, one buys from companies that provide good benefits for their customers (according to the corporation's own
standards), etc. Political action and consumption become fully merged. In short, without the antagonism between the
Included and the Excluded, we may well find ourselves in a world in which Bill Gates is the greatest humanitarian fighting against poverty and
diseases, and Rupert Murdoch the greatest environmentalist mobilizing hundreds of millions through his media empire. When
politics is
reduced to the "private" domain, it takes the form of the politics of FEAR - fear of losing one's particular
identity, of being overwhelmed. Today's predominant mode of politics is post-political bio-politics - an awesome
example of theoretical jargon which, however, can easily be unpacked: "post-political" is a politics which claims to leave behind
old ideological struggles and, instead, focus on expert management and administration, while "bio-politics"
designates the regulation of the security and welfare of human lives as its primal goal . It is clear how these
two dimensions overlap: once one renounces big ideological causes, what remains is only the efficient administration of life... almost only that.
That is to say, with the depoliticized, socially objective, expert administration and coordination of interests as the zero-level of politics, the
only way to introduce passion into this field, to actively mobilize people, is through fear, a basic constituent of today's
subjectivity.
This fear driven ideology Otherizes immigrants to a political image and shapes flawed
policies
Cisneros, 08 - Dr. Josue David Cisneros is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies. His research and teaching
interests focus mainly on rhetoric, or situated, public, and persuasive communication. Dr. Cisneros’ research focuses on the ways in which
social and political identities are rhetorically constituted and contested in the public sphere, and he specializes in issues of citizenship,
race/ethnicity, Latina/o identity, and immigration (“Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of "Immigrant as Pollutant" in Media
Representations of Immigration”, 2008 http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhetoric_and_public_affairs/v011/11.4.cisneros.html)
Popular rhetoric
about immigration often operates by constructing metaphoric representations of immigrants
that concretize the social "problem" and connote particular solutions. Scholars have identified discursive
connections between the rhetoric of immigration and representations of other human problems such
as crime or war. This essay identifies another metaphor present in popular media coverage of immigration, particularly visual images of
immigrants. The metaphor of "immigrant as pollutant" present in news media discourse on immigration can have
serious consequences for societal treatment of immigrants as well as the policies designed to
respond to immigration. A "nation of immigrants," the United States has never been able to quell the fascination and
fear with which it approaches migration. Though the country collectively celebrates the brave souls who populated the nation, America's
inhabitants remain suspicious of the hundreds of thousands of individuals that cross into the country on a yearly basis. Both legal and illegal
immigration have been a concern to the government and the public since the birth of the nation. Though the degree of popular obsession with
immigration rises and falls, there is always an awareness that these strangers potentially bring with them monumental and threatening
changes. Concern over immigration is
evidenced not only in public discourse but also in the large body of
scholarship on the phenomenon of immigration, including an attempt to understand how immigration as
"problem" is constructed in mass media. To make sense of this complex phenomenon, scholars note, individuals approach
immigration through the perspective of metaphor to [End Page 569] clarify the topic and to connect it with their personal experience. Much of
our knowledge about how immigration
is represented in media and popular discourse has centered on metaphors such as a
crime wave or war as guiding tropes through which the "problem" of immigration is represented. In this essay, I identify another metaphor
through which popular media represent immigration. Moreover, I contribute to our understanding of immigration rhetoric by paying careful
attention to how visual images construct metaphoric representations of migrants. By comparing the visual and metaphoric images of
immigration in recent news coverage to images of pollution from coverage of toxic waste spills, particularly the crisis at Love Canal, I sketch a
heretofore underanalyzed metaphor of "immigrant as pollutant" present in the immigration debate. Not only does this essay begin to illustrate
another metaphor through which immigration is articulated, it also points to the need for more analysis of the visual rhetoric of immigration.
Despite their contributions, however, these studies have two important limitations. First, many of these studies encounter a methodological
shortcoming. Most research on the metaphoric representations of immigration focus solely on the text of stories in newspapers and magazines
or transcripts of political speeches. Chavez's book examines magazine covers and their corresponding stories. Ono and Sloop do recognize how
television news images contribute to public understandings of immigrants, yet neither work sufficiently examines the visual components of
immigration rhetoric for the cooperative role they play in constructing metaphors of immigration. Attention to the visual elements of
immigration rhetoric is important because of the centrality of images in modern public discourse, particularly news discourse. As Robert
Hariman and John Louis Lucaites argue, "the widely disseminated visual image provides the public audience with a sense of shared experience
that anchors the necessarily impersonal character of public discourse in the motivational ground of social life." Analyzing
the ways
immigration is constructed through the images, texts, and aural messages of news discourse
illustrates another way in which immigration is articulated through visual metaphor. I look to reports on
immigration from Fox News and CNN from September to December of 2005 to argue that, in addition to being conceived as a crime wave or
invasion, immigration is framed metaphorically as a dangerous pollutant. This metaphoric construction of immigrant as pollutant can
be unpacked by considering the images of undocumented immigrants, the images of the dangers
posed by these immigrants, and the images of the government's response.
Amnesty breeds economic xenophobia by allowing America to become the home of
migrants
Salaita, 05 - Steven Salaita is assistant professor of Multicultural literature at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (“Anti-ArabRacism:
How Myth and patriotism Combine to Inhibit Democracy”, 2005, accessed via JSTOR)
Yet perhaps the
most crucial (and discomfiting) feature of imperative patriotism is its relationship with xenophobia.
has a symbiotic moral association with colonial discourse, it is more disconnected from
xenophobia because it does not actually arise from xenophobia, which is a phenomenon that, to a degree, has its
roots in European contact with Indians, but more traditionally has resulted from animosity over ( perceived or real)
economic disparity. On one level, xenophobia is a less vicious form of colonial discourse, but it more often
results from a certain type of fear that is generated when people feel that their economic stability (or the
possibility of it) is threatened—as, for instance, when laborers battle with immigrants over blue-collar jobs or when middle- to upper-class
Whites complain to city councils about immigrants moving into their neighborhoods. Imperative patriotism,
While imperative patriotism
however, tends to inform xenophobia, a fact that is expressed in statements such as, "If you don't like America, go back to where you came
from"; "If you don't agree with the United States, why don't you just leave?"; and "A real American works hard and doesn't complain." These
statements insinuate that "American" is a stable, fixed identity rooted in a physical and cultural
Whiteness for which many immigrants do not qualify. They also indicate that in xenophobia narrow political
suppositions often govern social behavior: To dissent against the imagined mores of America is to forfeit identification as American.
Leaving the United States then becomes the only logical option.
Empirically, guest worker programs re-construct the immigrants’ role in society
Jurado, 08 – PhD, University of Michigan (“ALIENATED CITIZENS: “HISPANOPHOBIA” AND THE MEXICAN IM/MIGRANT BODY”, 2008,
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/58455/kjurado_1.pdf?sequence=1)
Alcaraz and Rivera maintain a sharp eye on the pulse of the nation and given their digitized media outlet, make them forces to contend with.
The likelihood of future
guest worker programs between the United States and Mexico make Rivera’s and
Alcaraz’s web-based, creative political commentaries on stereotypes a relevant and necessary critique. Their
work both highlights and challenges the long historical trajectory of hegemonic representations of the MexicanLatina/o im/migrant body. During different historical moments, the Mexican im/migrant body has provided a
contested, metaphoric landscape that has been discursively dehumanized by hegemonic discourses. This
rhetoric of fear has changed little over the last century. Vestiges of the pseudo-scientific jargon of eugenics remain in
contemporary anti-immigrant fears. Contemporary anti-immigrant, xenophobic rhetoric, while not sustained by any pseudoscience, nonetheless remains a powerful ideological force in social and juridical thought with very real repercussions that I
analyze in each historical moment. In my dissertation I demonstrate that Latina/o authors and artists, past and present, have consistently and
actively engaged these destructive constructions. Close
readings of the representations provided by Latina/o cultural
workers in a variety of mediums and forums, will show how they have re-written, re-imagined and revisioned
the maligned immigrant body. Their work in effect resurrects the element of humanity that is so often
obscured by hegemonic discourses and rhetoric. At the heart of this analysis are the broader questions of rigid
constructions of citizenship and national identity. This study maps the ways in which discourses of
difference delineate and blur the distinctions between citizens and “aliens.” More importantly, the work of
Latina/o authors and artists constitute vital counter-narratives that fill in the historical gaps, erasures and misconceptions that have
continuously robbed Latina/os of inclusion into the national imaginary. I think of the cultural productions by Latina/os as discursive acts of
resurrection in which the Mexican-Latina/o im/migrant body is restored to 24 un cuerpo entero, complete with the humanity so often obscured
in hegemonic discourse.
A guest worker program is the best moral option – it deteriorates social and political
subjugation through humanizing the Other
Hing, 06 - Bill Ong Hing is a Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco and Professor Emeritus, U.C. California, Davis School of Law
(“Deporting Our Souls”, Oct. 16th, 2006,
http://worldtracker.org/media/library/College%20Books/Cambridge%20University%20Press/0521864925.Cambridge.University.Press.Deportin
g.Our.Souls.Values.Morality.and.Immigration.Policy.Oct.2006.pdf)
As a nation, the
United States ought to do the right thing when it comes to undocumented immigrants.
Given our long historical ties with Mexico, doing the right thing is especially in order in the case of
Mexican migrants. We demonize the undocumented, rather than see them for what they are: human
beings entering for a better life who have been manipulated by globalization, regional economies, and
social structures that have operated for generations. We benefit from undocumented labor every day and in a vast range
of occupations. The right thing to do is to develop a system to facilitate the flow of Mexican migrants to the United States who are seeking
employment opportunities. Given the
economic imbalance between the two nations, we know that the flow
will continue – legally or otherwise. By legalizing the flow through a large guestworker program, we
ease pressures at the border (thus freeing up personnel to concentrate on the serious challenge of looking for terrorists and drug
smugglers), address the labor needs of employers, bring the undocumented out of the shadows, and end unnecessary border deaths that have
resulted from current enforcement strategies.57 Doing
the right thing requires us to humanize the guestworker
upon whom we have come to rely. Thus, establishing a worker program must be done in a manner that
provides the workers with hope for membership and respect from other Americans. A path toward
legalization becomes a critical ingredient of any guestworker program. Only through that path can these individuals attain
a sense of enfranchisement and freedom from political subjugation and servitude. Our moral,
economic, social, and national security interests demand that we pursue such a program.
Solvency – State Key
The law is key - the state controls the Otherizing identity that the public embraces
Nevins, 02 - Joseph Nevins, 2002, Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the "Illegal Alien" and the Making of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary,
Publication: Routledge: New York, page number: 95-122.
It is no mere coincidence that many of today’s “undesirables” are from groups previously excluded or
marginalized for overtly racist criteria. While yesterday’s undesirables were distinguished by racial
factors, today’s unwanted immigrants are marked by their legal status—or lack thereof. And given the
power of “the law” as an ideological construct dividing good from evil in the contemporary United
States, this very fact—in addition to their “otherness”—serves to marginalize these immigrants in the
eyes of much of the public. Indeed, a striking feature of contemporary California is “the reassignment of Mexicans—especially the
undocumented, non-English-speaking population—to the bottom of the new racial and ethnic hierarchy.” But again, the “illegal” is not a mere
discursive cover for racism.
Yes Militarism
The status quo’s militaristic approach serves as a death trap – not as a deterrence factor
Hing, 06 - Bill Ong Hing is a Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco and Professor Emeritus, U.C. California, Davis School of
Law (“Deporting Our Souls”, Oct. 16th, 2006,
http://worldtracker.org/media/library/College%20Books/Cambridge%20University%20Press/0521864925.Cambridge.University.Press.Deportin
g.Our.Souls.Values.Morality.and.Immigration.Policy.Oct.2006.pdf)
The fear-based strategies can become deadly. Beginning in 1994, the Clinton administration implemented Operation
Gatekeeper, a strategy of “control through deterrence” that involved constructing fences and militarizing the
parts of the southern border that were the most easily traversed. Instead of deterring migrants, their entry choices
were shifted to treacherous terrain – the deserts and mountains. The number of entries and apprehensions were not
at all decreased, and the number of deaths because of dehydration and sunstroke in the summer or
freezing in the winter dramatically surged. In 1994, fewer than 30 migrants died along the border; by 1998, the number was
147; in 2001, 387 deaths were counted; and by2005, 451 died. The pattern continued in 2006.Given the risks, why do migrants continue the
harrowing trek? The attraction of the United States is obvious. The strong economy pays Mexican workers, for example,
eight to nine times more than what they can earn in Mexico. For many, it’s a matter of economic desperation, and some observers think that
migrants would continue to come even if we mined the border. In a sense,
they do not have a choice . Besides, jobs are plentiful
here, because a variety of industries rely on low-wage migrant workers. They may know the risks but figure that the risks are outweighed by the
benefits of crossing. Motivations for continued migration call into question the likely effectiveness of the expansion of Operation Gatekeeper if
the goal is to discourage bordercrossers. Beyond
the economic situation in Mexico, a socioeconomic phenomenon
is at play. The phenomenon is the long, historical travel patterns between Mexico and the United States, coupled with the interdependency
of the two regions. Migration from Mexico is the manifestation of these economic problems and social phenomena. The militarization
of the border does nothing to address these phenomena. Instead, it is killing individuals who are
caught up in the phenomena. And yet we condone this enforcement strategy knowing that needless
deaths will continue.
Yes Dehumanization
Status quo framings of immigrants serves to dehumanize and bolster dominant
ideologies
-this could also be a great alt solvency card if read as a kritik
Cisneros, 08 - Dr. Josue David Cisneros is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies. His research and teaching
interests focus mainly on rhetoric, or situated, public, and persuasive communication. Dr. Cisneros’ research focuses on the ways in which
social and political identities are rhetorically constituted and contested in the public sphere, and he specializes in issues of citizenship,
race/ethnicity, Latina/o identity, and immigration (“Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of "Immigrant as Pollutant" in Media
Representations of Immigration”, 2008 http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhetoric_and_public_affairs/v011/11.4.cisneros.html)
Rhetorical theory and cognitive science teach
us that metaphors are more than linguistic ornamentation; they are “significant
rhetorical tools that affect political behavior and cognition.”4 Metaphors create conventional understandings by connecting
phenomena with familiar cultural assumptions and experiences.5 Not only are they essential cognitive tools, but metaphors participate in
creating fundamental understandings of texts and the rhetorical contexts in which they are situated.6 Metaphors
are cultural
indices with which “Americans build their commonplace understanding[s]” and attitudes.7 Scholars have
mapped the historical metaphors used to talk about the immigration “problem” as a means to identify the
underlying cultural assumptions of these representations. Mark Ellis and Richard Wright offer examples of metaphors
that encapsulate different perspectives on the assimilation of immigrants into American society such as the “melting pot,” the “quilt,”
the “kaleidoscope,” or the “salad bowl.” They describe how metaphors of immigration serve as conceptual tools with
which scholars build research, society establishes group relationships, and government creates public policy: Metaphors] represent
competing views, some more distinct than others, of the consequences of immigration, interethnic contact, and societal coherence. In using
metaphors . . . we run the risk of being confined to particular ways of interpreting immigration and demographic trends. As they become
entrenched in theoretical discourse, they influence how we formulate our hypotheses about the impacts of immigration and ethnic group
behavior—about how different immigrant groups fit into U.S. society.8 As repositories of cultural understandings, metaphors are some of
the principal
tools with which dominant ideologies and prejudices are represented and reinforced. For
example, as George Lakoff and Sam Ferguson note, the framing of immigration discourse in the terms of “illegal
aliens,” “border security,” and “amnesty” “focuses entirely on the immigrants and the administrative agencies
charged with overseeing immigration law.” This framing is “NOT neutral” but “ dehumanizes” immigrants and “pre-empts” a
consideration of “broader social and economic concerns” (such as foreign economic policy and international human rights).9 The task, then,
is to examine the ways in which conventional understandings of immigration are made concrete through
metaphor. Examining these discursive representations can “unmask or demystify” dominant assumptions about
immigrants, assumptions that can have potentially deleterious effects on social relations.10 Before discussing these contemporary
metaphoric representations or their ideological implications, however, I review the extant literature on metaphors of immigration.
Fear politics create immoral policies - dehumanizes the Other
Hing, 06 - Bill Ong Hing is a Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco and Professor Emeritus, U.C. California, Davis School of
Law (“Deporting Our Souls”, Oct. 16th, 2006,
http://worldtracker.org/media/library/College%20Books/Cambridge%20University%20Press/0521864925.Cambridge.University.Press.Depor
ting.Our.Souls.Values.Morality.and.Immigration.Policy.Oct.2006.pdf)
The age of hysteria over immigration in which we live leads to tragic policies that challenge us as a moral
society. Policies that are unnecessarily harsh – that show a dehumanizing side of our character – are
senseless. They bring shame to us as a civil society. When I meet and speak with immigrants – documented and undocumented – I
find decent, hardworking folks who have traveled to join relatives or to work, or, in the case of refugees, fled here seeking freedom. I find
individuals who want to be Americans and who definitely want their children to be Americans. If we were in their shoes (in fact, many of our
parents or grandparents were in their shoes), then I am confident that we would want to be treated with simple, human respect. In the
chapters that follow, I set forth some of the major immigration issues that are up for debate and that likely will be debated for years to come.
These are the issues related to undocumented immigration, the deportation of long-time residents, kinship versus
employment-based immigration, national security, and how and why we should be integrating new immigrants . In the
process, my hope is that the venom toward immigrants be put aside while the issues are considered. The debate over these issues
provides our nation an opportunity to shed the cold side of our character and demonstrate the human
values of which we are proud. I believe that the vast majority of Americans not only understand the value that immigrants bring to
our shores but also believe that our energy is better spent following reasonable approaches that will not shame and embarrass us later. We will
be better for doing so, and, with the right approach, we can invite newcomers to step forward and take on their American responsibilities as
well.
Solvency
AT: H-2 Visa Solves
H-2A program fails – can’t compete with illegal labor, so it’s rarely used
Semuels 3/30 [Alana Semuels ; March 30, 2013; U.S. farmers, guest workers pay a price to stay legal; Journalist for the LA times
dealing with Latin American policy issues; http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guest-worker-20130331dto,0,5896092.htmlstory]
Although the H-2A program is the only legal way to bring foreign farmworkers to the United States,
most employers don't use it. H-2A workers fill an estimated 6% of U.S. farm jobs, the majority in states such as
North Carolina and Georgia, where employers are hard-pressed to find anyone else willing to do the work. Undocumented workers
fill most of the 1 million or more farm jobs open nationally every year; California, which hires more
farmworkers than any other state, uses H-2A workers less frequently because its location close to
Mexico makes it easier for employers to find undocumented workers. Barr says it's easy to understand
why only a handful of employers bring in guest workers. He spends $1,000 per worker for visas,
consulate fees and transportation to North Carolina. He's required to pay for their housing, and he
estimates he has spent more than $80,000 building a house on his property, plus $36,000 to buy a
mobile home and $5,000 a year to rent an apartment for the 48 workers he employs during the
growing season. The government makes him pay them $9.68 an hour, which is about one-third higher
than the minimum wage in the state, and he spends thousands of dollars on workers' compensation
insurance. Costs aside, the process is a headache of applications and paperwork required by the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor. Barr must go through lengthy steps
to make sure no American wants a job before he hires a Mexican worker. He must place ads around
the state and hire any American who wants to work, even if the job has already been filled by a
migrant worker. The chance of violating a rule, even by mistake, is high, he says — a neighbor had to pay a fine of
$80,000 last year.
H-2A is inefficient and costs more than it saves – North Carolina proves
Clemens 13 [Michael A. Clemens; INTERNATIONAL HARVEST: A Case Study of How Foreign Workers Help American Farms Grow Crops
– and the Economy; Clemens has a PHD from Harvard in Economics and is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development where he leads
the Migration and Development initiative; http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/nc-agr-report-05-2013.pdf; May 2013]
The North Carolina Growers Association’s (NCGA) use of H-2A visas also provides clear evidence that some of the
H-2A program requirements actually cost farmers time and money that could otherwise be used to create jobs. In
2011, the NCGA spent $54,440 on advertising its jobs in local newspapers, as compliance with the H2A program requires, as well as $46,000 in staff time exclusively devoted to cooperating with the North
Carolina Division of Employment Security (DES) recruiting, hiring, and tracking referrals of US workers to NCGA
farms. This $100,440 spent by NCGA does not include the time and costs shouldered by DES, the US
Department of Labor, or the North Carolina Department of Labor that was spent enforcing H-2A
program requirements – each of which devote staff to either ensuring that unemployed workers are referred to the NCGA or that the
NCGA is fulfilling its obligation to extensively recruit native workers. But in that same year, 2011, only seven unemployed
US workers were willing to take seasonal farm jobs offered through the NCGA and complete the
season. Those seven workers collectively earned approximately $87,300 in wages, meaning the
$100,440 spent to comply with the H-2A program exceeded the total value of the jobs it provided to
native workers.
Guest Workers Solve Without Amnesty
Guest workers solve without amnesty
WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]
Most media attention on immigration has been on legalizing the 11 million workers already here, but
more crucial for the future is creating an adequate flow of guest workers to meet the demands of a
growing U.S. economy. Having conceded on a "path to citizenship" for the 11 million, Republicans
should focus on creating guest-worker programs with enough visas and without bureaucratic controls.
Let Democrats choose between satisfying Big Labor and legalizing 11 million Hispanics.
Plan Better Than H-2A
Guest worker program would solve the problems with the H-2A
Semuels 3/30 [Alana Semuels ; March 30, 2013; U.S. farmers, guest workers pay a price to stay legal; Journalist for the LA times
dealing with Latin American policy issues; http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guest-worker-20130331dto,0,5896092.htmlstory]
Barr says these steps are worth it because he doesn't want to be raided by immigration officials and lose his crops. But
the expense
puts him at a competitive disadvantage with the other Christmas tree farms in the region, he says. Those that use
undocumented workers pay the minimum wage and don't offer housing, insurance or transportation,
he said. For employers like him, "It's definitely a disadvantage to be providing higher wages," Barr
said. A coalition of farmers has proposed a more flexible alternative to H-2A. The Agricultural Worker
Visa Program would allow two options for guest workers. One would give workers visas good for 11
months — one month longer than is now permitted — and would allow them to move from employer
to employer, which is difficult under existing rules. In theory that would allow undocumented workers
to leave abusive employers and find jobs elsewhere, worker advocates say.
Guest Worker Program Solves
Visa program is vital to fill the inherently difficult and competitive Ag jobs—Bracero
empirics prove
Sumption 11
(Madeleine, Masters in Public Policy at University of Chicago, senior policy analyst at the Migration
Policy Institute, “Filling Labor Shortages through Immigration: An Overview of Shortage Lists and their
Implications” Feb, pg online at http://migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=828//sd)
Pick up any paper, report, or book about immigration and the economy, and it probably will not be long before you encounter a reference to
labor shortages. Some skills
and abilities are in short supply, even in times of recession, and sometimes vacancies in
certain sectors are particularly hard to fill. Since immigration brings new workers to the economy who
might fill these gaps, immigration policy represents a logical part of any strategy that addresses recruiting difficulties. Immigration
policies designed to alleviate perceived shortages of labor have been around for decades, and the idea of
targeting immigration to needy parts of the economy is not new. The United States' Bracero Program, for
example was a series of bilateral labor agreements with Mexico that emerged in response to tight labor
supply in agriculture during and following World War II. Regional migration policies in Australia and Canada were also
designed, in large part, in response to perceived local labor shortages. And dedicated visa programs for specific occupations
or sectors in which host countries wish to increase labor supply — for example, in agriculture or health —
are common. But over the past ten years, wealthy countries have frequently attempted to fine-tune
immigration flows by maintaining lists of critical occupations into which immigration should be facilitated. The points
systems in New Zealand and Denmark, for example, reward prospective immigrants working in designated occupations. Canada maintains a list
of occupations in high demand, and France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom all introduced a shortage list of some kind between 2006 and
2008. What are labor shortages, how do countries go about measuring them, and how effectively can policymakers use such information to
increase labor supply in targeted areas of the economy? How do these policies work and what impact do they have? This article addresses
some of the technical, philosophical, and policy-related questions raised by the practice of maintaining shortage lists and translating them into
immigration policy. What is a Labor Shortage? Defining labor
shortages is not straightforward, but a simplified definition is that when
the demand for a given type of worker exceeds the number of willing candidates at the prevailing wage
and working conditions in that occupation, a shortage is thought to occur. Economists disagree as to whether "labor
shortages" exist at all: if particular skills are scarce, employers will raise wages and more workers will
come forward or seek training to join the occupation. In practice, however, this is not always the case. Some periods of
tight labor supply are transient, disappearing once the market has had time to adjust. Others persist, perhaps
because demand continues to rise faster than supply can catch up, or because the work is inherently difficult
or unappealing. In some occupations, international competition with producers abroad might mean that employers
cannot raise wages and remain economically viable. In other cases, such as with highly renowned scientists or talented businessmen,
one could argue that a shortage exists because one can never have too much of a good thing. Or a recruitment difficulty of sorts might arise in
fields where workers perform a socially valuable function — teachers, nurses, and caregivers, for instance — but taxpayers are not willing or
able to pay the high price that would be required to attract more of them into the profession. In other words, "shortages" come in different
shapes and forms. It may in fact make more sense to refer to them as "recruiting difficulties", since this is how they are experienced in practice
by employers. Identifying Labor Shortages Because various types of shortages exist, identifying and measuring them is quite difficult. Rapidly
rising wages can be a good indicator for identifying labor shortages since employers will typically be
forced by the market to pay more for skills that are scarce, but will not occur in cases where earnings are held back by
international competition or taxpayers' desire to get more for less. Low unemployment can also be a useful — if imperfect —
indicator, as it can signal tight labor supply in the short run, but could also reflect transient or seasonal variations in the number of workers
needed. However, unemployment by occupation is difficult to measure accurately.
AT: Topicality
Guest Workers = Economic Engagement
The plan is economic engagement
James Edwards Jr., Fellow @ Hudson, 4-26-2001, “Help Mexico, but Don't Hurt U.S.,” Hudson,
http://rs.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=839
The relations between America and Mexico are complicated by the fact that a 2,000 mile land border separates a firstworld country from a third-world country. The disparities give powerful incentive to come north. President Bush is right. Commerce is "the long-term solution" to illegal immigration. But a
guest worker program and amnesty of illegals would only exacerbate a huge problem. Economic engagement with
Mexico must take other forms. President Fox considers himself president of the 18 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans living in the United States. He wants
an open border because he perceives it to be in his nation's best interest. We must keep in mind what is in America's best interest. Open borders, amnesties and guest workers clearly aren't.
Immigration reform with Mexico is economic engagement
US Chamber of Commerce, 2013, “The U.S.-Mexico Leadership Initiative Vision 2020: Enhancing
the U.S.-Mexico Economic Partnership,” http://www.uschamber.com/international/americas/usmexico-leadership-initiative-vision-2020-enhancing-us-mexico-economic-par
The U.S.-Mexico relationship has reached a critical moment. The North American Free Trade Agreement partnership is
nearly two decades old. Immigration controversies have become a political flash-point between our
countries. Security has become a growing concern at and around the border and for travelers and investors. Both countries compete in an
increasingly competitive global environment. In this moment, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is launching a CEO-level Leadership
Initiative to execute a strategy for enhanced economic engagement between the United States and
Mexico. The Leadership Initiative will provide the strategic energy behind Vision 2020, a five-point plan for enhancing the U.S.-Mexico
economic partnership, with a view toward making the relationship a global model for bilateral best practices by the year 2020.
Increasing immigration is economic engagement
Helen V. Milner and Dustin Tingley, Profs @ Princeton, 2011, “The Economic and Political Influences
on Different Dimensions of United States Immigration Policy,” Princeton,
http://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/working%20papers/The%20Economic%20and%20Political%20Influ
ences%20on%20Different%20Dimensions%20of%20United%20States%20Immigration%20Policy.pdf
Our overall contributions to the literature are threefold. First, we highlight how widely
the substantive content of legislation that is called “immigration policy” varies and thus point out
the risk of obscuring important differences across policies if the analysis does not disaggregate
the legislation. We show that different factors affect attitudes toward different policy
dimensions. Hence we help adjudicate the important debate over economic versus ideological
factors as influences on immigration policy. Second, we provide a critical test of public finance
theory in the legislative setting. Hence as in the trade literature, which has examined both public
opinion and legislative voting, our extension of public finance arguments helps provide a more
complete picture of democratic representation by extending earlier public opinion work to the
legislature. Third, this paper contributes to a larger research tradition that seeks to explain
preferences of both citizens and their elected representatives toward different types of
international economic engagement, such as immigration, trade and foreign aid (Espenshade and
Hempstead, 1996; Hainmueller and Hiscox, 2006; Hiscox, 2006; Huber and Espenshade, 1997;
Milner and Tingley, 2011; Scheve and Slaughter, 2001b).
Visa programs are “economic engagement”
U.S. Embassy of Mexico 13 (The United State Embassy of Mexico, January 7, 2013, “The U.S. Mission in Mexico Increases
Corporate Eligibility to Participate in its Business Facilitation Program” http://mexico.usembassy.gov/press-releases/the-us-mission-in-mexicoincreases-corporate-eligibility-to-participate-in-its-business-facilitation-program.html)
The United States Embassy is pleased to announce the expansion of its Business Facilitation
Program (BFP) that allows access
to expedited visa processing for employees of qualifying firms traveling to the U.S. on company business. The BFP will
provide time-saving benefits for businesses whose employees need to travel to the U.S., and highlights the United States’ commitment to
deepening trade and economic engagement with Mexico. The BFP is open throughout Mexico and is available at all U.S.
Consulates and the Embassy. The BFP requires interested firms to register with the U.S. Embassy’s or Consulates’ Consular Section. Participating
companies will benefit from access to our visa appointment system, allowing a company representative to schedule online visa application
appointments in for a reserved appointment block. In addition, employees of participating companies will receive expedited processing and visa
delivery for their approved applications.
Immigration policy is economic engagement
Milner and Tingley 11 (Helen V., B. C. Forbes Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and the
director of the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, and Dustin Tingley, Associate
Professor of Government at Harvard University, PhD in Politics from Princeton, BA from the University of Rochester
“The Economic and Political Influences on Different Dimensions of United States Immigration Policy” October 3, 2011
http://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/working%20papers/The%20Economic%20and%20Political%20Influences%20on%20Different%20Dimensio
ns%20of%20United%20States%20Immigration%20Policy.pdf)
Our overall contributions to the literature are threefold. First, we
highlight how widely the substantive content of legislation
that is called “immigration policy” varies and thus point out the risk of obscuring important differences across policies if the
analysis does not disaggregate the legislation. We show that different factors affect attitudes toward different policy dimensions. Hence we
help adjudicate the important debate over economic versus ideological factors as influences on immigration
policy. Second, we provide a critical test of public finance theory in the legislative setting. Hence as in the trade literature, which
has examined both public opinion and legislative voting, our extension of public finance arguments
helps provide a more¶ complete picture of democratic representation by extending earlier public opinion work to the
legislature. Third, this paper contributes to a larger research tradition that seeks to explain preferences of both citizens and their elected
representatives toward different types of international economic engagement, such as immigration, trade and
foreign aid (Espenshade and Hempstead, 1996; Hainmueller and Hiscox, 2006; Hiscox, 2006; Huber and Espenshade, 1997; Milner and Tingley,
2011; Scheve and Slaughter, 2001b).
AT: CP’s
AT: AgJobs CP
AgJobs bill is worse – amnesty would drive more illegal immigration
Mcneill 09 [Jean Baker Mcneill;June 30, 2009; Ag JOBs Amnesty: The Wrong Way to Help American Agriculture; Senior Policy Analyst at
the Heritage Foundation and Senior Professional Staff Member at United States Senate;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/ag-jobs-amnesty-the-wrong-way-to-help-american-agriculture]
The Ag JOBS Act would create a pilot program that would provide work visas, also known as "blue cards," to guest workers looking
to work in the agricultural sectors. Blue cards have long been used to help legal individuals work in the United States. However, under Ag JOBS,
blue cards would be given to workers whether or not they were in the U.S. legally. After working for three to five years, program participants
are required to become citizens. This would provide amnesty and a direct path to citizenship for the estimated 600,000-800,000 illegal
agricultural workers and their family members (this number has decreased since the economic downturn; in 2007 this number was estimated at
1.3 million). To
gain blue card status, applicants would only have to demonstrate that they worked in
agriculture for "863 hours or 150 work days" in 2007 and 2008. The bill would not require necessarily
valid documentation; it would instead allow an alien to provide "any other reliable document" to
demonstrate worked hours. This means some individuals could gain citizenship without working a day
in the agricultural sector. Finally, DHS (under the bill's confidentiality clause) would be barred from using the applicant's information
to enforce federal immigration laws. The Ag JOBS bill would have the perverse effect of decreasing the incentives
for employers to hire workers with a blue card--causing a tremendous disadvantage to those using
blue cards legally. This is because the amendment protects workers with blue card status from being fired unless the employer has "just
cause." This kind of protection is not even afforded to those American workers who work on an "at will" basis in many states, where they can
be fired for any reason or no reason. This could mire
employers in legal proceedings if a worker feels that he has
been unjustly fired and would be a large disincentive for employers to hire workers with a blue card.
AT: Capped Visa CP
Capped Visa CP 2AC
First: Perm do both.
Previous visas prove- uncapped is key to supply the ag market
Nowrasteh, 13 - Alexander "Alex" Nowrasteh is an analyst of immigration policy currently working at the Center for Global Liberty and
Prosperity of the Cato Institute (“How to Make Guest Visas Work”, 1/31/13,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2228179&download=yes\\CLans)
A successful guest worker visa program must do several things. It must be flexible and large enough to supply
American firms with the laborers they demand, so as to virtually eliminate unauthorized immigration. It must
provide a legal temporary migration alterna- tive for lower-skilled migrants, and, realisti- cally, it must also contain some protectionist measures
to satisfy political constituencies that are skeptical of the benefits of guesworkers. Analyzed below are key components of successful guest
worker visas that should be incorporated into any immigration reform.
The H-2 visa for temporary agricultural workers has no quota
but only 2 percent of the agricultural workforce uses that visa be- cause inspections, fees, paperwork,
employer job search requirements, and minimum wages make it too expensive for most farmers.86 The
more flexible and affordable H-2B visa for seasonal nonagricultural workers has an annual quota of 66,000.87 For
private firms, H-1B visas for highly skilled workers are an- nually limited to 85,000,88 of which 65,00089 must come from abroad, while 20,000
are for foreign nationals who graduate with ad- vanced degrees from American universities.90 This low H-1B visa cap has been reached every
year of its existence. In
2008 it was reached within one day of the start of the visa application process.91
2001 to 2003 the cap was
increased to 195,000 an- nually and did noterr fill during those years.92 This is in stark contrast to the highly
During poor eco- nomic times, the visa cap can take months to fill, but it does do so without fail. From
success- ful World War I guest worker and Bracero programs, which did not put a government quota on the number of applications.93 As a
result, U.S. farmers could expand and con- tract their employment of guest workers on the basis of market conditions. Instead
of
Congress or a committee changing the quota every year in a vain attempt to guess how many visas employers
will demand, the market should determine the number. The government should not limit the number of
guest worker visas it issues. An uncapped system allows the number of visas to expand
and contract
on
the basis of ebbs and flows of the market . Guest workers should be limited by market demand, which is far more
binding and realistic than any numerical limitation.
A capped system is too limiting- means the counterplan can’t solve the internal links
to any advantage
Rosenblum 9 (Marc R., Marc Rosenblum is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University
of New Orleans, B.A. in political science at Columbia University and Ph.D. in political science from the
University of California, San Diego, “Aligning Temporary Immigration Visas with US Labor Market Needs:
The Case for a New System of Provisional Visas”, July 2009,\\CLans)
The current visa system, which owes its basic architecture to the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, is far
too rigid in setting conditions for immigrant recruitment. Most employers seeking to hire a permanent immigrant or a
low-skilled temporary worker must painstakingly document their inability to hire a native worker. Many employers of high-skilled temporary
workers must commit to specific employment conditions before petitioning for the immigrant’s admission. And the
most important
visa categories, both permanent and temporary, confront strict numerical limits. Such restrictions have
produced wait times of up to six years for some employment-based green cards (i.e. visas authorizing lawful
permanent residency), and a scramble to apply for scarce nonimmigrant visas, which in recent years have been exhausted
within days or hours of the new fiscal year. Markets, Economic Competitiveness, and Immigration, to facilitate
more regular adjustments to employment-based visa quotas based on systematic analysis of the
economic impacts of labor market immigration. This report focuses on a second set of vital reforms: changes to the terms of
most employment-based visas and to the rules that govern the marketplace. Under the current system, immigrants with green cards face no
time limits on their legal residency and enjoy the same employment privileges and labor protections as US citizens. But at least several times as
many foreign nationals are admitted each year as temporary workers. 4 In a previous report, we propose a Standing Commission on Labor 5 6
These workers face restrictions
on their labor mobility (it is difficult for them to change employers), and they have
few chances for permanent residence. These requirements were designed to protect the jobs, wages, and working conditions of
US workers. In practice, however, restrictions on mobility and immigration status make the system opaque,
cumbersome, and outdated for the majority of those who engage with or are affected by it — employers,
immigrants, native workers, and US communities — and so the requirements fail to meet their basic objectives. Worse still,
policy has been moving in the wrong direction: recent legislation and regulations have encouraged
employers to rely more extensively on temporary visas, and green cards account for a decreasing
share of employment-based flows.
Default to uncapped visas — only a risk a cap has a negative impact
Ruhs and Martin 11(Philip Martin is an economist at UC-Davis, Martin Ruhs is an economist at the
Centre on Migration, Policy and Society at Oxford University and a member of the UK’s Migration
Advisory Committee, “Labor Shortages and US Immigration Reform: Promises and Perils of an
Independent Commission”, June 2011\\CLans)
Regulating the entry and right to work of migrants is a key function of governments. However, it is often hard for
government agencies to assess and respond to employer requests for foreign workers to fill alleged
labor and skills shortages because of the complexity of measuring shortages and evaluating
alternative options to deal with them. The cost of bad policy decisions can be very high, leaving local workers
without jobs and delaying productivity-increasing changes that keep economies competitive, On the other hand, restricting access to
foreign workers could adversely affect particular employers and may slow economic growth.
Cap discourages use of program — uncapped resolves this and solves labor demands
Chishti 13 (Muzaffar A. is the Director of the migration Policy Institute’s office at New York University
School of Law, “America’s Immigration System: Opportunities for Legal Immigration and Enforcement of
Laws Against Illegal Immigration”, February 5, 2013
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/ChishtiTestimony-February2013.pdf\\Clans)
At present, both temporary and permanent work-related immigration channels for low-skilled workers are
exceedingly limited. While the H-2A and H-2B temporary visa programs allow employers to sponsor foreign workers for temporary or
seasonal work, there are almost no permanent visas — fewer than 5,000 — available for ongoing, non-temporary
positions that require less than a bachelor’s degree or two years of experience. In recent years, and
even during the middle of the recession, employer demand for H-2B visa holders far exceeded the
annual statutory cap of 66,000 visas. In addition, employers have voiced concerns over the arduous nature of the I l-2A and ¡ I-2B
sponsorship process, which may discourage widespread use of the program.
Uncapped is key — a capped program is too limiting and the bureaucratic hurdles
make it unworkable
U.S. Chamber of Commerce 13 (“Why Our Current Immigration System Does Not Work For the
Business Community”, February 2013,
http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/files/immigrationWhyCurrentImmigrationSystemBadFor
Business0213.pdf\\CLans)
What’s Wrong with our Employment Based Immigration Laws? Under current law, employment based
programs are extremely limited. • Basically, there are only three programswhere employers can hire immigrant workers: H-2B
for seasonal or temporary workers, capped at 66,000 per year; H-1B’s for high-skilled workers, capped
at 65,000 per year; and the H-2A program for agriculture, which is uncapped, but very difficult to use. •
On the green card side, of the approximately 1 million new lawful permanentresidents, only about 59,000 were issued green cards as workers,
based on theirskills. When
mirrored against a workforce of over 155 million workers, these programs are
extremely limited. Further, given demographic realities, we need employment-based programs that allow
employers to utilize immigrant labor when U.S. workers are not available. • Unlike the current employment
based options, these new programs cannot be so encumbered with bureaucratic hurdles that they become
unworkable.
• There will be significant transaction costs associated with either high-skilled or low-skilled programs, and employers will
not use these programs unless there is a truly pressing need driven by the absence of available American workers.
Current capped visas fail — a new uncapped visa is key
Gowdy 13 (Trey, U.S. Representative for South Carolina’s 4th congressional district since 2011, former
district attorney for South Carolina’s Seventh Judicial Circuit, “Agricultural Labor: From H-2A To A
Workable Guestworker Program”, February 26, 2013\\CLans)
What about the current H-2A agricultural worker program? This program is numerically capped, and initial
expectations were that growers would use hundreds of thousands of H.2A workers each year. Yet, the State Department only
issues about 50,000 visas a year. So why is it so under-utilized? What I am going to do today is ask the farmers, because in the eyes
of many, the program itself is designed to fail. It is cumbersome . It is full of red tape. Growers have to pay wages far
above the locally prevailing wage, putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with growers who use illegal labor. Growers are sub
ject to onerous rules, such as the 50 percent rule, which requires them to hire any domestic worker who shows up even after the H. 2A
worker has arrived from overseas. Growers can’t get workers in time to meet needs dictated by the weather . And
finally, growers are constantly subject to litigation by those who don’t think the H. 2A program should even exist. What growers need is a
fair and workable guestworker program. They need a program that gives them access to the workers
they need. When they need them, at a fair wage and with reasonable conditions, and they need a partner in the Federal
Government, not what is often perceived as an adversary. A reformed guestworker program will work
better for growers and for workers. If growers can’t use a program because it is too cumbersome, none of
its worker protections will benefit actual workers. If a program is fair to both growers and workers, it
will be widely used and workers will benefit from its protections. I look forward to hearing today’s witnesses and
learning how they would reform our agricultural guestworker system.
Farm lobby specifically wants an uncapped visa- means counterplan links to politics
Abbott 13 (Charles Abbot is a Political Journalist for Reuters “U.S. grower group asks for no limit on
foreign field workers” May 16, 2013 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-16/news/sns-rt-usaimmigrationfarmworkersl2n0dx2g6-20130516_1_bob-goodlatte-workers-u-s-house)
"Farmers need the program to be uncapped," said Lee Wicker, deputy director of the North Carolina
Growers Association, the largest H-2A user group in the country. Its members expect to employ 7,500 guest workers during the
growing season as well as thousands of Americans. At a Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Wicker said farmers can face bankruptcy if they cannot
get enough workers into the field when crops are ready to pick. Also, consumers pay higher produce prices if crops rot in the field. Goodlatte's
bill would create a H-2C visa, good for up to three years and renewable for 18 months at a time, for farm, seafood and food processing
employees. It would be the first time processors could hire guest workers for year-round jobs. A
coalition of growers and the
United Farm Workers union backs the Senate approach, which includes a path to citizenship for farm
workers in the country illegally as well as a new guest worker program. It allows visas to run for up to three years
at a time but does not include packing-plant workers.
Uncapped visas are the only way to guarantee sufficient laborers
Farm Bureau 13 [July 13; http://www.fb.org/issues/docs/aglabor13.pdf; Farm Bureau is a collection of farms who are represented
collectively by the Farm Bureau; AGRICULTURAL LABOR – IMMIGRATION REFORM]
The uncapped Agricultural Worker Visa Program (“AWP”) will ensure agriculture’s future legal workforce.
The AWP allows both employer and employee choice and flexibility by including two options: 1. “At-Will” employees have the
freedom to move from employer to employer without any contractual commitment. They would have a visa
term of up to 11 months with USDA registered employers and then return home for 30 days. There would be no limit on the
number of times a person could obtain the 11-month visa. 2. Contract employees commit to work for
an employer for a fixed period of time and would have a visa term of up to 12 months (renewable
indefinitely), and conditioned upon a commitment to return to their home country for at least 30 days
over a 3-year period.
Ext. Not Solve Ag
Uncapped visas are the only way to guarantee sufficient laborers
Farm Bureau 13 [July 13; http://www.fb.org/issues/docs/aglabor13.pdf; Farm Bureau is a collection of farms who are represented
collectively by the Farm Bureau; AGRICULTURAL LABOR – IMMIGRATION REFORM]
The uncapped Agricultural Worker Visa Program (“AWP”) will ensure agriculture’s future legal workforce.
The AWP allows both employer and employee choice and flexibility by including two options: 1. “At-Will” employees have the
freedom to move from employer to employer without any contractual commitment. They would have a visa
term of up to 11 months with USDA registered employers and then return home for 30 days. There would be no limit on the
number of times a person could obtain the 11-month visa. 2. Contract employees commit to work for
an employer for a fixed period of time and would have a visa term of up to 12 months (renewable
indefinitely), and conditioned upon a commitment to return to their home country for at least 30 days
over a 3-year period.
Having a rigid, inflexible cap on visas can’t solve illegal immigration
COC 13 [March 2013; Visas for Essential but Less Skilled Immigrants Why a New Essential and Lesser-skilled Legal Immigration System Best
Serves the National Interest; http://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/HLD2013/documents/LessSkilled_Future_Flow_2013_with_demand_graphic.pdf; US Chamber of Commerce is the Chamber of Commerce and is our government so it’s
qualified]
Moreover, a
lesser-skilled worker visa program is perhaps the only real-world alternative to unauthorized
migration and, therefore, is a key component of border control and protecting our national security.
It seems obvious to us that that securing our borders is closely connected to legal immigration levels especially for the lesser-skilled, and that
larger numerical caps for legal lesser-skilled workers reduce the need for enforcement while smaller
quotas increase it .8 Further, border enforcement does not exist in a vacuum. While unauthorized
immigration to the United States initially declined following the passage of the 1986 Act, that
legislation failed to create flexible legal limits on immigration that were capable of responding to ups
and downs in future U.S. labor demand. Immigration reform must include meaningful changes to the lesser-skilled
employment-based visa system to help prevent future illegal immigration. Prior to the 1986 Act, a circular pattern of migration existed between
the U.S. and Latin America. About half of immigrants from Latin America came to the U.S. for short periods of time to work and then return
home. Following implementation of the 1986 Act and other immigration reforms thereafter, immigrants feared their ability to reenter the U.S.
and they in turn did not depart. 9 Our
national interests, both economic and security, necessitate creation of a
new essential and lesser-skilled worker legal immigration system.
Capped visas don’t solve – North Carolina proves
Clemens 13 [Michael A. Clemens; INTERNATIONAL ¶ HARVEST: ¶ A Case Study of How Foreign Workers Help American ¶ Farms Grow
Crops – and the Economy; Clemens has a PHD from Harvard in Economics and is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development where he
leads the Migration and Development initiative; http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/nc-agr-report-05-2013.pdf; May
2013]
We hope as Congress works to reform our immigration system, this key component is the subject of solutions that work for the business
community and the country. There is virtually no supply of native manual farm laborers in North Carolina: In 2011, with
6,500 available farm jobs in the state, only 268 of the nearly 500,000 unemployed North Carolinians applied for these jobs. More than 90
percent (245 people) of those applying were hired, but just 163 showed up for the first day of work. Only seven native workers completed the
entire growing season, filling only one-tenth of 1 percent of the open farm jobs.
No matter how bad the economy becomes,
native workers still do not take farm jobs : In the late 2000s, North Carolina experienced an economic shock that dramatically
increased the state’s unemployment rate, from 4.7 percent in 2007 to 10.9 percent in 2010. Yet there was almost no correlation between rising
unemployment and either more native workers being referred to NCGA jobs or more workers starting at NCGA jobs, and there was no
correlation between higher unemployment and more workers completing the growing season. Foreign
farm workers create jobs
for American workers: In 2012, the foreign-born seasonal agriculture workers who filled North
Carolina farm jobs added an estimated $248 million to $371 million to the state economy that year. This
economic benefit created one U.S. worker job for each 3.0 to 4.6 immigrant farm workers who worked in North Carolina. The North Carolina
Growers Association (NCGA) – the organization that comprises many of the state’s leading farms – spends more money to comply with the
immigration laws designed to protect American workers than it does on salaries for all of its American farm workers combined: The NCGA spent
more than $100,000 to advertise farm jobs and comply with immigration laws in 2011, while NCGA farms paid out just $87,000 in wages to the
seven native workers who completed the season working on the farm, showing that the program protecting native employment is inefficient.
Based on these findings, the report concludes with the following recommendations for any future
guest worker visa for agriculture: The number of agricultural guest worker visas should remain
uncapped or be structured in a way that meets farmers’ labor needs. In North Carolina, native workers filled just onetenth of one percent of farms’ labor needs. Any temporary visa program should provide sufficient
workers to meet the remaining 99.9 percent of job openings.
H-2A visas prove the need for uncapped visas but they can’t solve – bureaucracy
Chao 08 [Elaine Chao; President Bush’s Secretary of Labor; http://www.openmarket.org/2012/05/07/h-2a-visas-open-in-theory-closed-inpractice/; H-2A Visas: Open in Theory, Closed in Practice; January 2008]
There are 1.2 million hired agricultural workers in the United States today. Estimates show that between 600,000
and 800,000 are undocumented. There simply aren’t enough U.S. workers to fill the hundreds of thousands of
agricultural job openings in this country. Farmers can hire temporary foreign workers to harvest their
crops through the H-2A visa program… Yet despite the fact that this program is uncapped, agricultural
employers hired only about 75,000 H-2A workers in 2007… Farmers report that the H2A program is
burdensome, duplicative and riddled with delays. And many who have tried it report such bad experiences that
they stopped using it altogether.
Ext. Not Solve Immigration
Can’t solve immigration – caps incentivize illegal immigration and overstay
Shemkus ‘08
Freelance journalist, internally quoting Matthew Lee, a lawyer who specializes in immigration
“Visa reforms mired in debate” September 30, 2008
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080930/NEWS/809300323
For many, the chief limitation of the system is the visa cap. In 2006, the last year for which numbers are
available from the U.S. Department of State, more than 122,000 H-2B and H-2R visas were issued in all.
This number, many say, demonstrates that there is far more demand for foreign workers than can be
met if the limit of 66,000 continues. The cap may also tempt workers and employers to break the rules,
some experts said. Enforcing the limit, they said, may take away the incentive for foreign labor to use
legal channels to obtain work. Knowing it could be difficult to return to the U.S., workers already in
the country may choose to overstay their visas and continue to work without authorization, Agunias
said. "The policies that limit access to the labor market are actually the same policies that might tell
them to not abide by the rules and stay in the country of destination," she said. Even now, many visa
holders take on additional, unauthorized jobs when they are in the United States. Several Jamaican H-2B
workers who reported doing multiple jobs on Cape Cod said that they had done so with the explicit
encouragement of their primary employer. "It's a problem that you have people working illegally," Lee
said, "but it is a reflection of the fact that there's not enough visas."
200,000 is trivial – only solves for one county
St. John ‘10
Reporter for KPBS/NPR internally quoting Erik Larson of the San Diego Farm Bureau
“Costs And Benefits Of Illegal Immigration Are Unequally Distributed” Friday, July 23, 2010 By Alison St
John http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/jul/23/costs-benefits-illegal-immigration-unequal/
An estimated 200,000 illegal immigrants are working in San Diego County. They bring both benefits
and costs. UCSD economics professor Gordon Hanson says the problem is those benefits and costs are
not evenly distributed. “Those benefits go primarily to one group of individuals,” he said, “and that is
employers in industries that hire illegal immigrants intensively: construction, agriculture, hospitality and
tourism.” Agriculture is a $5 billion a year industry in San Diego. Crossing The Line: Border Stories
Envision San Diego takes a closer look at illegal immigration, exploring why migrants take big risks to
work in the U.S., what happens to the children of deported parents, and how this region benefits from -and pays a price for -- its unauthorized migrant labor pool. Envision San Diego takes a closer look at
illegal immigration, exploring why migrants take big risks to work in the U.S., what happens to the
children of deported parents, and how this region benefits from -- and pays a price for -- its
unauthorized migrant labor pool. Erik Larson of the San Diego Farm Bureau says that, because land is
so expensive, farmers have to grow crops with a high return on investment, and those crops are also
labor intensive. He says that without immigrant labor most farms in San Diego would disappear.
Uncapped solves best for immigration
WSJ 3-23-13
“Immigration Reform Roadblock” March 23, 2013, 1:02 p.m. ET
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578362512667311612.html
It's important to keep in mind that low-skilled workers also make up the bulk of illegal immigrants. A
visa limit of 20,000 a year, or even 200,000, doesn't begin to match the realistic cross-border flow.
According to the Mexican Migration Monitor run by Roberto Suro of the Annenberg School, illegal
Mexican migration exceeded 368,000 in every year from 2003-2009, with a high of 682,000 in 2007.
The number has fallen with the slow U.S. recovery (to 165,000 in 2011), but history shows it will expand
again if we ever get a decent job market. The point of all this for the reform debate is that these
migrants come to the U.S. to work, and they will keep coming illegally if a guest-worker program is
too small or too cumbersome to use. History also shows that the best way to reduce illegal immigration
is by expanding legal channels. Under the Bracero program for Mexican farm workers in the 1940s and
'50s, unlawful border crossings fell by more than 80%. They soared after Congress ended Bracero in
1964. Ideally, a guest-worker program would have no cap so labor flows would adjust with supply and
demand. The next best approach is to adopt a relatively high cap—say, a half-million temporary visas—
that would let employers fill their job needs with relative ease. In 2007, the Senate reform bill began
with 400,000 guest visas.
Can’t solve immigration – 1 million worker shortage
Miroff 1-5-13
Covers Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean for the Washington Post, has a master’s degree
from UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and studied Spanish and Latin American Literature at
UC Santa Cruz
NICK MIROFF 1-5-13 “Mexico, Canada partner on program for guest workers”
http://www.voxxi.com/mexico-program-guest-workers/
Last year, the Border Patrol made just 340,000 apprehensions, the lowest level since 1971, the result of
a tighter U.S. job market, stiffer U.S. enforcement and widespread fears in Mexico of the kidnapping
crews and drug gangs who roam the borderlands. Overall, nearly as many Mexicans are now leaving the
United States, whether voluntarily or as deportees, as the number who arrive, a trend that has raised
alarms of labor shortages in industries such as food service and farming that are historically dependent
on low-paid migrants. “For anybody who believes that there will be a wild and endless flow of [Mexican
migrants] into the future, that’s just not realistic,” said Craig Regelbrugge, vice president for government
relations at the American Nursery and Landscape Association, a trade group. According to industry
estimates, U.S. farms hire more than 2 million workers each year, at least half of whom are thought to
be in the country illegally.
200,000 can’t solve immigration
Krieble 6-10-13
author of “Two Paths to Safety: A Private Sector Initiative to Break the Illegal Immigration Deadlock.”
holds a B.A. (cum laude) from Harvard-Radcliffe and a M.A. from the University of Pennsylvania
Helen Krieble “Guest Commentary: Why should a gang determine guest worker quotas?” 6-10-13
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_23415129/why-should-gang-determine-guest-worker-quotas
Even the all-powerful Gang of Eight can never repeal the law of supply and demand. If they only allow
200,000 guest workers and the economy needs 250,000, the rest will come illegally — perpetuating
the very problem Congress is trying to solve.
Lobby Link Non-Unique
No union support for CIR
Davidson 6-11-13
By Joe Davidson “Two labor groups buck trend of union support of Obama on immigration
“ http://failover.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/two-labor-groups-buck-trend-ofunion-support-of-obama-on-immigration/2013/06/11/cac5c30e-d2b9-11e2-a73e826d299ff459_story.html
The National ICE Council and the National Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Council are
working to defeat the immigration bill the Senate is now debating. The ICE Council represents
Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees, and the CIS Council’s members verify a person’s
right to work in this country and determine the eligibility of those seeking to become citizens, among
other duties. Their opposition to the legislation is notable because AFGE has taken no position. Neither
has the National Border Patrol Council, another AFGE unit that is directly involved with immigration and
border issues.
CP Links to Politics
Republicans oppose capped programs
Sherman and Nocera 4-9-13
Congressional reporters for Politico
“House immigration bill stuck on workers” By JAKE SHERMAN and KATE NOCERA | 4/9/13 11:30 PM EDT
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/house-immigration-bill-stuck-on-workers-89835_Page2.html
Currently, Republicans are negotiating with Democrats to eliminate a pair of demographic-specific visa
programs. The Diversity Visa Program, which aims to give entry to countries underrepresented in the
U.S., continues to be a target of the GOP. And Republicans are also seeking to tighten the visa category
for siblings of U.S. citizens. But these disagreements are illustrative of why the legislation still hasn’t
been introduced in the House. The biggest hurdle is the low-skilled workers’ program. The AFLCIO/Chamber of Commerce agreement allowed 200,000 low-skilled foreign workers into the U.S. The
construction industry would get no more than 15,000 visas a year. Republicans involved in the
negotiations told POLITICO they could not support an “artificial cap” on the number of work visas the
government could issue. They would seek to match the visa amount with market demand. The group
also has not hashed out an agreement on agricultural workers.
AT: H2-A Reform CP
Using H2-A visas as a framework fails
Farm Bureau 13 [July 13; http://www.fb.org/issues/docs/aglabor13.pdf; Farm Bureau is a collection of farms who are represented
collectively by the Farm Bureau; AGRICULTURAL LABOR – IMMIGRATION REFORM]
Reforms to the immigration system can assure that American agriculture has a legal, stable supply of workers,
both in the short- and long-term for all types of agriculture. This requires a legislative solution that deals with the current
unauthorized and experienced agricultural workforce and ensures that future needs are met through a program that will admit a sufficient
number of willing and able workers in a timely manner. Past
legislative proposals (e.g. AgJOBS, HARVEST Act, BARN
Act and other bills) have attempted to reform the H-2A program to ensure a future workforce in
agriculture. However, it is apparent that those proposals are no longer viable to meet agriculture's
needs. Multiple H-2A regulatory changes and rigid program administration have made use of an
already difficult program nearly impossible. A national survey conducted by the National Council of Agricultural Employers of
H-2A employers under the current rules showed that administrative delays result in workers arriving on average 22 days
after the date of need causing an economic loss of nearly $320 million for farms that hire H-2A workers. Costly
recruitment requirements result in less than 5 percent of those referred by the government working
the entire contract period. Agriculture needs a program that functions as efficiently as the current free
market movement of migrant farm workers while providing the security of a contractual relationship
in areas where there is little migration. Having lost confidence in the H-2A structure as a framework
for future success, Farm Bureau is seeking the new approach outlined above to ensure a legal, reliable, long-term
workforce for all sectors of the industry.
AT: Farm Mechanization CP
Farm Mechanization fails –
Fragmented lands
Islam 08 [Shirazul Islam; Farm Mechanization for Sustainable Agriculture in Bangladesh: Problems and Prospects; Dr. Md. Shirazul Islam is
the Chief Scientific Officer at Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute; June 29, 2008; http://uncsam.org/Activities%20Files/A09105thTC/PPT/bd-doc.pdf]
In 1980, the average farm holding was 0.91 ha which decreased in 2000 to 0.68 ha (Roy, 2008). It has been found that many farmers cultivate
only about 1.0 decimal land by traditional method. Further, the
total holding of land is not located in one place, rather,
it is found in split plots in several places. This restricts power operated tilling, seeding and harvesting machines to
perform at optimal efficiency. Even two wheel tractors, reapers and combines face tremendous problems
from frequent turnings in such fragmented lands.
Too expensive
Binswanger 86 [Hans Binswanger; http://wbro.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/27.full.pdf+html; Senior Advisor for the Africa Region
World Bank, Winner of the Elmhirst Medal of the International Association of Agricultural Economist, 2006]
Energy is only one of the costs of using machines. Capital and maintenance costs are often larger. Since
the profitability of machines—their comparative advantage—is tied closely to labor costs, expensive
energy is likely to retard mechanization much more in countries with cheap labor
Their evidence oversimplifies – laborers key to handling of certain fruit
Regelbrugge 12 [Craig J. Regelbrugge; September 26, 2012; The Farm Labor Crisis: Imagined, or Real?; Craig J. Regelbrugge is a cochair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, and serves on the steering committee of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition,
the leading coalitions seeking legislative reform of America’s antiquated immigration system. He was recently elected vice chairman of the
board of the National Immigration Forum; http://www.cnbc.com/id/49182232/Regelbrugge_The_Farm_Labor_Crisis_Imagined_or_Real]
That’s just one example of the two different worlds of crop agriculture. The first involves commodities
such as corn, soybeans, wheat and rice, which are typically grown on large-scale farms with highly mechanized
processes. These crops require minimal hand labor: A mechanical planter puts the seeds into the soil, and a mechanical
harvester reaps the grain. Such crops have also historically enjoyed safety nets including government subsidies, price
supports, crop insurance and disaster relief. More recently, they have benefited from major new subsidies for
crop-to-energy programs, as with corn-based ethanol. As a result — to paraphrase “Oklahoma!” — corn prices are high as
an elephant’s eye, and it looks like they’re climbing clear up to the sky! But back on the ground, we also have crops that
cannot be mechanized completely, or, in some cases, at all. Think apples, strawberries, blackberries,
watermelons and peaches. These delicate fruits must be hand-picked to avoid bruises and blemishes
that might make them unpalatable to consumers. (Read More:California Farm Labor Shortage 'Worst It's Been, Ever') The
care and harvest of these crops depends upon the skilled and trained eyes and hands of
farmworkers, many of whom moved here from other countries. These fruit, vegetable, nursery and greenhouse crops
are grown in a free and increasingly competitive global market. They do not receive federal subsidies or price supports, and insurance or
disaster relief safety nets are more limited.
Hand picked farms are crucial – Georgia proves
Regelbrugge 12 [Craig J. Regelbrugge; September 26, 2012; The Farm Labor Crisis: Imagined, or Real?; Craig J. Regelbrugge is a cochair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, and serves on the steering committee of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition,
the leading coalitions seeking legislative reform of America’s antiquated immigration system. He was recently elected vice chairman of the
board of the National Immigration Forum; http://www.cnbc.com/id/49182232/Regelbrugge_The_Farm_Labor_Crisis_Imagined_or_Real]
In his latest column on the agricultural industry, Carney dismisses that there is a problem in Georgia, which enacted a state immigration law
that led to a labor disaster. Again, he mistakenly
equates rising income from mechanized crops and livestock
with success across all of agriculture, ignoring the evidence that Georgia growers of seven perishable,
hand-picked crops such as blackberries and peppers have already lost an estimated $150 million, or 24
percent of the farm gate value for those seven crops, due to labor drought that followed the law’s
passage. (Read More: Who's Picking Your Food?)
Mechanization leads to food insecurity
Regelbrugge 12 [Craig J. Regelbrugge; September 26, 2012; The Farm Labor Crisis: Imagined, or Real?; Craig J. Regelbrugge is a cochair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, and serves on the steering committee of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition,
the leading coalitions seeking legislative reform of America’s antiquated immigration system. He was recently elected vice chairman of the
board of the National Immigration Forum; http://www.cnbc.com/id/49182232/Regelbrugge_The_Farm_Labor_Crisis_Imagined_or_Real]
Why shouldn’t all American farmers just grow corn, wheat and soybeans — the machine-harvested crops? First,
we would find ourselves in a new and unsettling “food-insecure” age where we turn to countries such
as Chile and China to fill our produce aisles and the dairy case. A diplomatic crisis, or worse, and we start
going hungry. (Read More:USDA Plans Regional Meetings to Address Drought)
<Insert Impact Card>
Hand picked farms are key to the economy
Regelbrugge 12 [Craig J. Regelbrugge; September 26, 2012; The Farm Labor Crisis: Imagined, or Real?; Craig J. Regelbrugge is a cochair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, and serves on the steering committee of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition,
the leading coalitions seeking legislative reform of America’s antiquated immigration system. He was recently elected vice chairman of the
board of the National Immigration Forum; http://www.cnbc.com/id/49182232/Regelbrugge_The_Farm_Labor_Crisis_Imagined_or_Real]
Second, communities from
Vidalia, Ga., to Visalia, Calif., would see their local economies shrivel on the
vine. After all, the high-value, labor-intensive stuff, from apples to lettuce to watermelons, brings
many times more dollars into the community. Farmers buy supplies, services and equipment, and
farmworkers spend money at local shops, grocery stores and Laundromats.
<Insert Impact Card>
Tech isn’t ready-only labor can solve
Linden 11 (Tim Linden 2011 February 1 Inroads Continue But Challenges Remain
http://www.wga.com/magazine/2011/02/01/inroads-continue-challengesremain#sthash.W4jD6d8G.dpuf)
He said a human can look at the head of lettuce and decide how high to make the cut and how many
wrapper leaves to take off and how many to leave on. While the technology exists to mechanically
harvest the product, DeGroot believes that the advantages aren’t there yet. He said either the
mechanical harvester will leave too much tonnage in the field, or there needs to be an inordinate
number of sorters on the machine making culling decisions. In that event, the economic advantages of
reducing labor have been lost. In fact, DeGroot said most of the harvesting aid advances over the past
decade have not resulted in significant labor force reduction. He said you can certainly make the
laborers more efficient and help them do their jobs better “but the basic steps and labor
requirements are about the same.” Of course there are no secrets in the Salinas Valley and DeGroot is
well aware of the efforts of Ramsay Highlander, and is watching it with interest. Maconachy believes his
firm is on the verge of making it work. He said Ramsay has developed what is basically a water knife that
allows for precision cutting in the field. “With the mechanical band saw you either cut too high and
lose yield or you cut too low and you bring a lot of leaves up that you don’t want. With this water
knife we can precision cut each head and follow the contours of the bed.” For romaine lettuce that is
used in processing, Maconachy said the mechanical harvester has been tried and it works. He said
several are already in the field working and another will be delivered soon. “It pencils out,” he said. “You
can cut 20 people out of the crew.” Of course, cutting for processing and cutting for the fresh market
are a bit different. Maconachy said the same technology (the water jet knife) works for fresh romaine
though there are a few bugs to work out. He said Ramsay is also working on a spin wrap technology so
that the cutting and the wrapping of a fresh head can be mechanized. When it is perfected, he said four
packers will be able to do the job of a 12-packer crew today. Additionally, the company is working on
adding a robotic feature to its harvesters which will eventually allow for the cutting and delivery of
iceberg lettuce from the field to the top side of the machine where it is packed. “This innovation will cut
and pick it up,” he said, “using ‘SLAM’ technology.” In the world of robotics, SLAM is an acronym for
“Simultaneous Localization and Mapping.” It means, the robotic apparatus can basically individually
select the head that it cuts and picks up and delivers to the packers or the spin wrap process.
Maconachy is certain that this is not a farfetched idea. He said it is already possible but the key is to
make it economical. “As an engineer, we keep looking at how to make the process simpler and simpler.
That’s what we have done. We have actually made it so simple that anybody can use it; you don’t have
to be a PhD.” He said the patent on the technology is currently pending, but taking it to the next level
does require customer investment. DeGroot said the pressure to innovate may soon increase as the
U.S. recession has eased that pressure a bit, but a recovering economy could bring it on once again.
“The downturn in the construction industry has led many of those workers back to agriculture, but
when the economy improves, you would expect that they will return to the higher paying
construction jobs.” He indicated that a labor shortage in the agricultural sector will cause people to
take a more serious look at labor saving devices. Maconachy has no doubt that mechanization will
continue but he believes it will result in somewhat of a caste system in the grower-shipper community.
“It will separate the mighty from the mightier,” he said. He reasoned that while these sophisticated
harvesting machines do pencil out, they also require quite an initial investment. “You are talking
about $600,000 and up,” he said. “The return on investment is huge, but the investment is large.”
Besides the cost savings, he said concerns about food safety are another factor driving this type of
innovation. “With the robotics and the spin wrapper, you can get a head of lettuce in a carton without it
ever having been touched by human hands,” he said. “That’s an important issue.” Maconachy is a bit
reluctant to look into the crystal ball and predict the future, but he did agree that by 2015 much more
of the lettuce industry will be mechanized than it is today.
Farm Mechanization hurts small farms its too expensive
Willard 07 -01 ( Haley Willard, Writer July 01, 2013 Robots Begin to Replace Farmers in the United
States Picking and tending to crops are now in robotic hands
http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=110827)
The march of the machines continues. Thinning a field of lettuce is a task normally requiring 20 people,
but, in some places, this is now being entrusted to computerised technology with vision sensors. A
tractor called the lettuce thinner, developed by Frank Maconachy, president and CEO of Ramsay
Highlander, seems to do the task a well as the workers. This is coming as a relief to growers who are
experiencing a shortage of labor thanks to border regulations. The tractor uses a vision system to
locate seedlings, then sends their location to the tractor’s computer, which determines which
seedlings to keep and which to get rid of. With a shot of fertilizer, it destroys the unwanted seedlings.
In just a few minutes, a whole row of lettuce is thinned, and it only takes one robot. Maconachy's
company’s latest design is a robotic picker that finds a head of lettuce and picks it. This robot relies on a
similar vision system as that of the lettuce thinner. The cost of the lettuce thinner starts at $250,000,
and some farm machines cost as much as $600,000. There is a worry, however, that smaller farms,
that cannot afford the machines, could fall behind larger operations.
The plan is key H-2A is insufficient and the counterplan doesn’t solve can’t harvest
non perishables
Knutson 11 (Ronald D. Knutson is a professor at the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M
University Statement of Dr. Ronald D. Knutson Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and
Border Security, Committee on Judiciary, United States Senate Hearing on "America's Agricultural Labor
Crisis: Enacting a Practical Solution" October 4, 2011 http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-104KnutsonTestimony.pdf)
The first of these myths is that farm labor should be readily available from nonfarm sources,
particularly in a time of high unemployment. Anyone who has worked on a farm knows that there are
many jobs associated with agricultural production and processing that domestic nonfarm laborers will
not do. This fact has been repeatedly demonstrated. While the process of farm mechanization goes
forward, back-breaking hand labor is still essential for harvesting most perishable fruits and
vegetables sold fresh in our supermarkets and farmers’ markets. This is not just our assertion based on
our anecdotal experience; it was a central conclusion of a set of case studies completed by the Economic
Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (ERS/USDA) and the University of California,
which was recently published by ERS/USDA. In animal agriculture, while hand milking is no longer
required, skilled milkers must be available to operate machines that are used to milk, feed, and clean
up after cows two or three times a day, seven days a week. There are no holidays and no weekend
breaks for harvesting perishable crops or for milking cows. These 3 are jobs that must be performed
on a timely basis, or food is wasted, and farm income declines. Waiting for a visa or work permit to be
issued under the H-2A program is not a viable option for most farmers. That is one of the reasons
most farmers do not use the program.
AT: Berlin Wall CP
First: Perm do both
Links to politics — Cornyn Amendment proves
Parker 13 ( Ashley Parker June 14, 2013, New York Times, “Savior or Saboteur? A Texas Senator
Shakes Up the Immigration Debate”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/us/politics/texas-senator-is-lightning-rod-in-immigrationfight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 )
WASHINGTON — One week into the Senate’s immigration floor fight, Senator John Cornyn of Texas has emerged
as one of the
most polarizing figures on the issue: a Republican leader from a border state brandishing a border security plan that
he says is meant to salvage the measure but that is seen by others as a surreptitious attempt to scuttle it. To his supporters, Mr. Cornyn is
simply trying to rescue a potentially historic immigration overhaul by offering a reasonable plan that would attract reluctant Republicans by
strengthening border security before 11 million people who are in the country illegally can begin their path to citizenship. But to
Democrats and immigration advocates, Mr. Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, has written a “poison pill”
provision intended to torpedo a bill he would never support. One thing is certain: the role of Mr. Cornyn, who has
snowy white hair and a visage that looks more British tea-sipper than Texas two-stepper, is sure to have ramifications for him in the Republican
leadership, in the Senate itself and in Texas, where the fast-growing Hispanic population is changing the demographic face of the state. “No one
believes the status quo is acceptable, and I think just saying no is not a satisfactory answer,” Mr. Cornyn, shod in brown alligator-skin cowboy
boots, said in an interview in the whip’s office just off the Senate floor. “So if you’re not going to say no, I think you have to come up with a
solution, and I think this is part of it.” Mr. Cornyn’s proposed amendment would require both the Department of Homeland Security and the
top federal auditor to certify that all of his border goals had been met before immigrants could start the path to citizenship and receive green
cards. His method of measuring success would include a 90 percent apprehension rate of illegal crossers at the southern border, as well as the
installation of a biometric exit system at all air and sea ports, which immigration advocates worry could be logistically unattainable. Though
Democrats have expressed a willingness to strengthen border enforcement measures, they say that
Mr. Cornyn’s provision goes too far. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the bipartisan group
that drafted the legislation, called it a “nonstarter,” and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, was among those who labeled it
a poison pill. (Mr. Cornyn took to the floor to assert that the real poison pill would be not accepting his amendment.) “He’s
pulled out a
machete, and he’s hacking at the path to citizenship,” said Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, a proimmigration group. “He doesn’t want to improve border security, he wants to take down the path to citizenship. If he wanted more border
security without impaling the path to citizenship, he’d probably get it.” “This is a guy,” Mr. Sharry added, “who pretends he wants to get to
yes, always gets to no, and in the meantime destabilizes
the bipartisan immigration bill in place.” Some
conservative Republicans are also frustrated with Mr. Cornyn’s plan. On Friday, Heritage Action for America, an
advocacy group, released a statement urging senators to vote against Mr. Cornyn’s proposal, which, it said, could “serve as political cover for
those senators seeking to justify their support for amnesty.”
Visas are key — only way to ensure legal crossing – CIR and border funding fails
Bier 13(David, June 26, 2013, policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. His publications are
often posted on the Huffington Post. “Border Security Doesn’t Require “Invading” the Border”
http://www.openmarket.org/2013/06/26/border-security-doesnt-require-invading-the-border/ )
These funds will go to finish a 700-mile border fence and add hundreds of new surveillance towers,
thousands of camera systems, and tens of thousands of ground sensors — not to mention fiber-optic tank
inspection scopes, thermal imaging systems, and “portable contraband detectors.” It will send 17 UH-1n helicopters, five Blackhawk
helicopters, eight AS-350 light enforcement helicopters, and enough drones to log 130,000 hours of flight time each year. This
is not
simple “border security” — personnel-wise, it’s a mobilization proportional to the one in Afghanistan (it’s
already being called “the surge“). But unlike that adventure, it was not provoked by any foreign aggression. Instead, this
offensive is a
response to hundreds of thousands of peaceful people moving to the United States to work — such a
reaction is without even the slightest rationale. Not to be misunderstood, border “security” is a legitimate and necessary
function of government—border “invasions” are not. Border security would require immigrants and
travelers to enter within legal avenues through which they could be processed and checked. Security’s role is to protect and aid
movement between countries, which allows free markets to extend beyond legal jurisdictions. Hoeven-Corker’s amendment is not about
protecting and aiding legal movement between countries, nor is it about addressing the justifiable concern of property owners along the border
(it actually expands Border Patrol’s powers to trample property rights along the border). Those concerns
could be addressed with
small increases in border protection and major increases in legal avenues for entry for peaceful, lowskilled workers — cutting demand for illegal entry. Only accessible channels for legal immigration will
end illegal immigration. As I’ve noted previously, America nearly eliminated illegal entries in the 1960s
through dramatically expanding work visa options for low-skilled immigrants. Rather than building on this proven method
for addressing illegal immigration, this bill includes a complex and utterly inadequate guest work program,
which does the bare minimum to increase legal movement. America has seen a tenfold increase in
border security spending over the last 25 years, and in all that time, the illegal population in the United
States shot up. Economist Douglas Massey at the University of Pennsylvania has shown that this was not because of greater entries, but
rather fewer exits. During the 1980s, migrants traveled back and forth freely. But after the border buildup, this became too costly and
dangerous, so they settled and brought their families. This experience shows that allowing
people to move freely — through
legal channels — not only could reduce illegal entries, it also could keep overall immigration lower than
it would be otherwise. But these facts are rejected in favor of more wasteful government programs and spending. And border hawks
still say the spending is not enough. It will never be enough. Twenty years from now, people will say, “Democrats are to
education spending what Republicans are to border security spending.” Illegal immigration and poor educational outcomes are institutional
problems for which the simple fix is freedom. Let people choose where they want to go to school or work. These fixes have solved problems.
More money hasn’t
No solvency — money is misused absent strategic focus
Barry 13 ( Tom, February 12, 2013, Director for the TransBorder project at the Center for International
Policy in Wash. DC “How the Nation's Border Guardians Got Stuck in a Policy Conundrum, and How They
Can Get Out”
http://borderlinesblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-nations-border-guardians-got-stuck.html)
Perhaps the harshest criticism has come from the government’s own auditing agencies. The
Government Accountability Office (GOA) has issued a series of scathing reports faulting the Border
Patrol for mismanagement, waste, and lack of strategic focus. Despite the increasing disapproval, the
Border Patrol has continued to benefit from a bipartisan consensus to “secure the border,” resulting in
a doubling of funding for Border Patrol operations over the last ten years.
The Border Patrol is a division of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency within the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged with securing U.S. ports of entry (POEs) and the
northern and southwestern land borders. CBP is the largest DHS agency, receiving 21% (currently
$11.5 billion) of its total funding. Over the last ten years, DHS has spent over $100 billion on bordersecurity operations, yet the Border Patrol still struggles to formulate a practical and politically viable
strategy to guide the spending of this new border security bonanza.
Rapid growth is insufficient — inexperienced workers and managerial problems
Isacson 13 (Adam Isacson, June 26th, 2013, Senior Associate for Regional Security Policy at the
Washington Office on Latin America “Seven Bad Things That Will Happen After a “Border Surge””
http://www.wola.org/commentary/seven_bad_things_that_will_happen_after_a_border_surge )
4. For Border Patrol, very rapid growth spells trouble. Today, even before any “border surge,” Border
Patrol is one of the fastest-growing institutions in the federal government. The last time it doubled in
size was between 2004 and 2011. By 2011, the agency had five times as many agents as it had in 1993.
And now the Senate bill would have it double in size again. If Border Patrol grows to 38,405 agents along
the U.S.-Mexico border, less than 10% of the force there will have 20 years’ experience. Less than a
quarter will have been in the organization even since 2005. The vast majority will be inexperienced,
and probably recruited and trained very hastily so that the requirement holding up the “path to
citizenship” can be met. The hiring binge could let in some unqualified people. Meanwhile, any agency
with so few experienced senior managers amid a mass of new hires is guaranteed to face some
crippling managerial problems.
Perm- Do the CP
Cant solve relations and links to the slavery disad- human rights abuses
(not sure if that actually means it links to the slaver DA but human rights abuses are saad  )
Isacson 13 (Adam Isacson, June 26th, 2013, Senior Associate for Regional Security Policy at the
Washington Office on Latin America “Seven Bad Things That Will Happen After a “Border Surge””
http://www.wola.org/commentary/seven_bad_things_that_will_happen_after_a_border_surge )
5. Abuses of migrants could multiply. Advocacy groups, especially in Arizona and California, have already
documented what appears to be a disturbingly frequent pattern of abuse of migrants in Border Patrol
custody. The University of Arizona survey of 1,113 recent deportees in Mexico found episodes of abuse to be
common. Meanwhile, Mexico’s government has voiced anger at the killing of at least 15 civilians, most of
them Mexican, in confrontations with Border Patrol agents along the border since 2010. These incidents
have raised concerns about Border Patrol’s use-of-force guidelines (which are secret), its internal controls, and its procedures for dealing with
allegations of human rights abuse. If
the “border surge” doubles the agency’s manpower without bringing
improvements to training and accountability, the number and frequency of abuses will grow still
further. “I think we could have used the money in a much more effective way,” Cardin said on the floor
Tuesday. “We’ll spend a lot of money with little results. … The cost-benefits of these billions of dollars
being spent are very minimal.”
AT: DA’s
AT: Exploitation DA
H-2A program is worse – causes widespread abuses
Semuels 3/30 [Alana Semuels ; March 30, 2013; U.S. farmers, guest workers pay a price to stay legal; Journalist for the LA times
dealing with Latin American policy issues; http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guest-worker-20130331dto,0,5896092.htmlstory]
And there's no guarantee of a job the next year, especially for aging workers. This year, trying to save money,
Barr called seven workers and told them to come in May, three months later than their usual arrival. He says workers often pull
him aside and ask him for help in getting legal papers so they can bring their families to Crumpler. But
he knows there's no legal way to do so. Still, Barr's workers have it much better than most. Last month, the Southern
Poverty Law Center reported that H-2 programs were "rife with labor and human rights violations
committed by employers who prey on a highly vulnerable workforce." One worker said that at a North Carolina
tobacco farm, the foreman would get drunk and threaten workers with a gun. He locked them out of the kitchen and required them to buy
meals from his wife. "He'd humiliate us in the field," the worker said in an interview. "But we wanted to work, so what could we do?" Such
complaints aren't uncommon, said Mary Lee Hall, a lawyer with Legal Aid of North Carolina. But because they want to come back
the next year, workers rarely complain. "They put up with a lot; they really do," she said. "This is how some parts of Mexico feed their families."
Status quo guest worker programs link more
SPLC, 2/13, The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to
seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society, “Close to Slavery: Guest Worker Program in
the United States”, http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/close-to-slavery-guestworkerprograms-in-the-united-states#.UdHAVPnFVqV
The current H-2 program, which provides temporary farmworkers and non-farm laborers for a variety
of U.S. industries, is rife with labor and human rights violations committed by employers who prey on
a highly vulnerable workforce. It harms the interests of U.S. workers, as well, by undercutting wages
and working conditions for those who labor at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. But far from
being treated like “guests,” these workers are systematically exploited and abused. Unlike U.S. citizens,
guestworkers do not enjoy the most fundamental protection of a competitive labor market — the
ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. Instead, they are bound to the employers who “import” them. If guestworkers
complain about abuses, they face deportation, blacklisting or other retaliation. Bound to a single employer and without access to legal
guestworkers are routinely: Cheated out of wages, Forced to mortgage their futures to obtain
low-wage, temporary jobs, Held virtually captive by employers or labor brokers who seize their
documents, Subjected to human trafficking and debt servitude, Forced to live in squalid conditions,
Denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries. Former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman
Charles Rangel put it this way: “This guestworker program’s the closest thing I’ve ever seen to
slavery.” U.S. workers suffer as a result of these flaws in the guestworker system. As long as
employers in low-wage industries can rely on an endless stream of vulnerable guestworkers who lack
basic labor protections, they will have little incentive to hire U.S. workers or make jobs more
appealing to domestic workers by improving wages and working conditions. Not surprisingly, many H-2
resources,
employers discriminate against U.S. workers, preferring to hire guestworkers, even though they are required to certify that no domestic
workers are available to fill their jobs. In addition, it is well-documented that wages for U.S. workers are depressed in industries that rely
heavily on guestworkers.
Visa portability solves their link (gender modified)
Alex Nowrasteh, 3-6-2013, "Guest Workers Key to Reform," Real Clear Politics,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/06/guest_workers_key_to_reform_117310.html
But the employer abuse issue is a straw[person] man. There is a rather simple remedy: visa portability,
which would allow guest workers to easily switch jobs. The ability to quit a job without the legal risk
of deportation would give guest workers the ability to effectively enforce their own labor standards:
They could depart an abusive employer without fear of deportation. Instead of more migrant
freedom, labor leaders are supporting more regulations for guest-worker visas. The Obama-endorsed
blueprint wants reform to “protect workers by ensuring labor protections.” But those so-called
protections have already made current lower-skilled guest-worker visas too costly for American
employers — a by-product unions favor.
AT: Economy DA
Immigrants key to US econ
Becker and Posner 13 (Gary Becker, Richard Posner, The Becker Posner Blog, “Mexican Immigration
to the United States—Posner” April 24, 2013 http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/03/mexicanimmigration-to-the-united-statesposner.html)CL
Just as financial capital moves more or less effortlessly across national borders in search of higher returns,
human capital as well is increasingly mobile. The ability of Mexicans to work on either side of the U.S.-Mexican
border benefits both the United States and Mexico. Immigration reform now being discussed in Congress will if
enacted reduce barriers to the international movement of human capital even further, and can therefore be compared to the
successful post-World War II movement for the reduction of tariff barriers to international trade. The diminution in
Mexican immigration to the United States has greater political than economic significance. It has reduced the hostility to immigrants, a hostility
that played a role in the licking that the Republican Party took in last November’s national elections, and by reducing that hostility facilitates
immigration reform. I do not think we should return to the era, which ended in about 1920, of unrestricted immigration to the United States.
What has changed since then is that the country is considerably more crowded, and with an existing population in excess of $300 million
additional population contributes to pollution, water shortages, extinctions, other environmental harms, infrastructure costs, and traffic
congestion. In addition, the
expansion in public benefits in recent decades can attract immigrants from very
poor countries who have little prospect of gainful employment. So immigration has to be regulated. But so for that matter so does
international trade in products, services, and financial capital. The goal of U.S. immigration policy should not be to
discourage or encourage immigration, but to admit as immigrants (besides refugees and family members) only persons
who have good prospects for making a net contribution to the U.S. economy.
Our border security advantage is a link turn – improves trade flows
Fischler 5/29 (Jacob, The Monitor, “Mexican tourists are an underappreciated economic boost to U.S.
Southwest” May 29, 2013 http://skift.com/2013/05/29/mexican-tourists-are-an-underappreciatedeconomic-boost-to-u-s-southwest/)CL
“There’s no doubt we have a much stronger economy than we would without them — 35 percent
stronger,” she said.The NDN report called on lawmakers to use the immigration reform bill to increase the number
of ports of entry and staffing of Customs and Border Protection officers at the border to expedite travel from Mexico to
the U.S. “The customs department of (the Department of Homeland Security) is going to have to grow with trade and legal tourism,”
Rosenberg said. “We’ve got to invest more in border infrastructure. We’ve got to cut down on wait times.”
Doing so would also help eliminate barriers to further trade between the two countries, said Shannon
O’Neil, a senior policy fellow for Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. And further trade means growing
economies on both sides of border, particularly in areas near the border. “When a Ford plant opens in Mexico, it
increases employment in the U.S.,” O’Neil said. That is because manufacturing companies take advantage of
the free-trade laws that allow easy passage between North American nations to produce different parts in
different places for the same finished product.
Immigrants key to the economy—increases productivity, GDP and specialization
Orrenius & Zavodny 13 (Pia M. Orrenius is a Labor Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas;
Madeline Zavodny is a professor of Economics @ Agnes Scott College‘Immigrants in the US Labor
Market’ http://128.42.204.130/publications/LAI-pub-OrreniusZavodnyImmigrantsLaborMarket040813.pdf // LShen
Immigrants help power and grease the economy’s engines. First, immigration increases the labor force ,
enlarging the economy. Although they make up only 16 percent of the U.S. workforce, these immigrants account for a
much larger share of its growth. Just over half of the increase in the U.S. labor force between 1996 and
2010 was the result of immigration—legal and illegal. The role of native-born workers in workforce growth is diminishing due to
several factors, including declining labor force participation rates. As the native-born population ages over the next 20 years, the foreign-born
contribution to labor force growth is expected to stay high or even increase. This will help offset the 80 million baby boomers retiring from the
U.S. workforce over the next two decades.7 When immigrants flow into the labor force, it is not just a question of adding more workers. As long
as immigrants differ from natives—which they do in varying degrees—specialization occurs. Native and immigrant workers
sort into
the jobs and tasks that they do relatively well. For example, one recent study shows that natives have a comparative
advantage in communication-intensive work, while immigrants have a comparative advantage in manual labor jobs .8
Specialization increases efficiency, which allows more output to be produced with fewer resources .
This boosts labor market productivity, raising economic output, or GDP. Although the bulk of GDP
gains go to the immigrants in the form of labor earnings, the native- born population benefits from
the immigrant influx through lower prices and the specialization in production described above. The
effect of immigration on the GDP accruing to natives has been termed the “immigration surplus” (Borjas 1995). Estimates suggest the gain to
natives’ incomes from immigration is about $38–$75 billion per year, which is not insignificant even though it represents less than 0.5 percent
of the $16 trillion U.S. economy. Consumers
benefit from lower relative prices for goods and services, and
investors, business owners, and landowners from higher returns on capital and land. In cases where
immigrants and natives are complements, lower prices can have far-reaching effects. For example, research shows the
immigration- induced decrease in the cost of child care and housekeeping has significantly increased
the labor supply of highly educated native women (Cortés and Tessada 2011).
AT: Mexican Ag Industry DA
Mexican Ag industry is prospering
Economy Watch 2010, April 30,” Mexico Agriculture,
http://www.economywatch.com/agriculture/country-wide/mexico.html
Mexico Agriculture is one of the biggest in the world and this has become a very important part of the
country's economy as well. The Mexico Agriculture was not really a very prosperous one but after the
Mexico Revolution a reformation in agricultural sector and this was taken into action after the release
the 27th edition of the Mexican Constitution.The Mexican Government encouraged only crops like corn
and beans until the year 1990 by restricting the import of these crops from other nations by implying
certain acts. After that, the Mexico Agriculture though has decreased in percentage of Gross domestic
product but as a whole it has increased in a remarkable way. There are many products that are
produced by the Mexico Agriculture are among the top three ranks it terms of production in the
world. Some of them are:Mexico is ranked one in producing things like Onions and Chayote,
Avocados, Lemons and Limes and the seed of Safflower.Mexico is ranked second for producing things
like Papaya, Dry fruits, chillies and peppers and some other things as well.Mexico is considered third in
producing things like oranges, mangoes, chicken meat, whole beans ,Asparagus and some other
things.Mexico although concentrates mainly on producing corns and beans but what makes Mexico
Agriculture famous is the various kinds of fruits that they produce. Mexico has one of the best weathers
to produce fruits and this has made a big impact in the economy of Mexico. There are various
organizations that try help the farmers in whatever way possible and this has also made a great
impact on the Mexico Economy. NAFTA is similar type of organization that tries to help the farmers and
also sees the process through which the Mexico Agriculture can prosper. Keeping these aims in mind
NAFTA is looking to spread the horticulture in place of corns and beans and this move has not only
brought a great increase in the horticulture but has also stabilized the corn production along with the
Mexico Agriculture.
AT: Slavery DA
No link- Current H-2A visas increase abuses in the AG industry- plan’s visas solve for
current abuses
Newman 2011, Etan Newman: reporter for Framework Justice, “No Way to Treat a Guest”
http://farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/documents/7.2.a.6%20No%20Way%20To%20Treat%20
A%20Guest%20H-2A%20Report.pdf
H-2A workers have limited, non-immigrant status, and cannot stay in the U.S. beyond their work term
with a particular employer. Workers are tied to the employer who brought them to the country and
can only work for that employer. Most are hesitant to report abuses because employers can freely fire
(and deport) “troublemakers,” or decide not to re-hire them again. H-2A workers are excluded from the
main employment law for farmworkers. Additionally, foreign workers generally lack knowledge of U.S.
laws and employment norms and may not know when an employer is breaking the law. Terminal
Impacts
Their link is based off of non-portable H2A visas – Plan solves slavery in AG by giving
workers freedom to leave and decreases AG power over them
Ozimek 2013, January 29, Adam Ozimek : Reporter for Forbes, “How to Improve Immigrant Visas”,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/01/29/how-to-improve-immigrant-visas/
This analysis by Cassidy and other commentators neglects to consider there is an important problem
with many of the current job related visas, including H-1B, H-2B, and H-2A: a potential immigrant is not
simply permitted to work in this country, but only permitted to work for a specific employer who
petitioned for the visa to hire them. This grants bargaining power to employers, and prevents labor
markets from efficiently allocating workers. Under these circumstances it is no surprise then that
domestic workers who compete against these visa holders sometimes complain that their wages are
below market value, since the firm is effectively granted a monopoly over visa workers, and as a result
able to grab a portion of the higher productivity an immigrant attains by moving here.Concepts like this
have been proposed before, see this from Brandon Fuller from NYU Stern for example. There are two
main benefits of this policy. First, it would greatly reduce a firm’s ability to keep visa holders’ wages
below their marginal product. Instead of being tied to one firm, a worker would be free to work for
whoever will hire them within a particular region, and therefore have their labor bid up by competing
employers. This would be particularly important in the case of H-2A visas for agriculture, where the
power firms have over workers can lead to abuse. In addition, in areas where temporary monopsony
power arose and generated rents for employers it would provide firms with the incentive to locate there
and bid up the below market wages until they reached the competitive level. This is in contrast to the
more permanent rents arising from firms bargaining power over work visa holders.
Changes to current H2A visas can solve for abuses
Nowrasteh 2013, January 28, Alex Nowrasteh: immigration policy analyst. Cato Institute”
Immigration Reform The Portable Guest worker visa solution” http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/economy-a-budget/279407-immigration-reform-the-portable-guest-worker-visa-solution
A guest worker visa needs to have fewer regulations and government controls, not be saddled with a
triumvirate. The current H-2A visa for agricultural workers is numerically unlimited but the regulations
and restrictions, administered by four different federal agencies, are so burdensome and expensive
that it is practically unusable. George W. Bush's Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao reported, "Many who
have tried it [the H-2A visa], report such bad experiences that they stopped using it altogether."A
viable guest worker visa program, at a minimum, needs to be created to avoid future unauthorized
immigration. It is imperative that such a program avoid widespread worker abuse, but a triumvirate
commission combined with intensive government controls and oversight will not accomplish that goal .
A portable guest worker visa that allows easy worker mobility between employers is a small
government solution to union concerns.
Historically proven that abuses and slavery occurred under non-portable guest worker
Visas- Plan is uniquely different
Nowrasteh 2013, January 29, Alex Nowrasteh: Immigration policy analyist for the Cato institute,
“Immigration plan does only half the job” http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2013/01/29/immigration-plan-does-only-half-the-job/
What we need is a legal way for lower-skilled immigrants to enter the United States — and a guestworker visa program is the easiest avenue.So why doesn’t the proposed immigration reform include a
comprehensive guest-worker program? Surprisingly, the main issue is not opposition from conservative
Republicans. It is unions and their supporters who do not want it.In the 2007 immigration reform push,
an amendment that would have ended the guest-worker program after five years destroyed Republican
support.The then-leaders of the AFL-CIO, the Laborers’ International Union of North America, the
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, the Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers and the Teamsters all wrote
letters opposing guest workers and supporting the amendment.Teamsters President James P. Hoffa
wrote that he opposed a guest-worker program because it would “[force] workers to toil in a truly
temporary status with a high risk of exploitation and abuse by those seeking cheap labor.”Now unions
say they oppose a guest-worker visa program to protect these workers from abuse. But unauthorized
workers are going to come in any case, so preventing a guest-worker program can only place them in
a black market ‐ where employer abuse, backed up by the threat of deportation, is far worse. If
unions are honestly concerned about guest-worker abuse, the solution is making the visa portable
and not tied to one employer . A World War I guest-worker visa let guest workers quit their jobs and be
hired by approved employers. Guest workers simply had to tell the government about their new
employer after they were hired — not seek permission before switching jobs.The best labor protection
is a worker’s ability to quit a job without legal sanction. If the government could create such a guestworker visa program 100 years ago, there is no reason why it cannot be revived today.
Slavery is the result of Illegal Immigration – Aff solves by reducing it
Conte 09, Ronald L. Conte, Theologian, “ Illegal Immigration and slavery”
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/illegal-immigration-slavery.htm
This next assertion is neither rhetorical, nor an exaggeration. A set of laws that seeks to deprive illegal
immigrants of work, home, medical care, education, and assistance when in great need, thereby seeks
to reduce those illegal immigrants to slavery. It is literally a form of slavery to deprive any person or
group of persons of fundamental human rights, such as work, home, health care, education, etc.The set
of laws being proposed and in some cases enacted, in various U.S. states, depriving illegal immigrants of
these fundamental human rights are essentially an unwitting attempt to reinstitute slavery in the
United States of America.All persons of good will have a grave moral duty to oppose all such laws.It
would be a grave sin to deport 10 million illegal immigrants, or to punish them with incarceration, or to
deprive them of fundamental human rights. Therefore, the only recourse that remains is to give them
citizenship.In addition to giving the current set of illegal immigrants citizenship, we should also make
every reasonable effort to seal our borders to illegal immigration, so that the number of illegal
immigrants does not increase to the point where grave harm occurs to many persons.
AT: Mexico Labor Drain DA
Uniqueness
Figures from Border Protection reveal Immigration are at peak levels
Jeunesse 2013, April 5, William La jeunesse: reporter for Fox news, “Sats show surge un illegal
immigrant border traffic despite Napolitano claims”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/05/stats-show-surge-in-illegal-immigrant-border-trafficdespite-napolitano-claims/
Newly released arrest numbers show a significant increase in illegal immigrants crossing along the
southwest border, despite claims as recently as Thursday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano that the border is more secure.
But figures released Thursday by Customs and Border Protection to Fox News tell a different story.
Arrests are actually up 13 percent compared with the same time last year. The number was 170,223 in
2012, and is 192,298 this year.
"There is no statistic, metric or evidence that the border is more secure than ever. I went out there for
a couple days and found multiple spots where you can see trails of people coming in. They were still
apprehending massive amounts of drugs out there, this is a very porous border," Chaffetz said. The
numbers back up anecdotal claims that Texas is seeing a marked surge in traffic. The increase comes as
Congress prepares to debate immigration legislation, which in its draft form is expected to include a
pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already here. Some have expressed concern this
provision could entice illegal immigrants to cross over. The stats show that in Texas, arrests in the last six
months are up 53 percent in the Rio Grande Valley; up 22 percent in Laredo; and up 24 percent in El
Paso.
While arrest figures can be interpreted in different ways, the administration generally has seen lower
numbers as a sign of better security. For the last five years, the administration claimed the border was
more secure because arrest numbers declined as the economy tanked. Would-be illegal immigrants
from Mexico either stayed home or went home. Now, however, arrests are actually up by 25,000. That
means more traffic, and more immigrants actually getting through. According to the Government
Accountability Office, up to 40 percent of those who make it over the southwest border never get
caught. But a new radar drone, called "VADER," showed during a three-month test in Arizona that
agents are catching fewer than 50 percent of those who successfully cross the border and then
disappear into the mountains, valleys and deserts. Administration sources say, however, the system is
still in a testing phase, the 50 percent figure is inaccurate and VADER alone offers an incomplete picture.
Customs and Border Protection says they are using all the resources they can to crack down on the
problem areas."Under this administration, DHS has dedicated historic levels of personnel, technology,
and resources to the Southwest border. CBP has more than doubled the size of the U.S. Border Patrol
since 2004. In FY (Fiscal Year) 2012, CBP employed over 21,300 Border Patrol agents, keeping staffing
levels along the border at an all-time high. Additionally, CBP continues to deploy proven, effective
surveillance technology tailored to the operational requirements along the highest trafficked areas of
the Southwest Border," said Bill Brooks, the Southwest Border Branch Chief with CBP Public Affairs, in a
statement to Fox News.
Border Patrol testifies –immigration and incentive to move higher now
Dinan 2013, April 10, Stephen Dinan: reporter for Washington Times News; “Illegal Border corssings
leap ahead of immigration bill”, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/10/illegal-bordercrossings-up-ahead-immigration-bill/?page=all
Still, lawmakers said there is little doubt border security is better than in the middle of the last
decade, when millions of illegal immigrants were apprehended each year, suggesting millions more
eluded capture and crossed successfully. Apprehensions of illegal immigrants are up 13 percent this
year, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol testified to Congress on Wednesday as lawmakers continued to
bash the Obama administration for failing to have a way of measuring how secure the borders are.
We have seen an increase in attempted entries,” Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher told a Senate
committee. He said part of the reason for an increase is that Congress is talking about legalizing illegal
immigrants, which is luring more foreigners to try to be in the U.S. when amnesty takes effect.All sides
are searching for ways to better measure border security. Chief Fisher said the administration has been
working on several yardsticks and is ready to share some of those with Congress.That appears to be a
reversal from last month, when another top Homeland Security Department official testified that the
yardsticks the department was using weren’t meant to be shared with Congress or the public.
Immigration from Mexico is high
Preston 2012, March 24, Julia Preston: reporter for Nytimes; “Illega; Immigrants Number 11.5 million”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/us/illegal-immigrants-number-11-5-million.html?_r=0
About 11.5 million illegal immigrants were living in the United States in January 2011, a figure
essentially unchanged from the 11.6 million in 2010, according to the latest estimates by the
Department of Homeland Security, which were based on 2010 census figures. Georgia saw the greatest
increase between 2000 and 2011, with the number of illegal immigrants there increasing by 95 percent
to 440,000. The number of illegal immigrants in the country peaked in 2007 at 11.8 million, the
demographers found, and has been declining.
() More evidence is in the Immigration Advantage Case File
Link
Remittances comparatively outweigh the link
Hanson ’07 Gordon H. Hanson, prof. Econ @ UC San Diego; “Emigration, Labor Supply, and Earnings in
Mexico;” May 2007; National Bureau of Economic Research, Mexican Immigration to the United States,
ed. George J. Borjas http://www.nber.org/chapters/c0097.pdf RMJ
Were the only effect of emigration to raise wages for migrants and for nonmigrating workers who
substitute for migrant labor, the labor outflow would yield static welfare losses in Mexico. However,
an additional consequence of Mexican emigration has been an increase in the return flow of
remittances . In 2003, remittances from Mexican immigrants in the United States equaled 2.0 percent of Mexican
GDP
(Inter-American Development Bank [IADB] 2004). These appear
sufficient to more than offset the loss in GDP due
to emigration .
US ag improvements spill over to Mexico – empirics
Zabin and Hughes ‘95 Carol Zabin, PhD and researcher in labor economics, and Sallie Hughes,
researcher in Latin American political communication; “Economic Integration and Labor Flows: Stage
Migration in Farm Labor Markets in Mexico and the United States;” 1995; International Migration
Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 395-422, The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc.;
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2546787 JSTOR RMJ
Baja production began its sharp ascent in the late 1970s with the onset of the Mexican economic crisis,
peso devaluations, falling real wage rates, and a growing Mexico-U.S. wage gap. Often in joint venture, U.S. distributors
and Mexican growers invested in technological improvements in packing sheds, seeds and production
technology, and pump irrigation systems. Baja became attractive because of its similarity and
proximity to the San Diego region, whose competitiveness was diminishing due to rising land and
water costs. Baja California fresh tomato production grew from 120,436 tons in 1980 to 187,500 tons in 1989, and exports
increased by 957 percent between 1980 and 1988 (Cook, 1988; American Farm Bureau, 1991:262).
Plan reduces border security – that increases remittances to Mexico and improves
rural agricultural economies
Jones ’09 Richard C. Jones, prof. Pol Sci @ UT San Antonio; “Migration Permanence and Village Decline
in Zacatecas: When You Can’t Go Home Again;” Professional Geographer, August 1, 2009; EBSCO RMJ
At the same time that the Third World has become more dependent on international wage-labor migration, developed countries have become
less hospitable to this migration. This inhospitality is beginning to have negative repercussions on rural sending regions such as north-central
Mexico. This study is based on a survey of a stratified random sample of households in Villanueva municipio (county), Zacatecas, in 1988 and
again in 2002, employing the same questions and methodology. The results suggest that
restrictive U.S. border policies
over this
have had a negative impact on village economies in the municipio. Although migrant families continued
to hold a distinctive edge on nonmigrant families in terms of possessions and productive investments, there was a decline
overall in levels of investment and remittances in the municipio. In the latter year, Villanueva had more nonmigrant families
as well as more families with permanent migrants—both trends leading to less money remitted to rural families and
lower agricultural investments. Observations and interviews with migrants and townspeople in the municipio in 2005 and 2008
period
strongly corroborate these trends. Rural villages are facing depopulation, disinvestment and, it might be argued, a deterioration of hope for the
future. Key Words: border restrictions, international wage-labor migration, Mexico, permanent migration. Third World countries today are
more dependent than ever on wage-labor migration. Global migrant remittances—amounting to $300 billion in 2006—have roughly doubled in
the past decade, and in twenty less-developed countries constitute more than 20 percent of their gross domestic product (International Fund
for Agricultural Development 2006). Wage-labor-sending countries often lack competitive products in global demand or are not positioned to
benefit from the new international division of labor because they lack the requisite infrastructure and business climate (Shafaeddin 1996;
Antonopoulou 2000); or they may be well endowed in these ways but possess lagging regions left behind by globalization. In addition, in the
post–Cold War period, they have been ignored by the First World in terms of foreign aid and inclusion in trade blocs (Ihonvbere 1992; Peet and
Watts 1993). Ironically, at the same time that the Third World has become more dependent on wagelabor migration, developed
countries have become less hospitable to this migration. This is seen in political backlash against immigrants in
European Union countries like Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, and Greece; the stiffening of residence requirements in East Asia; the
fortification of the U.S. border with Mexico; and so forth. This backlash has stemmed only in part from economic recession and
terrorism; cultural politics—in which outsiders become convenient scapegoats in times of trouble—is also to blame. These new legal and
cultural barriers lower remittances in two ways: by preventing migrants from crossing in the first place and
by forcing them into a more permanent existence at the destination. In the latter case, a “new transnationalism”
(Levitt 2001, 4–15; Pries 2001; Levitt and Waters 2002) enables them to maintain contact electronically and via remittances, but increasing
evidence suggests that these ties are unsustainable over long periods of time. This process appears to be playing out in the migrant hearth
region of Mexico. Thomas Wolfe’s (1940) novel, You Can’t Go Home Again, tells the tale of a man who cannot return home. That is indeed the
many undocumented Mexican migrants today. Unlike the case with Wolfe’s protagonist (whose home has turned against
“walled in” by a fortified border (Massey 2006), in which, quoting Lopez-Castro
(1986, 83), “El sustento [esta] en ´ un lado y el corazon en otro” (“their liveli- ´ hood is on one side, and their heart on the
other”). Is migration today—as it was two decades ago (Massey, Durand, and Malone 2002)—a positive economic force for families in central
plight of
him), however, these Mexican migrants are
Mexico’s migrant hearth region? Over the 1990s, a time of increasing border restrictionism, has there been a reduction of migration from this
region and an increase in its permanence? Do these trends have negative repercussions for rural development in the region? Although studies
of Mexican migrants at a given place and point in time are numerous, there are few studies that examine migrants in a given place over time.
This article provides such a study.209209209209209209209209209209209209209209209
Globalization is inevitable; the plan is critical for rural Mexico to stay competitive
Jones ’09 Richard C. Jones, prof. Pol Sci @ UT San Antonio; “Migration Permanence and Village Decline
in Zacatecas: When You Can’t Go Home Again;” Professional Geographer, August 1, 2009; EBSCO RMJ
In the 1970s and early 1980s, criticism was leveled at international migration’s role in village economies and societies. This migration
was viewed as yet another form of international dependency, a capitulation to the forces of globalization and an
abandonment of autonomous grassroots development schemes (see, for example, McArthur 1979; Reichert 1981;
Brana-Shute and Brana-Shute 1982; Shrestha 1985). However, the realities of the late 1980s to the present—recession and
global restructuring around the principles of competitive advantage—rendered many Third World
regions bystanders in the development process and more dependent than ever on remittances from
international migration. Since the late 1980s the functionalist school of thought has come to the fore, emphasizing the
positive impacts on local growth of this migration, including higher levels of living, investment in
economic and human capital, economic mobility, and the preservation of rural lifeways (see Conway 1985;
Jones 1995a; Owusu 2000; Semyonov and Gorodzeisky 2005). The positive (functionalist) view of the role of international wage-labor migration
in village livelihoods and the negative feedback exerted by migration permanence are
represented209209209209209209209209209209209209209209209209209 diagrammatically in Figure 1. The
core relationship
proposes that migrants and migrant families are better off than nonmigrants, in the ways noted (arrow a); that
is, they will have more possessions and will invest relatively more and support their community more.
The facilitating mechanism for this is remittances (monetary as well as social) sent from the
destination back to the origin. Finally, because migrants tend to prevail from rural areas, and these areas
lag behind urban areas on most economic indicators, migrant remittances will improve the economic
position of rural vis-a-` vis urban places. The positive or upper circuit of the diagram in Figure 1 is based on a substantial literature
(cited earlier; see also Ling 1984; Keely and Tran 1989; Durand, Parrado, and Massey 1996; Lowell and de la Garza 2002; Cohen, Jones, and
Conway 2005; Escobar et al. 2006).209
Border control traps immigrants in the US and slashes remittances – plan reverses
Jones ’09 Richard C. Jones, prof. Pol Sci @ UT San Antonio; “Migration Permanence and Village Decline
in Zacatecas: When You Can’t Go Home Again;” Professional Geographer, August 1, 2009; EBSCO RMJ
However, emerging research suggests that migration permanence in the United States may diminish
economic ties with the origin. Ethno-surveys in Mexico’s central western region show that as families cumulate migration time in
the United States, remittances increase rapidly at first but later decline as a logical consequence of the family’s
becoming integrated into U.S. society (Massey et al. 1987; Cornelius 1990). Recent multivariate analyses come to
the same conclusions, finding, for example, that homeward remittances drop when a spouse, children, or
both210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210 have accompanied
the migrant (Lozano 1993; DeSipio 2002; Lowell and de la Garza 2002; Mooney 2004). Regarding “collective” (community)
remittances, however, they appear to be greater when migrants are more integrated at the destination (Goldring 2004; Mooney
2004; Marcelli and Lowell 2005). It should be noted, nevertheless, that these community remittances are only a
fraction (less than 5 percent) of total remittances. Finally, there is mounting evidence that restrictive
U.S. policies have more than compensated for economic push factors in Mexico (such as drought, the demise of
rural development programs, and economic stagnation) to both curtail initial migration and to induce migrant families
to remain permanently in the United States. Evidence for fewer first-time migrants, longer stays, and more family members
currently living in the United States is found in Binford (2003), Reyes (2004), Riosmena (2004), and Massey (2006); these changes have
been attributed to hardening of the U.S.–Mexican border since the early 1990s (Massey, Durand, and Malone
2002; Cohen 2004). First-time migrants must now contemplate the possibility of death in the desert—or spending months in jail if they are
apprehended. In a survey by Cohen and Rodriguez (2005), Mexican migrants listed the fear and cost of crossing the border as second only to
family considerations as impediments that might make them rethink their decision to come to the United States. Many throw caution to the
wind anyway and manage to cross their spouses and other family members—a move that increases their likelihood of permanent residence
through legalization (Roberts, Frank, and Lozano-Ascencio 1999; DiSipio 2002).210210210210210210210210210210210
Immigration is the only thing sustaining rural Mexican agriculture
Jones ’09 Richard C. Jones, prof. Pol Sci @ UT San Antonio; “Migration Permanence and Village Decline
in Zacatecas: When You Can’t Go Home Again;” Professional Geographer, August 1, 2009; EBSCO RMJ
The results in Table 3 indicate that U.S. migration played a positive role in the economic status of families
in Villanueva. Migrant families had more possessions and were more likely to invest in agriculture and in their
community than nonmigrant families, in both 1988 and 2002. Furthermore, migrant families came disproportionately from rural areas in both
years. Given that urban per capita incomes exceeded rural incomes in 1990 (Table 2), the benefits of migration would have tended
to
reduce the income gap between rural and urban areas. Finally, as expected, the receipt of remittances is greater for
migrant families in both years. The fact that some nonmigrant families receive remittances suggests a “halo effect” in
which households receive money from extended family members working abroad. It is worth noting in Table 3
that the migrant–nonmigrant ratio is not only above one for 1988 and 2002 but also increased over the period for every indicator in the table.
That is to say, the
family-level benefits of migration were positive and increasing over this period of time.
We might be tempted to conclude that migration is sustaining rural livelihoods in the face of exogenous
influences that are eroding these livelihoods.210210210210210210
Rural economies are shifting from ag in the squo
Burkham ’12 Jonathan Burkham, Prof. Geogr @ U Wisc Milwaukee; “The City Will Come to Us:
Development Discourse and the New Rurality in Atotonilco El Bajo, Mexico;” Journal of Latin American
Geography, Jan. 1, 2012; EBSCO RMJ
Nearly three decades of neoliberal reforms have resulted in profound polidcal, economic, and social changes throughout the Ladn American
countryside. The support for smallholder agriculture that dominated rural development policies through the 1970s has given way to nadonal
and, indeed, internadonal strategies of agricultural industrializadon and liberalizadon (Kay 2002). While some have argued that the
reorientadon of rural development policy since the early 1980s has rendered peasants "superfluous" (Otero 2004) or "a residual polidcal
category" (Hecht 2010), rural families continue to develop household survival strategies that deserve investigadon. Since the mid-1990s, a
growing body of literature has attempted to explain recent changes under a loose analytical
framework, known as the "new rurality" or, in deference to its Latin American roots, /a nueva rura/idad (Arias and Woo 2007).
It should be noted that even the "new ruralist" might concede that most of these changes are not, in fact, new. Rural communides in Ladn
America have long been implicated in processes of industrialization, urbanization, and
globalization. Rather, it is argued that
intensified under neoliberal policies, and have come to dominate the development of rural Ladn
American. The new rurality framework is built on empirical observations of several key transformadons that are underway in
these processes have
the Latin American countryside (Arias and Woo 2007; see Kay 2008 for a concise discussion of the origin and evoludon of new rurality
literature). Primary among these changes is the
shift from primary economic activity}' to pardcipation in non-farm
occupations in manufacturing and services. Salaried employment and formal and informal commercial acdvit)' have
come to supplement and, in many cases, supersede the household income generated from farming (Appendini 2007). • Furthermore,
the pardcipadon in non-farm economic acdvity des rural communides to urban centers where products are bought, sold, and, often, produced.
Daily or weekly commutes to nearby cides for work or commerce are becoming a regular roudne for many rtiral residents (del Rosario Cota
Yánez 2007). This shift in economic development has been accompanied by the feminizadon and flexibilization of the labor force (Estrada
Iguiniz 2007). Women are increasingly taking part in rural non-farm commercial acdvity, pardcularly in the informal sector, reflecdng changes
that have been underway in urban areas for some time (Escobar Latapi and González de la Rocha 2002; Chant 2004).
Guest worker visas don’t bring in new immigrants—demand
Schwalbe 10 (Kaleigh Schwalbe—MS in Negotiation and Conflict resolution @ Columbia; research fellow at the Advanced
Consortium on Cooperation at the Earth Institute and the International Ceneter for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution
‘Mexican immigration to the united states’
http://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/5521/Schwalbe%2c%20Kaleigh.pdf?sequence=1) LShen
Another fear is that by making a more open immigration policy, which less restrictive guest worker program advocates, then this would
increase the overall level of immigration in the Untied States. Scholars are generally split over this issue. Daniel
Griswold argues that
does not necessarily mean more immigrants entering the
United States,” instead the most likely consequence would be “the transportation of an illegal flow to a
legal flow” (Griswold 189). This is because the amount of immigrants entering the country will naturally be
capped by the employers‟ demand for these workers. Since immigrants come to the United States for
higher wages and employment, if these options are no longer available, then there will be limited
motivations for immigration.
these fears are unfounded. He argues “legalization
Thumper
Mexico ag down now- low contribution to GDP and shrinking labor force- Should have
triggered their impact.
UNCTAD 6/26/13 (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development functions as a forum for
intergovernmental deliberations, supported by discussions with experts and exchanges of experience,
aimed at consensus building Mexico's Agriculture Development: Perspectives and
Outlookhttp://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=454)
Agriculture remains a very important sector for Mexico. Despite the declining contribution of the
sector to GDP, and the shrinking of agricultural labour force, about half of the rural population was
employed in the sector in 2011. Poverty in rural areas in Mexico is high and has been increasing. In
2008, 61 per cent of the rural population (with an average annual income of 3,800 pesos) was classified
as poor, as compared to a national rate of 45 per cent. In 2007, small farms represented approximately
73 per cent of total production units. Indeed, small and medium producers employ a majority of rural
population but their potential to provide a decent livelihood for themselves and to constitute a viable
base for expanding economic activity in rural areas is curtailed by a variety of constraints. These
include rising costs of factor inputs, land possession issues, adverse climatic conditions, increasing
competition from below-cost imports, structural rigidities and some public policies, which although
designed to benefit small and medium holders have not had the intended impact. There is the need for
public policy and private action (possibly Public-Private-Partnerships) to address the root causes of
the continued economic marginalization of small holders, and of agriculture generally, in order to
enhance the sector’s resilience and ensure food security.
Biofuels Bad
Biofuels Trigger Food shortages and combat climate change
Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change
By displacing agriculture for food—and causing more land clearing—biofuels are bad for hungry people
and the environment. Converting corn to ethanol in Iowa not only leads to clearing more of the
Amazonian rainforest, researchers report in a pair of new studies in Science, but also would do little to
slow global warming—and often make it worse.
"Prior analyses made an accounting error," says one study's lead author, Tim Searchinger, an agricultural
expert at Princeton University. "There is a huge imbalance between the carbon lost by plowing up a
hectare [2.47 acres] of forest or grassland from the benefit you get from biofuels."Growing plants store
carbon in their roots, shoots and leaves. As a result, the world's plants and the soil in which they grow
contain nearly three times as much carbon as the entire atmosphere. "I know when I look at a tree that
half the dry weight of it is carbon," says ecologist David Tilman of the University of Minnesota, coauthor
of the other study which examined the "carbon debt" embedded in any biofuel. "That's going to end up
as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when you cut it down."By turning crops such as corn, sugarcane
and palm oil into biofuels—whether ethanol, biodiesel, or something else—proponents hope to reap
the benefits of the carbon soaked up as the plants grow to offset the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted
when the resulting fuel is burned. But whether biofuels emit more or less CO2 than gasoline depends
on what the land they were grown on was previously used for, both studies show.
Tilman and his colleagues examined the overall CO2 released when land use changes occur. Converting
the grasslands of the U.S. to grow corn results in excess greenhouse gas emissions of 134 metric tons of
CO2 per hectare—a debt that would take 93 years to repay by replacing gasoline with corn-based
ethanol. And converting jungles to palm plantations or tropical rainforest to soy fields would take
centuries to pay back their carbon debts. "Any biofuel that causes land clearing is likely to increase
global warming," says ecologist Joseph Fargione of The Nature Conservancy, lead author of the second
study. "It takes decades to centuries to repay the carbon debt that is created from clearing
land."Diverting food crops into fuel production leads to ever more land clearing as well. Ethanol
demand in the U.S., for example, has caused some farmers to plant more corn and less soy. This has
driven up soy prices causing farmers in Brazil to clear more Amazon rainforest land to plant valuable
soy, Searchinger's study notes. Because a soy field contains far less carbon than a rainforest, the
greenhouse gas benefit of the original ethanol is wiped out. "Corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a
20 percent savings [in greenhouse gas emissions], nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years
and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years," the researchers write. "We can't get to a result with
corn ethanol where we can generate greenhouse gas benefits," Searchinger adds.Turning food into fuel
also has the unintended consequence of driving up food prices, reducing the access of the neediest
populations to grains and meat. "It's equivalent to saying we will try to reduce greenhouse gases by
reducing food consumption ," Searchinger says. "Unfortunately, a lot of that comes from the world's
poorest people.""We are converting their food into our fuel," Tilman notes. " The typical driver of an
SUV spends as much on fuel in a month as the poorer third of the world spend on food."
Biofuels cause food price spikes-too much supply
The Guardian 8 (Leading News Source, “Secret report: Biofuel caused food crisis”, 7/3/8
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy)
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian. ¶ The damning unpublished assessment is based on
the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected
economist at global financial body.¶ The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's
claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on
governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and
reduce their dependence on imported oil.¶ Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to
avoid embarrassing President George Bush.¶ "It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one
yesterday.¶ The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries
meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for
a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels.¶ It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due to release its own
report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the
British study will state
that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in pushing up food prices to record levels.
Although it was expected last week, the report has still not been released. ¶ "Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the
strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative
that we have the full picture. While
politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people
in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."¶ Rising food prices have pushed 100m people
worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from
Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices
as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation".¶ President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher
demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led
to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."¶ Even successive
droughts in Australia, calculates the report, have had a marginal impact. Instead, it argues that the EU and US drive
for biofuels
has had by far the biggest impact on food supply and prices.¶ Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has
had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence
that that will only push food prices higher.¶ "Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined
appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in
the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an
increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period. ¶ It argues that production
of
biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways. First, it has diverted grain away
from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of
vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel . Second, farmers have been encouraged to set
land aside for biofuel production. Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains,
driving prices up higher.¶ Other reviews of the food crisis looked at it over a much longer period, or have not linked these
three factors, and so arrived at smaller estimates of the impact from biofuels. But the report author, Don Mitchell, is a senior economist at
the Bank and has done a detailed, month-by-month analysis of the surge in food prices, which allows much closer examination of the link
between biofuels and food supply.¶ The report points out biofuels derived from sugarcane, which Brazil specializes in, have not had such
a dramatic impact.¶ Supporters of biofuels argue that they are a greener alternative to relying on oil and other fossil fuels, but even that
claim has been disputed by some experts, who argue that it does not apply to US production of ethanol from plants. ¶ "It is clear that some
biofuels have huge impacts on food prices," said Dr David King, the government's former chief scientific adviser, last
night. "All we are doing by supporting these is subsidising higher food prices, while doing nothing to tackle climate
change."
Ethanol lead to water scarcity-land usage
Perlman 12 (Rachael Perlman, Graduate from the Cornell school of Environment, staff writer at
Clean Air Task Force, “E85 found to be Holistacally Worse for the Environment than Gasoline”,
5/28/12, http://www.catf.us/blogs/biofuels/tag/water-scarcity/)
This study, by Yang et al., is unique in that it uses LCA methods to comprehensively compare
the environmental impact of gasoline and E85, taking into account 12 different
environmental impacts (not just GHG emissions), as well as regional differences among 19
corn-growinga states. The 12 impact categories were: global warming, human health cancer,
acidification, human health respiratory, human health noncancer, ozone layer depletion,
eutrophication, smog formation, ecological toxicity, fossil energy consumption, water use,
and land occupation. They assumed the E85 contained corn ethanol and was produced using a dry mill
powered by natural gas. Much of their data for ethanol impacts was derived from a Life Cycle Inventory database from the USDA and
applies to corn ethanol produced in 2005. Their E85 impacts vary from state to state, mainly based on differences in those states’ climate,
soil, topography, and transportation logistics. The gasoline calculations were developed from weighted averages of crude oil data based
off the oil’s origin and its share in U.S. oil imports. The fuel lifecycles included the following steps: feedstock production, shipment of the
feedstock to the refinery, refining/conversion, fuel shipment to the refueling station, and vehicle use. By normalizing
and
weighting their 12 categories, they also combined their results to a single environmental
damage score, which they tested for sensitivity to develop one useful “weighted
environmental impact” metric. The study found that gasoline has a better environmental
impact score than E85 in terms of eutrophication, water use, and land occupation, with a
slight advantage for smog formation and acidification effects as well. However, E85 was seemingly
better in terms of fossil fuel energy consumption and global warming impact, and had a slightly smaller ecological toxicity. For the two
fuels, no clear difference was found for ozone layer depletion, cancer and noncancer human health, and respiratory effects. From a
geographic standpoint,
E85 from different states had variable eutrophication, water use, land
occupation, and global warming impacts, since regional agricultural practices (e.g. dependence on irrigation),
climate and topography were quite different. Consequently, there is much error in trying to determine the nation-wide water use or
eutrophication impact that corn-ethanol has on the environment. In any case, though, E85 has a much
larger need for
water than gasoline, given that irrigation is sometimes used and water is needed for the
ethanol conversion process. Yang et al. concludes that, overall, according to their weighted
average, E85 has between a 6% to 108% (23% average) greater total environmental impact
than gasoline, and that this range becomes 16%-188% (33% average) when indirect land
use change data (associated with uncertainty) is incorporated.
Increases in Biofuel production wreck biodiversity- monocultures replace diverse
rainforests
United Nations Environment Programme 9(“The impacts of biofuel production on
biodiversity: A review of the current literature,” 12/9/9 http://www.unepwcmc.org/medialibrary/2011/03/11/628e876f/The%20impacts%20of%20biofuel%20productio
n%20on%20biodiversity_final_for%20release.pdf)
Much of the discussion on the biodiversity impacts of biofuel production surrounds ¶ the
direct impacts of land conversion, where natural ecosystems are replaced by ¶ biofuel
feedstock plantations. ¶ There is already considerable land use pressure from agriculture
worldwide, and this ¶ is projected to increase over the coming decades (FAO 2008b). The land
requirements ¶ for biofuel production at the scale discussed in Section 3 will be a large additional ¶
demand. One study has estimated that 0.4 Mha – 114 Mha of natural land could be ¶ lost due to biodiesel production alone,
depending upon the feedstock used for ¶ production and whether current agricultural land was used (Koh 2007). It should be ¶ noted
that biodiversity
loss will not be proportional to area loss, as some areas are ¶ much more
diverse than others (Sala et al. 2009). Tropical forests, which are ¶ particularly vulnerable to
conversion to biofuel plantations, contain a high proportion ¶ of global biodiversity (Sala et al.
2009). On the other hand, loss of natural land may ¶ not occur, or not occur to the extent estimated, if agricultural production is
optimized ¶ and yields increased on existing agricultural land (UNEP 2009) or if energy crops are ¶ rotated with food crops as done in
some parts of Brazil (Moreira 2006). ¶ 4.1.1.1 Tropical ecosystems¶ Biofuels can
be produced with the greatest
efficiency in the tropics, and the lack of ¶ economic incentives for the conservation of tropical
ecosystems means that they are ¶ vulnerable to replacement with biofuel crops (Doornbosch &
Steenblik 2007). Indeed, ¶ the main tropical biofuel growing countries, Brazil, Indonesia and
Malaysia, already ¶ have significant land use pressures and, as major deforestation
‘hotspots’, have been ¶ estimated to account for over half of forest clearance globally (Hansen et
al. 2008). ¶ They also overlap with biodiversity hotspots (Koh 2007). It has been estimated that ¶ 540 Mha (Miles et al. 2008) to 745 Mha
(Stickler et al. 2007) of tropical forests are ¶ suitable for oil palm or soybean production.
Biofuels kill Biodiversity- monocultures and pesticides
ESA 10(Ecological Society of America,“Biofuels: Implications for Land Use and Biodiversity,”
1/10,
http://www.esa.org/biofuelsreports/files/ESA%20Biofuels%20Report_VH%20Dale%20et%20al.p
df)
Simply stated, biodiversity is the variety of life that¶ exists in any one place at one time.
Conservation work¶ is often focused on protecting biodiversity through the¶ establishment
or maintenance of protected areas, and¶ such efforts entail preserving the health and well-being¶ of our planet for future
generations. More and more,¶ however, conservation is being enlarged to include the¶ places
where people live, work, and produce food and¶ fiber. Farms have played a key role in this
paradigm shift¶ because a variety of organisms are able to persist and¶ even thrive in
agricultural landscapes. According to the¶ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005, agricultural¶ systems cover nearly
one-quarter of the Earth’s terrestrial surface although a small fraction is actively managed or harvested in any given year. ¶ Ecologists
have long posited that overall terrestrial¶ biodiversity
is increased when there is a variety of different
plants growing in one area. Environmental sameness—homogeneity—tends to reduce
biodiversity.¶ There is evidence that this is true on farms as well as on¶ other lands. For example, research in many areas has¶
demonstrated that sites with high crop diversity tend to ¶ have larger numbers of birds, butterflies, beetles, and spiders than sites of the
same size where there was only¶ one kind of crop being grown. The various birds and¶ beneficial insects, in turn, provide ecosystem
services¶ including the mitigation of crop pests. ¶ Despite these biodiversity benefits, homogeneity tends¶ to be
more
efficient and less expensive for farmers, so¶ crops such as corn are grown almost exclusively
as¶ monocultures in the US. Planting decisions also rely on¶ the expected financial return of
the crop, and so are¶ heavily dependent on market expectations. A decision¶ to change from diverse crops
to a single crop not only¶ reduces the biodiversity of the areas that are planted on¶ a farm but also contributes to the homogenization of
the¶ surrounding landscape, potentially further reducing biodiversity. Extensive
landscapes with single cropping
can¶ also increase the “environmental footprint” of a farm,¶ because the lack of diversity or
repetitious use of land for¶ a single species will tend to require more chemical inputs¶ to
control pests and more fertilizer to maintain yields.
A2 Impacts
Warming Defense
( ) Warming not real- recent temperatures show no increase
Happer ‘12
(William is a professor of physics at Princeton. “Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again”, Wall Street Journal, 3/27/12,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html)
What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years.
Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from
NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. The latest (February
2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius,
slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979
( ) Warming evidence skewed – urban heat island
Evans ‘12
(David has a PhD in electrical engineering, worked from 1999 to 2006 for the Australian Greenhouse Office, an agency of the Australian
government, designing a carbon accounting system- Financial Post, "Global Warming Theory Is Based on False Science.", 7 Apr. 2011, infotrac)
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the
warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way,
counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it. But the
alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide,
and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and
again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality. They keep lowering the temperature increases
they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade—yet they have the gall to
tell us "it's worse than expected." These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature
increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth. One way they
conceal is in the way they measure temperature. The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust
of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet
engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities
choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is
important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official
siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Global temperature is also
measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year
was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track
only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?
( ) Not anthropogenic – multiple warrants
Spencer ‘12
(Roy, former NASA climatologist and author, “Ten Years After the Warming,” 2/26, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/)
As can be seen,
in the last 10 years the estimated forcing has been the strongest. Yet, most if not all temperature
datasets show little or no global-average warming recently, either in the atmosphere, at the surface, or in the upper 700
meters of the ocean. For example, here are the tropospheric temperatures up though a few days ago: So what is happening? You
cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too.
we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate
system. One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming. There are 5 possibilities for
the recent cessation of warming which are most discussed: 1) cooling from anthropogenic aerosols has been cancelling
No,
out warming from more greenhouse gases 2) natural cooling from internal climate fluctuations or the
sun is cancelling out the GHG warming 3) increased ocean mixing is causing the extra energy to be
distributed into the deep ocean 4) the temperature ’sensitivity’ of the climate system is not as large as
the IPCC assumes. 5) there is something fundamentally wrong with the GHG warming theory itself Of
course, some combination of the above 5 explanations is also possible. The 1st possibility (aerosol cooling is cancelling out GHG forcing) is one
of the more popular explanations with the climate modelers, and especially with NASA’s James Hansen. The
uncertain strength (and
aerosol forcing allows the climate modelers to use aerosols as a tuning knob (aka fudge factor)
in making their models produce warming more-or-less consistent with past observations. Using an assumed
large aerosol cooling to cancel out the GHG warming allows the modelers to retain high climate sensitivity, and thus the
fear of strong future warming if those aerosols ever dissipate. The 2nd possibility (natural cooling) is a much less
desirable explanation for the IPCC crowd because it opens the door to Mother Nature having as much or more
influence on the climate system than do humans. We can’t have that, you know. Then you would have to consider the
possibility that most of the warming in the last 50 years was natural, too. Goodbye, AGW funding. The 3rd possibility
even sign) of
(increased ocean mixing) is one of the more legitimate possibilities, at least theoretically. It’s popular with NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth. But one
would need more observational evidence this is happening before embracing the idea. Unfortunately, how vertical mixing in the ocean
different IPCC models have widely varying strengths of mixing,
and so ocean mixing is a huge wild card in the global warming debate, as is aerosol cooling. I believe much
naturally varies over time is poorly understood; the
of past climate change on time scales of decades to many centuries might be due to such variations in ocean mixing, along with their likely
influence on global cloud cover changing the amount of solar input into the climate system. The 4th possibility (the
climate system is
relatively insensitive to forcing) is the top contender in the opinion of myself, Dick Lindzen, and a few other climate
researchers who work in this field. The 5th possibility (increasing GHGs don’t really cause warming) is total anathema to the IPCC.
Without GHG warming, the whole AGW movement collapses. This kind of scientific finding would normally be Nobel Prize territory…except that
the Nobel Prize has become more of a socio-political award in recent years, with only politically correct recipients. The self-flagellating elites
humans might not be destroying the Earth. The longer we go without significant
warming, the more obvious it will become that there is something seriously wrong with current AGW
theory. I don’t think there is a certain number of years – 5, 10, 20, etc. – which will disprove the science of AGW….unless the climate system
don’t like the idea
cools for the next 10 years. Eek! But I personally doubt that will happen.
( ) Species can adapt – especially in tropical hotspots
Wiley Sciences ‘12
(Citing research carried out at the University of Zurich led by Dr Richard Walters, David Berger now at Uppsala University and Wolf
Blanckenhorn, Professor of Evolutionary Ecology at Zurich, “Newsflash: tropical species adapt to temperature changes,”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/16/newsflash-tropical-species-adapt-to-temperature-changes/#more-69341)
In the face of a changing climate many species must adapt or perish. Ecologists
studying evolutionary responses to climate
change forecast that cold-blooded tropical species are not as vulnerable to extinction as previously
thought. The study, published in the British Ecological Society’s Functional Ecology, considers how fast species can evolve and
adapt to compensate for a rise in temperature. The research, carried out at the University of Zurich, was led by Dr Richard
Walters, now at Reading University, alongside David Berger now at Uppsala University and Wolf Blanckenhorn, Professor of Evolutionary
Ecology at Zurich. “Forecasting the fate of any species is difficult, but it is essential for conserving biodiversity and managing natural resources,”
said lead author Dr Walters. “It
is believed that climate change poses a greater risk to tropical cold-blooded
organisms (ectotherms), than temperate or polar species. However, as potential adaptation to climate
change has not been considered in previous extinction models we tested this theory with a model
forecasting evolutionary responses.” Ectotherms, such as lizards and insects, have evolved a specialist physiology to flourish in a
stable tropical environment. Unlike species which live in varied habitats tropical species operate within a
narrow range of temperatures, leading to increased dangers if those temperatures change. “When its
environment changes an organism can respond by moving away, adapting its physiology over time or,
over generations, evolving,” said Walters. “The first two responses are easy to identify, but a species’ ability to adapt
quick enough to respond to climate change is an important and unresolved question for ecologists.” The
team explored the idea that there are also evolutionary advantages for species adapted to warmer environments. The ‘hotter is better’ theory
suggests that
species which live in high temperatures will have higher fitness, resulting from a shorter
generation time. This may allow them to evolve relatively quicker than species in temperate environments. The team
sought to directly compare the increased risk of extinction associated with lower genetic variance, owing to temperature specialisation, with
the lowered risk of extinction associated with a shorter generation time. “Our
model shows that the evolutionary
advantage of a shorter generation time should compensate species which are adapted to narrow
temperature ranges,” said Walters. “We forecast that the relative risk of extinction is likely to be lower for
tropical species than temperate ones.” “The tropics are home to the greatest biodiversity on earth, so
it imperative that the risk of extinction caused by climate change is understood,” concluded Walters. “While
many questions remain, our theoretical predictions suggest tropical species may not be as vulnerable
to climate warming as previously thought.”
( ) Feedbacks are net negative
Spencer ‘8
(Roy W. Ph.D., climatologist, author, former NASA scientist, “Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate
Change (supercedes “Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?”)”, Roy W. Spencer, 12/27/08,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/)
The comparisons modelers make between their models and satellite data are typically rather crude and cursory.
They are not sufficiently detailed to really say anything of substance about feedbacks — in either the models or the
satellite data – and yet it is the feedbacks that will determine how serious the manmade global warming
problem will be. And as I have tried to demonstrate here, the main reason for the current inadequacy of such
methods of comparison between models and observations is the contaminating effect of clouds causing
temperatures to change (forcing) when trying to estimate how temperatures cause clouds to change
(feedback). This not a new issue, as it has been addressed by Forster and Gregory (2006, applied to satellite measurements) and Forster
and Taylor (2006, applied to climate model output). I have merely demonstrated that the same contamination occurs from internal fluctuations
The bottom line from the model and observational evidence presented here is that: Net
feedbacks in the real climate system — on both short and long time scales — are probably negative. A
misinterpretation of cloud behavior has led climate modelers to build models in which cloud feedbacks
are instead positive, which has led the models to predict too much global warming in response to
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
in clouds in the climate system.
Extensions – No Warming
( ) No warming – models are wrong, feedbacks are negative and its cyclical
Evans ‘11
(David, doctor in electrical engineering, worked from 1999 to 2006 for the Australian Greenhouse Office, an agency of the Australian
government, designing a carbon accounting system, “Climate models are fundamentally flawed as they greatly overestimate the temperature
increases due to carbon dioxide,” 3/23, http://www.ted.com/conversations/2533/climate_models_are_fundamental.html)
The core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, it ends up
causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide
warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only
one third is due to extra carbon dioxide. This is the core of the issue. All the disagreements spring from this. The alarmist case is
based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere. There is simply no evidence for the
amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960’s. The
climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the
tropics about 10km up. Weather balloons have found no hot-spot. Not even a small one. This evidence proves the
climate models are fundamentally flawed and they greatly overestimate the temperature increases
due to carbon dioxide. There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the
warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers
surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Global temperature is also
measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that
since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off. So what is really going on with the climate? The earth has been in a warming trend since the
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for
25 – 30 years at a go in each direction. Having just finished a warming phase, expect mild global
cooling for the next two decades.
Little Ice Age around 1680.
Extensions – Not Anthropogenic
( ) Prefer our methodology – cites ice cores and monitoring
Shapiro et al. ‘11
(A. I. Shapiro, W. Schmutz, E. Rozanov, M. Schoell, M. Haberreiter, A. V. Shapiro and S. Nyeki, researchers for the World Radiation Center,
Switzerland and Institute for Atmospheric and Climate science ETH, Switzerland, “A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar
irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing,” 2/22, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/new-solar-reconstruction-paper-suggests-6xtsi-change-than-cited-by-the-ipcc/)
The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for the natural forcing of past climate changes on time scales of
50 to 1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial climate correlates positively with the solar
activity. During the past 10 000 years, the Sun has experienced the substantial variations in activity and there have been numerous attempts
to reconstruct solar irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied during the last several hundred years – all
there is scientific controversy on the magnitude of solar
forcing. Aims. We present a reconstruction of the total and spectral solar irradiance covering 130 nm–10 μm from 1610 to the present with
reconstructions are proportional to the solar activity –
an annual resolution and for the Holocene with a 22-year resolution. Methods. We assume that the minimum state of the quiet Sun in time
we use available long-term proxies of the solar
activity, which are 10Be isotope concentrations in ice cores and 22-year smoothed neutron monitor data,
to interpolate between the present quiet Sun and the minimum state of the quiet Sun. This
determines the long-term trend in the solar variability, which is then superposed with the 11-year activity cycle calculated
from the sunspot number. The time-dependent solar spectral irradiance from about 7000 BC to the present is
then derived using a state-of-the-art radiation code.
corresponds to the observed quietest area on the present Sun. Then
Conclusions
We present a new technique to reconstruct total and spectral solar irradiance over the Holocene. We
obtained a large historical solar forcing between the Maunder minimum and the present, as well as a
significant increase in solar irradiance in the first half of the twentieth-century. Our value of the
historical solar forcing is remarkably larger than other estimations published in the recent literature.
Extensions – Feedbacks are Negative
( ) Positive feedback models wrong, their impacts exaggerated
Happer ‘12
(William is a professor of physics at Princeton. “Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again”, Wall Street Journal, 3/27/12,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html)
The direct warming due to doubling
CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one
degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even
more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct
warming from CO2. Many lines of observational evidence suggest that this "positive feedback" also has been
greatly exaggerated. There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the socalled Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the
warming—much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably—suggests that a substantial fraction
of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.
Extensions – Models Fail
( ) Observational evidence disproves climate models
Evans ‘12
(David has a PhD in electrical engineering, worked from 1999 to 2006 for the Australian Greenhouse Office, an agency of the Australian
government, designing a carbon accounting system, Financial Post, "Global Warming Theory Is Based on False Science.",7 Apr. 2011)
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth
causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the
height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when
the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the
height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist
air is also a greenhouse gas. This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of
warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra
moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three—so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to
extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide. That's the core of the issue. All the disagreements
and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in
the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their
alarmism. Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate
models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about
10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the
warming of the late 1970s, '80s and '90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even
a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly
overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide. This evidence first became clear around the mid1990s.
No War Impact
( ) Climate change does not cause wars or conflict between nations
Tertais ‘11
Bruno Tertrais Senior Research Fellow at the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratgique (FRS). He graduated from the Institut d'études politiques
de Paris in 1984. He holds a Master's degree in Public Law (1985) and a Doctorate in Political Science (1994), Summer 2011 “The Climate Wars
Myth” http://csis.org/files/publication/twq11summertertrais.pdf
So much for ‘‘climate wars.’’ But the idea according to which climate change is nevertheless a new,
important factor to be taken into account in defense and security planning is itself questionable. Of course,
nothing precludes us from including it in the growing list of non-military issues that may have a bearing on global security. But this has to
be done in a realistic way. It is not unreasonable to state that climate change may be a ‘‘threat
multiplier,’’ for instance. However, stating this says nothing about the probability of increased violence or instability either at the
global level or for a given crisis, or about the likelihood of state failure. Such consequences depend primarily on the reaction of governments
and societies a factor which is impossible to calculate in advance.
There are no data to support the vague idea that
climate change can have a key role in triggering collective violence that is, be the proverbial straw that
breaks the camel’s back, as argued by an alarmist study (citing once again the example of Darfur).
Climate is ‘‘one of myriad factors in a complex causal web underlying conflict,’’ and the environment is
just ‘‘one of manifold and nonessential causal factors’’ which may lead to war. The main causes of contemporary
conflict are societal, not natural (in the broadest sense of the term, i.e., including man-made). Conflicts are borne out of human
choices and mistakes. Could regional previsions of the impact of climate change at least inform
policymakers and planners about the areas of the world which are more likely all things being equal to
suffer from them? The answer is no. Regional effects are extremely difficult to predict with the degree of probability which can be
useful for planning. The IPCC itself underscores that current models do not have the ability to deliver useful previsions at a higher scale than the
continental one. Nobody knows, for instance, whether African monsoons will move northwards (with positive effects on agriculture) or
southwards (with negative effects). Here, as noted by a contributor to the IPCC, ‘‘there is complete disagreement between the various models.’’
And when the IPCC attempts to give regional previsions on the evolution of agricultural output, for instance, it is in a way which does not
buttress the case for alarmism. Its 2007 report mentions a possible reduction by 50 percent of rain-fed agricultural output in some African
countries in 2020. But the sole source it cites to support this claim is a report produced for a Canadian non-governmental organization in which
There are indeed, it seems, some
causal links between climate and warfare. But they are of a seasonal nature: ‘‘nations address seasonal
climate change in terms of where they fight, rather than through when or whether disputes occur. . . .
Fighting moves to higher latitudes in the summer, and lower latitudes during the cooler months of the
year.’’ The stakes of climate change are important and that is why this area should not be the object of intellectual fantasies or fashions. It is
appropriate for defense and security planners to monitor the evolution of the scientific and political debate on its possible consequences. But
there is no objective reason today to list climate change as a key issue for defense and security planning.
it is mentioned that (unpublished) studies evoke this scenario for three Maghreb countries.
A2 Econ/Illegal Immigration Impact
Oil not Ag key to Mexican economy
Amadeo 2013, April 13, Kimberly Amadeo: “ M.S, Sloan School of Business, MIT and MS planning in
Boston College, President of World Money watch, “ Mexico’s Economy”,
http://useconomy.about.com/od/worldeconomy/p/Mexico_Economy.htm
Oil Production Drives Mexico's Economy. Mexico is the world's ninth largest producer of oil, exporting
nearly three million barrels per day. This is less than Iran, China and Canada, but more than the Kuwait,
Nigeria and Venezuela. The country's oil monopoly, Pemex, is state-owned, which means all its
revenues go directly to the federal government. As a result, about one-third of the government’s
income is dependent on oil. Instead of investing in developing new fields, the government treats Pemex
like a cash cow, and tries to maximize short-term profit. As a result, production is slipping and
operations are becoming less safe.
Plan key - Guest workers directly lead to a decrease in illegal immigration—
Bracero proves
Nowrasteh 13 (Alex Nowrasteh is the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute; BA in
Economics @ George Mason and MSc in Economic History @ the London School of Economics ‘Guest
Workers Key to Reform’ Published on March 5th, 2013
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/guest-workers-keyreform?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+(Ca
to+Recent+Op-eds) ) Lshen
If there is a model for a successful guest-worker program, however, the Bracero Program is it. Under
Bracero, immigrants could work temporarily, but they had to leave the United States every season. American
farms got the labor they demanded, immigrant workers made money, and agricultural production
increased. The program was so successful that it was extended until 1964. It combined enforcement that
funneled migrants into a legal system with an unlimited temporary migration system. Often, Border Patrol agents enrolled
unauthorized immigrants they arrested in the Bracero Program and let them return to work — this time lawfully. Mexican workers
thinking of entering the United States illegally overwhelmingly chose the legal Bracero option
instead . Throughout the 1950s, unauthorized immigration declined by 95 percent. If a Bracero-type
guest-worker visa existed today, one that allowed migrants to switch jobs and work in nonagricultural
areas, unauthorized immigration would dramatically decrease.
AT: Food Prices DA
Uniqueness: High prices inevitable
Climate change causes prices will rise inevitably—plan would maintain status quo
prices
Sager 13
(Ira, Bloomberg Businessweek, “Why Are Food Prices Rising? Check the Weather” 1/10, pg online at
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/why-are-food-prices-rising-check-theweather//sd)
Droughts, floods, typhoons, hurricanes, and other forms of extreme weather have devastated crops since the
beginning of time. But, as the effects of climate change on our weather become more frequent—and intense—
the world’s food supply is subject to more calamity and volatility. Erratic weather can be a significant
factor in food shortages and higher prices for everything from wheat and rice to fruits and vegetables to meat and poultry.
Here’s a look over the last few years at the local, regional, and global effects of extreme weather on agriculture around the world. 2010
Russia Severe drought leads to the loss of one-quarter of the country’s wheat crop, and forest fires rage across
2.4 million acres. In September 2010, wheat prices reach 60 percent to 80 percent higher than at the beginning of the season in July. Estimated
damage: $1.4 billion*. Pakistan
Heavy monsoon rains bring the country’s worst flooding ever recorded,
destroying 5.9 million acres of land producing major crops including wheat, rice, tobacco, and cotton. The floods kill 450,000
livestock. Estimated damage: $2.9 billion. Amazon River Basin Severe drought leads the Rio Negro, a major tributary to the Amazon River, to
drop to its lowest level ever recorded, hurting soybean crops. North Africa Wheat crop production for the North Africa region falls about 18
percent from 2009 levels, the result of insufficient soil moisture at planting and erratic rains from May to September in the main growing areas
of Morocco and Tunisia. 2011 Horn of Africa In eastern Africa, the drought-induced humanitarian crisis, especially in famine-ravaged southern
Somalia, claims tens of thousands of lives. The worst drought in several decades hurts crop production, depletes grazing areas, and causes
major loss of livestock. Aid to the region is estimated at $2.5 billion. Thailand Monsoon rains and storms from July through January cause flash
floods that devastate Thailand, the world’s largest rice exporter, and rattle an already thin global supply of an important dietary staple.
Estimated damage: $1.3 billion. U.S. Mid-Atlantic/New England Hurricane Irene sweeps across regions that are usually unaffected by
hurricanes, causing unprecedented crop damage when rivers overflow their banks. Estimated damage: $7.4 billion. U.S.
Central and
Southern Plains Severe drought causes the country’s 2011 wheat output to drop significantly, costing
the U.S. a projected $20 billion. 2012 Sahel In several parts of West Africa, agricultural production is hurt by late rains, long dry
spells, and significant pest infestations. Cereal production across the region is 26 percent lower than in 2010. More than 18 million people
require emergency assistance, which costs an estimated $1.6 billion. U.S.
Midwest Severe drought wreaks havoc on soybean
and corn crops. At the end of July, the U.S. Drought Monitor shows 88 percent of corn and 87 percent of soybean
crops are in drought-stricken regions and 64 percent of the continental U.S. is under moderate to extreme drought—the largest area in
more than 50 years. Analysts expect food prices to increase, especially prices for meat.
High prices inevitable—oil price increase and climate change
Science Daily 12
(“What's Behind Rising Food Prices, Beyond the U.S. Drought” 8/29 pg online at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120829103415.htm//sd)
American consumers like to send a message with their money, and recently, that message has been to support "local"
food. Consumers see buying from area farmers and producers as a good way to keep money and jobs close
to home, improving the local economy while protecting American jobs. But does buying local really make a significant economic difference?
"Everybody is looking for local food," says John Stanton, Ph.D., professor of food marketing. "But whether we like it or not,
the food world is global and what happens in Brazil can have just as big an impact on U.S. consumers as
what happens in Nebraska." Although many U.S. consumers were alarmed to see news reports this summer of droughts leaving
shriveled crops dying in the fields, Stanton warns other factors will have a greater effect on Americans' wallets.
"Price increases from the droughts are likely to have short-term effects, but global issues can have a
longer and greater impact," Stanton explains, citing increasing demand from the rest of the world for crops like corn. "The biggest
cost in a box of corn flakes isn't the corn," Stanton says. "It's everything from the price of oil to transport the product
to the marketing and the packaging. So something like the cost of oil will have a much more lasting
effect on the price of your cereal than the supply of crops." Stanton predicts higher food prices are an inevitability,
whether the local food movement is here to stay or not. "U.S. farmers are doing everything they can to keep America's
food inexpensive," Stanton says. "But while I like to get my tomatoes from a local New Jersey farm stand or my mother's garden, most
of the prices of the food products that I buy are likely to be just as affected by storms in China, a
growing middle class in India, or drought in Argentina, as they are by a drought in the Midwest."
High food prices are resilient--Oil prices and climate change
Viveros 12 (Alejandra, Editor for The World Bank Group, “World Bank Warns Against Complacency
Amid High Food Prices and Hunger” November 29, 2012 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pressrelease/2012/11/29/world-bank-warns-against-complacency-amid-high-food-prices-hunger\\CLans)
Alt cause to prices Nonetheless, prices remain at high levels – 7 percent higher than a year ago. Grains, in particular,
are expensive. They are 12 percent above their levels 12 months before and very close to the all-time high
of 2008. Maize, for instance, is 17 percent higher than in October 2011 and 10 percent above the record-high prices of February 2011,
despite their decrease of 3 percent between August and October. “Although we haven’t seen a food crisis as the one of 2008, food security
should remain a priority,” said Canuto. “We
need additional efforts to strengthen nutrition programs, safety nets,
and sustainable agriculture, especially when the right actions can bring about exceptional benefits.” According to the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization and others, 870 million people live with chronic undernourishment, an unchanged
figure since 2007-09, and behind the necessary improvement to achieve the hunger Millennium Development Goal of halving the
number of hungry people by 2015. Furthermore, child malnutrition accounts for more than a third of the mortality burden of children under the
age of five, and malnutrition during pregnancy for more than 20 percent of maternal mortality. Therefore, programs to improve nutrition, for
instance, would multiply the benefits -- from improving cognitive development and learning; to contributing to the empowerment of women
and maternal health; reducing the negative interaction of malnutrition and infectious diseases; and increasing economic growth. According to
Food Price Watch, weather
will determine food prices in the near future, along with other factors, such as oil
prices and the extent of emerging export competition – all of which remain uncertain at this point.
No link: alt causes
No link—multiple alt causes to high food prices
--Increased demand from India and China
--Oil Prices
--Dollar decline
--biofuel production
Timmer 8
Peter, Professor of Development Studies, PhD, at Harvard University. Dean of the Graduate School of
International Relations and Pacific Studies at UC–San Diego. Key advisors for the World Development
Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. “Causes of High Food Prices” in ADB Economics
Working Paper Series. October. Pg online at
http://econ.tu.ac.th/archan/rangsun/ec%20460/EC%20460%20Readings/Global%20Issues/Food%20Cris
is/Food%20Price/Causes%20of%20High%20Food%20Prices.pdf//sd)
Three fundamental factors, all interrelated, combined to drive up food prices. First, rapid economic growth,
especially in the PRC and India, put pressure on a variety of natural resources such as oil, metals, timber, and
fertilizers. Demand simply increased faster than supply for these commodities. Second, a sustained decline in
the dollar since mid-decade added to the upward price pressure on dollar-denominated commodity prices
directly, and indirectly fueled a search for speculative hedges against the declining dollar. Increasingly from
2006, these hedges were found first in petroleum, then in other widely traded commodities, including wheat, corn, and vegetable oils. Third,
the combination of high fuel prices and legislative mandates to increase production of biofuels
established a price link between fuel prices and ethanol/biodiesel feed stocks—corn in the US and vegetable oils in
Europe. Because of intercommodity linkages in both supply and demand, food prices now have a floor established by their
potential conversion into biofuel. These linkages are not always tight or effective in the short run—rice and corn prices can be
disconnected for some time, as the discussion above indicated (and as the Granger causality results in Appendix 3 demonstrate quantitatively).
But the long-run forces for substitution in both production and consumption are very powerful.
If high fuel prices are here to
stay, high food prices are, too. To complicate matters, in the short to medium run, the specifics of individual commodity dynamics
can produce divergent price paths. Rice is the clearest example, as large Asian countries act for their own short-run political interests with little
or no regard to consequences for the international market or traditional trading partners. Without significant hope for binding international
agreements between rice exporters and importers, this source of unique instability seems likely to last a long time.
High oil prices an alt cause to high food prices
Tverberg 12 (Gail, Editor for OilPrice, “The World is Suffering from High-Priced Fuel Syndrome”,
October 1, 2012 http://oilprice.com/Energy/Gas-Prices/The-World-is-Suffering-from-High-Priced-FuelSyndrome.html\\CLans)
Governments and economists around the world have not figured out that what the world economy is suffering from, to varying
degrees, is “high-priced fuel syndrome“. High-priced fuel syndrome has a number of symptoms: • Slow
economic growth, or contraction • People in discretionary industries laid off from work • High unemployment rates • Debt
defaults (or huge government intervention to prevent debt defaults) • Governments in increasingly poor financial condition • Declining home
and business property values • Rising
food prices • Lower tolerance for immigrants • Huge difficulty in funding retirement
international tensions related to energy supply The
countries with the most problem with high-priced fuel syndrome are the industrialized countries that
are big importers of oil. This is the case because oil has been a particularly high-priced fuel in the past few years. Importing
high-priced oil adds challenges of its own, since funds used for imported oil flow out of the country.
programs, programs for disabled, and regular pension plans • Rising
Impact Turn: Econ
High food prices collapse the economy—stagnate consumer spending
Von Braun 8
(Joachim, PhD in agricultural economics, “FOOD AND FINANCIAL CRISES
Implications for Agriculture and the Poor” International Food Policy Research Institute, pg online at
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr20.pdf//sd)
Links between the Food and Financial Crises New and ongoing forces drove up the prices of food commodities,
causing a major food crisis in 2007–08. Income and population growth, rising energy prices, and subsidized biofuel
production have contributed to surging consumption of agricultural products. At the same time,
productivity and output growth have been impaired by natural resource constraints, underinvestment
in rural infrastructure and agricultural science, farmers’ limited access to agricultural inputs, and weather disruptions (for details, see
von Braun, Ahmed, et al. 2008). The financial crisis in the second half of 2008 stemmed from fundamentally
different causes— flawed regulatory regimes and subprime mortgage lending—but the two crises have fed on each
other. Fueled by capital diverted from the collapsing housing and financial market, speculation in agricultural futures, and
ad hoc market and trade policies, the level and volatility of commodity prices further increased. Although
the food and financial crises developed from different underlying causes, they are becoming intertwined in complex
ways through their implications for financial and economic stability, food security, and political
security (Figure 1).The food crisis has added to general inflation and macroeconomic imbalances to which
governments must respond with financial and monetary policies. At the same time, the financial crunch and
the accompanying economic slowdown have pushed food prices to lower levels by decreasing
demand for agricultural commodities for food, feed, and fuel. Further, as capital becomes scarcer and more expensive
and as consumer spending stagnates, the expansion of agricultural production to address the food crisis has been cut
short. Because the two crises are interconnected, a coordinated response is needed to alleviate the double blow to the poor.
High prices stop economic growth through instability and shocks
Timmer 8
Peter, Professor of Development Studies, PhD, at Harvard University. Dean of the Graduate School of
International Relations and Pacific Studies at UC–San Diego. Key advisors for the World Development
Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. “Causes of High Food Prices” in ADB Economics
Working Paper Series. October. Pg online at
http://econ.tu.ac.th/archan/rangsun/ec%20460/EC%20460%20Readings/Global%20Issues/Food%20Cris
is/Food%20Price/Causes%20of%20High%20Food%20Prices.pdf//sd)
But most policy makers, consumers, and producers have shorter memories than implied by Figure 2. Recent price
movements have been very sharp and disruptive, with an especially heavy impact on poor consumers and
low-income food-importing countries. Rapid increases in food prices are adding to inflationary pressures
in most of developing Asia, bringing into prospect monetary tightening and slower economic growth. After several
decades of stability in world grain markets, and even steady price declines, the world looks very different in mid-2008 (Figure 3). Scarcity is
back, hunger is growing, and rapid economic growth is threatened (ADB 2008b). These are difficult times.
Your authors conclude aff—high prices have a net-negative impact on growing
economies
Ivanic and Martin 8
(Maros, PhD in agricultural economics from Purdue. Will, PhD in Agriculture and Rural Development.
“Implications of higher global food prices for poverty in low-income countries” November pg online at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00347.x/full//sd)
The findings of the study suggest that the overall impact of higher food prices on poverty is generally
adverse. Although there are variations by commodity and by country, poor people generally appear to
be net consumers of food and as such tend to be hurt by higher food prices. This conclusion is much
more obvious for urban households where farming is much less important. Even though many rural
households gain from higher food prices, the overall impact on poverty remains negative. These
findings are reinforced by the results of the second simulation undertaken in this study, where we
calculated the impact of the observed increases in the global food prices between 2005 and 2007. Again,
we discovered that the average impact of this development was to increase poverty for a majority of
the countries covered in our sample, mainly due to the negative impact of higher wheat prices,
followed by the prices of rice, dairy, and maize. There was considerable variation among countries and
the types of households in both the impacts of a given commodity price change, and in the effect of
the particular constellation of price changes considered over the 2005–2007 period. While there were a
few cases where higher commodity prices lowered rural poverty, in most cases poverty—even rural
poverty—increased, and the sample average poverty impact was clearly adverse.
High food prices collapse the global economy—protectionism
Reuters 11
(“Record high food prices stoke fears for economy” 1/6 pg online at
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/06/us-food-idUSTRE7051JZ20110106//sd)
Record high food prices are moving to the top of policymaker agendas, driven by fears it could stoke
inflation, protectionism and unrest and dent consumer demand in key emerging economies. The United
Nations' food agency (FAO) said on Wednesday that food prices hit a record high last month, above 2008 levels when riots
broke out in countries as far afield as Egypt, Cameroon and Haiti. In Asia, official data and analyst estimates both pointed to
inflationary pressures. Chilli prices have increased fivefold in Thailand in the last year and Indonesia's president called for households to plant
food in their own gardens. President Susilo Yudhoyono Bambang told a cabinet meeting people should be "creative" in planting, with Trade
Minister Mari Pangestu leading the way in planting at home. "I have 200 chilli plants in flowerpots," Pangestu told a briefing on Thursday. "The
agriculture ministry is informing farmers how to take care of the plant and also encouraging consumers to plant chilli in their own yards."
Surging food prices have often provoked unrest in urban areas of poor countries, where food makes
up a high proportion of household purchases. Analysts say African and Caribbean economies dependent on food
exports could be particularly hard hit, helping stoke unrest and potentially pushing governments toward
imposing export bans and expropriating foreign-owned farmland. If Asian and other emerging consumers have to spend
more of their income on food, other purchases will fall -- and that could be bad news for a global
economy that has placed much of its hopes for recovery on consumption in developing economies. World Bank
President Robert Zoellick urged governments in a newspaper opinion column to avoid protectionist measures as food prices rose and called
upon the Group of 20 leading economies to take steps to make sure the poor get adequate food supplies. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has
asked the World Bank to conduct urgent research on the impact of food prices ahead of G20 meetings later this year, a source familiar with the
matter said. INDIAN INTEREST RATE PRESSURE Food price protests were seen a factor in the ousting of Indonesia's long-term autocrat Suharto
in 1998, and anger over a farmland purchased by South Korean firm Daewoo at a time of rising prices was in part blamed for a 2009 coup in
Madagascar. India's food price inflation rose to a one-year high of more than 18 percent in the year to the end of December, data on Thursday
showed. That, along with rising fuel prices, is the main reason analysts expect the central bank to raise rates this month. The Indian government
has used a range of measures for years to ensure stable food prices, but since last year has boosted the release of national stocks of grains and
has pledged to continue duty-free imports of crude vegetable oils. In
China, several cities have implemented direct controls
to limit food price increases and the central government has vowed to eliminate speculation in the country's commodities markets.
The cost of food rose 11.7 percent in the year to November, while non-food items were up just 1.9 percent. But, reflecting concerns that
inflation is creeping beyond food to the wider economy, consumer goods prices and housing costs showed clear jumps. Fu Bingtao, an
economist with the Agricultural Bank of China in Beijing, said in a report the price of grains, the country's most important food, would rise in
2011 by 10 percent, adding to an 11.7 percent rise in 2010. "Speculative
trading and hoarding of specific agricultural
products may continue," he said. The FAO said sugar and meat were at their highest since its records began in 1990. Prices were at
their highest since 2008 crisis levels for wheat, rice, corn and other cereals. Benchmark prices solely in Asia for rice suggested a different
picture. The region's staple food now stands at $535 per tone -- less than half its 2008 levels of more than $1,000 a tone that prompted several
governments at the time to impose curbs on exports to protect their domestic markets. ASIAN POLICY DILEMMA But most experts
expect
upwards price pressure to continue, particularly if countries slap on export bans and further squeeze
supply, and short-term investors again buy into agricultural commodities as they did in 2008. Last year, wheat futures prices rose
47 percent, buoyed by a series of weather events including drought in Russia and its Black Sea neighbors. U.S. corn rose more than 50
percent and U.S. soybeans jumped 34 percent. Alongside bad weather in Australia, Europe, North America and Argentina, rising Asian
demand is at the heart of the spike. China, for example, is expected to buy 60 percent of globally
traded soybeans in 2011/12, double its purchase of four years ago. Dry, hot weather has hit soy and corn crops in
Argentina, a leading exporter, fueling a rally in U.S. grains futures in recent weeks on supply fears. After an uneasy start, climate
conditions have improved in neighboring Brazil, the world's No. 2 soy provider. Higher interest rates do little to ease
pressure on food prices. Demand is inelastic because people have to eat, but current price pressures are
largely supply-led, so tighter monetary policy would not directly help. The danger, however, is that food inflation spreads to the wider
economy. "I think there's an urgent need to be more pre-emptive in tightening monetary policy to prevent some of these inflation pressures
from erupting," Neumann said. Some central banks had taken some action but more needed to be done. South Korea, like other Asian countries
that run trade and current account surpluses, could give more room to its currency to rise to offset rising import costs on food. But higher
interest rates or the likelihood of a rising currency would just encourage a flood of portfolio capital
from investors spurning sluggish growth in developed economies. And rising currency could hurt
exports, the major pillar of many economies.
High food prices increase political and social instability
Von Braun et al 8
(Joachim, PhD in agricultural economics, Shenggen Fan Director General of the International Food Policy
Research Institute, Ruth Meinzen-Dick Coordinator of the CGIAR program on Collective Action and
Property Rights, Mark W. Rosegrant Ph.D. in Public Policy Director of the Environment and Production
Technology Division at IFPRI, and Alejandro Nin Pratt Agricultural Economist (IFPRI), “International
Agrictultural Research for Food Security, Poverty Reduction, and the Environment” October, pg online at
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ib53.pdf//sd)
The recent food crisis, combined with the energy crisis and emerging climate change issues, threatens the
livelihoods of millions of poor people as well as the economic, ecological, and political situation in many
developing countries. On top of these crises, the decades of shrinking global investment in agricultural research are
leading to slower growth in agricultural productivity. Progress in achieving development goals—such as
cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015—has been delayed significantly. In fact, the number of hungry
people actually increased by at least 75 million from 2004 to 2007 and probably by even more in 2008. Investment
potential in developing-country agriculture is improving, but realizing this potential requires policy action.
High prices cause instability-- reduce purchasing power
Moneycontrol 11
(“Food inflation in developing nations a concern: OECD-FAO” pg online at
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/economy/food-inflationdeveloping-nationsconcern-oecdfao_558199.html//sd)
High food inflation is a concern for economic stability and food security in some developing countries
as the purchasing power of the poor is reduced, a joint OECD-FAO report said on Friday. However,
inflation is expected to remain subdued in most parts of the world in the next decade despite
increasing prices of commodities, it noted. "... Recent evidence indicates that consumer food price
inflation is currently rising in most countries, contributing to higher aggregate consumer price
inflation. This raises concerns for economic stability and food insecurity in some developing countries
as the purchasing power of poorer populations is reduced," the report by the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said.
Impact Turn: Russia
High prices guts russia’s economy—2010 drought proves
OneIndia 10
(“Putin bans grain exports to give Russian economy breathing space” pg online at
http://news.oneindia.in/2010/08/06/putinbans-grain-exports-to-give-russian-economybreat.html//sd)
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin has banned exports of grain after millions of acres of Russian wheat was left
withered by a severe drought, drove up prices around the world and pushing them to their highest
level in two years in the United States. The move is the latest of several abrupt interventions in the Russian
economy by Putin, who called the ban necessary to curb rising food prices in the country. Russia is suffering from
the worst heat wave since record keeping began here over 130 years ago. "We need to prevent a rise in domestic food prices, we need to preserve
the number of cattle and build up reserves for next year," the New York Times quoted Putin, as saying in a meeting broadcast on television. He added: "As the saying goes,
reserves don't make your pocket heavy." Putin has never hesitated to marshal the power of the state
to protect Russian economic interests, and this decision showed that this has remained his prerogative even after he stepped down as president. The
export ban is widely seen as one of a series of populist moves by Putin to address rising resentment
over the calamitous heat wave and the fires it has spawned. (ANI)
High prices causes protectionism—Russia grain export ban
Walsh 12
Dean, owner and editor of World News Curator, “Russia May Limit Grain Exports in Future Food Crisis”
http://worldnewscurator.com/2012/09/21/russia-may-limit-grain-exports/#1yIIdzkodVGh1oTR.99//sd)
Russian Economy Minister Andrei Belousov said on Friday that his country may adopt measures to
limit grain exports if domestic prices rise too high. Draughts in the US and Russia, draughts and wildfires in eastern Europe,
excessive rainfall in Britain and other unusual weather patterns this year have hit crop harvest around the world, reducing
harvests and sending the price of corn, wheat and other food staples soaring. This is already feeding through to
higher food prices in shops around the world, but there are fears that the situation could get much worse by next year,
growing into a full blown global food crisis as some of the poorest households across the world struggle to feed themselves and others find their
expendable income squeezed to nothing by rising food prices. Experts have warned that protectionist measures such as those
suggested by Russia today, in which country’s take steps to limit global trade to protect their own
domestic market, could drive global prices up even higher and exacerbate any potential crisis.
High prices bad for Russia—causes export bans and protectionism
GMR 12
(Global monitoring report, “Food Prices, Nutrition, and the Millennium Development Goals” Using Trade
Policy to Overcome Food Insecurity. pg online at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1327948020811/84016931327957211156/8402494-1334239337250/Chapter-4.pdf//sd)
In August 2010, in response to escalating grain prices, the Russian Federation imposed a temporary export ban
on wheat, barley, rye, maize, and wheat and rye flour until the end of December 2010. In October 2010, the
export ban on grain was extended until the end of June 2011; the ban on flour was allowed to expire. The export
bans were originally a response to a drought that caused a shortfall in the grain harvest and associated rapid grain
price increases in both domestic and international markets. According to official estimates, farmers harvested
almost 37 percent less grain than they did in 2009. The export ban was intended to insulate Russia
from highly volatile grain prices by reducing exports in 2010–11 to the 3 million tons already shipped at that time,
resulting in a drop of nearly 12 million tons of exports initially projected for the year. The export
restrictions had unintended and undesirable consequences such as undermining Russia’s long-term
policy of becoming an even more important player in the global grain market, encouraging hoarding in
expectation of the bans’ removal, distorting prices, and affecting the investment and production decisions of its farmers.
No revival for Russian ag—export bans means they’re a net food importer
Gosling and Barton 10
(Tim and John, contributors to Russia Beyond the Headlines, “The heat is on the Russian economy” pg
online at http://rbth.ru/articles/2010/08/30/the_heat_is_on_the_russian_economy04905.html//sd)
The heat is on the Russian economy In 2009 Russia was the world’s third largest exporter of grain but around a quarter of
the country’s farm land damaged by fires in the first half of August, according to some estimates, expectations for this year’s crop have
plummeted to about 60m tonnes, down from last year’s 97m tonnes. International grain prices have already risen around
25pc since after Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced a ban on grain exports in mid-August and Russia may even be forced to
import grain this year, which will force international food prices up further, although officials deny the possibility. In Britain,
commentators believe the prices of basic commodities such as beer and bread could be affected. Also, there is the feeling that
the ban on exports was unwise, because once Russia has left the league of top grain exporters (which includes the USA, China and the EU), it will be difficult for it to
get back. Moreover, as the fires have delayed the planting of Russia’s winter crop – which produces one and half times more than the
summer crop – production is expected to fall further, raising the possibility of a repeat of the food price
shock that hurt economies around the world in 2008. But its uncertain what the full effect of the drought on the country’s economy will be until
the harvesting is over. In the short term Russia faces a big bill to repair the damage. The state has promised to rebuild the houses that burned down. The
total repair bill is an estimated 12bn roubles ($400m), emergencies minister Sergei Shoigu said, although some say it will be closer to 33bn roubles. And the knock-on effects will only add to
Farmers, already reeling from a collapse in demand caused by the financial crisis
find themselves deeper in debt due to the heat wave
the price. Analysts estimate that the drought and fires could shave up to 1pc from GDP, a loss of $15bn.
that started in 2008, now
; analysts estimate that as much as 127bn roubles of agricultural
credits – 15pc of total banking sector credits – will need to be restructured, with the two state-owned banks, Sberbank and agricultural specialist Rosselkhozbank, bearing the brunt of the
nascent livestock farming is another
victim as feedstock costs soars. Russia only recently become self-sufficient in chicken meat, but pork and beef farming is still
being developed. The price of meat, eggs and milk are all likely to rise significantly. Food producers and retailers will need to balance higher
prices from suppliers with a government desperately trying to cap inflation. Russian shipping and transport
companies will also feel the heat. Following the government ban, the total volume shipped (mostly to the Middle East) is unlikely to top 4.5m tonnes in 2010
verses 21.5m tonnes last year. And the crisis has jarred a fragile economic recovery that was just getting underway. In July
blow. The state has already said it plans to offer 10.5bn roubles to subsidise interest rates to farmers in 2010/11. The
industrial production was up 5.9pc year-on-year and investments was back in positive territory, up 0.8pc, but both indicators were down by 10pc month-on-month. Olga Sterina at UralSib said:
“
Investments fell more than anticipated [and] the August data may also be weaker.”
Impact Turn: BioD
High food prices collapse biodiversity and cause warming—non-ag communities
exploit forests
FAO 11
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “The State of Food Insecurity in the World
How does international price volatility affect domestic economies and food security?” pg online at
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2330e/i2330e.pdf//sd)
Global forest area is around 4 billion hectares, and still represents about 30 percent of the total terrestrial surface of our
planet.1 It is well known that forests provide many key environmental services, such as water management,
conservation of biodiversity and serving as a carbon sink to mitigate global warming. In addition, forests
play an important role in the food security of one billion of the poorest people on the planet by providing food
or cash income through a wide range of products such as wild yams, bush meat, edible insects, fruits, leaves, mushrooms, nuts, honey and
medicinal products. Forests
also provide many non-food raw materials such as bamboo, rattan, palm fibres and resins that
people who depend on forests for
their food security are often very vulnerable to higher food prices because they purchase most of their
food on markets. Higher food prices for these “hunters and gatherers” mean that they have to collect more out of
the forests either for sale at local markets (in order to obtain sufficient cash to buy the more expensive food), or to exchange via
barter. Higher food prices can thus have a direct impact on forest quality, conservation and the survival
of key forest species (mainly fauna and medicinal plants). For these people, farming is not an option, as they do not own or
have access to farmland. In view of concerns about climate change and biodiversity losses, clearing more
forests is not an attractive alternative either. Thus, sustainable forest management is critical for their
food security. Forests will increasingly need to be managed not only for their timber production potential, but also to produce a larger
can be used for building shelter or sold at local markets, as well as fodder for livestock.2 The
and sustainable supply of edible nonwood forest products, as well as to enhance the many services forests and trees provide to the agriculture
sector.
AT: Politics
No CIR
No CIR – General
Won’t Pass – parties clashing
Kelly-Woessner 7/7 (April, associate professor and chairwoman of the political science department
at Elizabethtown College, correspondent for Lancaster Newspapers Inc. “Immigration reform: security,
then amnesty” Jul 07, 2013 http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/868108_Immigration-reform-security--then-amnesty.html)
The Senate recently passed legislation for comprehensive immigration reform. It seems unlikely that the House of
Representatives will adopt similar legislation or even consider the Senate bill. Although it will be easy to blame the
Republican-controlled House for the failure, citing obstructionism or racial prejudice, the truth is that a real compromise has
yet to be reached on the complex issues involved in immigration reform. In the Senate, legislation can be passed that is highly
favorable to Democrats, and a few moderate Republicans can be won over with personal appeals. But for legislation to pass both a Democraticcontrolled Senate and a Republican-controlled House, the concerns of both parties need to be considered. Compromise means that the
majority on both sides can live with the bargain, even if the extremes on both ends are dissatisfied. This is how we achieve moderate public
policy that reflects public sentiment. On the basic principles, Pew Research Center Surveys show widespread agreement among the American
people. The vast majority agree that we cannot realistically deport 11 million illegal immigrants. And nearly three-quarters of Americans believe
there should be a path to legal residency for current immigrants, although only 45 percent say they should be eligible for full citizenship. At the
same time, 77 percent of Americans believe amnesty legislation needs to include serious border security measures. The
parties vary on
which of these concerns is most important to them. Democrats are mostly focused on providing a
path to citizenship for those who are already in the country. There is an element of self-interest
involved, as this would enfranchise more Democratic voters. Republicans are more focused on the
enforcement of law and securing the border. While the Senate bill promises stricter enforcement,
many conservatives remain skeptical. Indeed, they've heard this before.
No CIR – Pathway to Citizenship
Won’t Pass – Pathway to citizenship blocks
Miller 7/6 ( Jake, columnist for CBS News“What will the House do on immigration reform?” July 6,
2013 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57592500/what-will-the-house-do-on-immigrationreform/)
House lawmakers may insist on a more stringent set of triggers and refuse to provide an interim legal
status - let alone a green card or a path to citizenship - to undocumented immigrants until the federal government fully secures the border.¶ During the Senate
To assuage concerns among conservatives,
debate, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, offered an amendment that would have instituted that additional threshold. It was broadly supported by conservatives but ultimately voted down by
Perhaps a more
vexing problem, many House Republicans object to the very idea of providing a path to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants. They argue that citizenship is too great a privilege to confer on people who
came here illegally, that it would encourage further illegal immigration, and that it would send the wrong
message to those immigrants who followed the rules.¶ "I object" to a pathway to citizenship, Goodlatte told
Bloomberg News, "because that pathway to citizenship is something that people who have gone through the
process legally do not have the opportunity to have, and people who come here illegally get that special pathway to citizenship."¶ Goodlatte
Democrats and a handful of Republicans. Whether the Senate would be willing to revisit that fight in conference with the House remains to be seen.¶
pitched a path to legality, not citizenship, that would give undocumented immigrants "many opportunities" while avoiding the impropriety of rewarding people who cut the line.¶ After border
security and employment enforcement measures are implemented, undocumented immigrants would "get only a legal status," Goodlatte said, "It would give them many, many opportunities,
but it wouldn't give them something that people who have historically immigrated to the country legally don't have, and I don't think they should have either."¶ Boehner has not tipped his
the
House and the Senate are likely headed for a collision course. Supporters of the Senate bill have
warned that immigration reform without a path to citizenship will not pass Congress . Many immigration reform
cards on the likelihood of a House bill including a path to citizenship, saying he does not want to prejudice or impede the legislative mechanics underway.¶ If Goodlatte has his way,
advocates, already leery of the border security measures in the Senate proposal, have warned against any further changes viewed as hostile to immigrants.
No CIR
Won’t pass – path to citizenship and political risks to house republicans
Steve Chapman 7/1/13, “Why immigration reform probably won’t pass”, Chicago Tribune,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-republicans-and-immigration-reform20130701,0,2224811.column
It's also because many conservative officeholders will continue to resist letting them become citizens,
while constantly faulting border enforcement efforts. Liberals, by the way, may also push to loosen
the terms for the path to citizenship. No one is going to move on very soon. No one is going to forget
how anyone voted.¶ If you're a Republican House member from a solidly Republican district, voting for
immigration reform is an invitation for constituents to show up at meetings in your district,
vehemently complaining. It's also an invitation for an opponent to run against you in 2014 or even
2016, blaming you for a process that will still be unfolding and still be controversial.¶ There are good
policy reasons to vote for reform -- but in the end, the political risks to House Republicans are likely to
sink it.
No pass – vote counts and tight reelection races
Jim Avila et al, 7/9/13, “Path to 218: Why one political scientist is skeptical the House will get the
votes to pass immigration reform”, Power Players (ABC News), http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/powerplayers-abc-news/path-218-why-one-political-scientist-skeptical-house-112127290.html#more-id
What are the chances that the House of Representatives will pass comprehensive immigration
reform?¶ Political scientist Tom Wong has been taking a scientific approach to answering that very
question, tallying votes and crunching numbers to forecast the potential outcomes, and tells Power
Players he’s “skeptical” the House will follow the Senate’s lead and pass a comprehensive bill.¶ Based
on his own vote tally, Wong says there are 203 solid ‘yes’ votes in the House and an additional 11 votes
that are likely but not guaranteed.¶ “If we take that 203 number, add 11 more we're at 214, and we
need 218 for a majority, so this ends up being a game of inches,” says the assistant professor at the
University of California, San Diego. “It could go either way in the House.”¶ The 11 votes that Wong has
designated as maybe votes are for representatives who are facing tight reelection races in 2014. ¶
Wong says more than 60 percent of congressional districts are not racially diverse, with white
populations making up more than 80 percent of those districts.¶ “If we just make these broad
assumptions that immigration reform is going to benefit communities of color and we have a lot of
representatives who don't have large communities of color in their district, then a ‘no’ vote may
actually reflect the preferences of one's constituency,” Wong says.¶ Wong has a track record of success
in his approach to vote counting, which takes into account complex profiles for each member of
Congress. As far back as March, his models predicted that the Senate would get 67 ‘yes’ votes — and
the final tally of the Senate’s vote came out to 68.¶ Wong says “there’s a lot of pessimism right now”
that the Republican-run House may decide not to consider the Senate’s bill at all and instead choose to
address immigration reform in smaller pieces.¶ NBC Political
No pass – calendar year and lack of conservative backer
Joe Saunders, 7/8/13, “‘Meet the Press’ panel: Immigration reform dead in House”, Bizpac,
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/08/meet-the-press-panel-immigration-reform-dead-in-house79332
Director Chuck Todd said the combination of the calendar and conservative convictions doesn’t bode
well for the huge package passed by the Senate in June. House Republicans are scheduled to meet
Wednesday to discuss the bill, and former President George W. Bush is scheduled to speak in support of
it the same day at an immigration ceremony in Dallas.¶ However, with no conservative champion in the
House to act as a counterpart to the role U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., played in the Senate, the bill’s
chances are poor, said correspondent Andrea Mitchell.¶ “The White House, they had been so confident
they were going to sign immigration reform this year, for the first time I’m hearing that there is some
doubt seeping in, that they think maybe the House won’t act. What they need is, they need something
to sort of force (House Speaker John) Boehner like at the last minute bring it to the floor the same way
the fiscal cliff deal happened. The problem is there is no trigger at the end of the year, there isn’t the
end of this Congress there isn’t this. So I don’t know how this happens at the end of this year and
suddenly now the White House doesn’t see a path,” Todd said..¶ “Immigration was going to be the one
thing they could have pointed to,” Mitchell said. “And I think that conversation with John Boehner and
the president, the president doesn’t have a whole well of trust in Boehner saying, you know, hang with
me, I can get this done by the end of the summer. … They don’t have a Marco Rubio on the House side
who can try to work around this and bring it together.”¶ “It was supposed to be Paul Ryan …” Todd
said.¶ “He’s gone silent,” Mitchell said.
No pass – Boehner and path to citizenship
Jake Miller, 7/6/13, What will the House do on immigration reform?, CBS News,
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57592500/what-will-the-house-do-on-immigration-reform/
If lawmakers can't bridge the divide over a path to citizenship, someone has to give, or the process
falls apart.¶ In the end, the most consequential outstanding question is how far Boehner will go in
accommodating the concerns of his base as the House crafts its immigration bill. If he reaches a point at
which he believes the House has moved too far away from the Senate's proposal, he will face a choice:
He could risk torpedoing the reform process entirely by passing a conservative bill on a party-line vote
that would likely die in conference with the Senate. Or he could move a comprehensive bill to the
floor of the House for a vote, even without the support of a majority of Republicans, potentially inviting
a conservative insurrection.¶ Several House Republicans have already threatened to depose Boehner if
he schedules a vote on an immigration bill without the approval of a majority of his conference. And
thus far, Boehner has given no indication that he plans to move a bill without his troops behind him. "I
don't see any way of bringing an immigration reform bill to the floor that doesn't have the majority
support of Republicans," he told reporters in June.
No pass – border security and citizenship poison pill
Brian Beutler, 7/9/13, Boehner And The Right Team Up To Quash Immigration Reform, TPM,
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/boehner-and-the-right-team-up-to-quash-immigrationreform.php
The already narrow path to enacting comprehensive immigration reform pretty much disappeared in
the past 24 hours.¶ At the Capitol, House Speaker John Boehner stated a specific policy preference
Tuesday that will alienate the entire Democratic Party if he adheres to it, and thus doom the reform
effort. And elsewhere in the Beltway, influential conservatives have grown more confident and explicit
about abandoning the immigration issue, for at least a couple of years.¶ Taken together, it means that
enacting new immigration legislation will either require Democrats to cave on a key demand, or
require Boehner to abandon his preference and break his word to his conference that he won’t move
ahead without a majority of his members in support.¶ “It’s clear from everything that I’ve seen and read
over the last couple of weeks that the American people expect that we’ll have strong border security
in place before we begin the process of legalizing and fixing our legal immigration system,” Boehner
said outside the Capitol Monday afternoon. His spokesman Michael Steel explains that the statement is
consistent with Boehner’s “long-standing emphasis on border security.”¶ But it amounts to a de facto
endorsement of the conservative view that any steps to legalize existing immigrants should be
contingent upon implementation of draconian border policies. As is Boehner’s custom, it also eschews
the word “citizenship,” suggesting that even if Democrats agree to a trigger, he won’t guarantee that it
would be aimed at a full amnesty program, and, thus, eventual voting rights for immigrants already in
the U.S.¶ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called this policy formulation a “poison pill.”¶ But if
conservatives get their way, we’ll never even reach the point at which Boehner or Democrats will face
pressure to cave.
No pass – Boehner
Chris Weigant, 7/8/13, Political writer and blogger, “Boehner’s immigration dilemma”, Huffington
Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/boehners-immigration-dile_b_3563763.html
Boehner will feel the heat no matter what he does, from one wing or another of his own party. If he
fails to pass a bill that the Senate can also support, then he faces the prospect of an awfully chilly
reception from Republican donors who want to see immigration reform happen -- some of them with
quite deep pockets. If they desert the House Republicans, it's going to have an effect on both 2014 and
2016 fundraising efforts. A core Republican constituency -- Big Business -- wants this to happen,
remember.¶ But if Boehner does pass a reasonable bill, then his own speakership may hang in the
balance. John Boehner could face a challenge from within his own party for the speaker's gavel,
although whether such a coup attempt could succeed is questionable (the Tea Party is loud, but they're
not all that numerous, even in the House). But he would be excoriated for passing an immigration bill
largely with Democratic votes, and every Republican who voted for it could expect a Tea Party
challenger in the next primary. The rage would be red hot, to put it mildly. Boehner has already passed
several pieces of legislation in this fashion (in Republican-speak, "breaking the Hastert Rule"), including
a tax hike on upper-income earners at the beginning of this year. Passing immigration reform without
"a majority of the majority" would likely be seen as the last straw. Democrats who think it'd be amusing
to watch Boehner get ousted from the speakership by hotheads in his own party should sober up quick
with the thought of who would replace him? Speaker Ryan? Speaker Cantor? If you think the House is
obstructionist now, just contemplate for one moment what it would be like with someone to the right of
Boehner in control.
No pass – no vote means no bill
Ginger Gibson, 7/8/13, John Boehner: No House vote on Senate immigration bill, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/john-boehner-house-immigration-vote-93845.html
House Speaker John Boehner is sticking to his position: The House will not vote on the Senate-passed
immigration bill.¶ “I’ve made it clear and I’ll make it clear again, the House does not intend to take up
the Senate bill,” Boehner said Monday. “The House is going to do its own job in developing an
immigration bill.”¶ On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pushed at Boehner’s insistence that
he will obey by the “Hastert rule,” which requires a majority of the Republican caucus support any
legislation before it moves to the floor.¶ “Eventually he’ll be forced to take the bill that we passed here,
or the country will be left with no immigration reform at all. Which is a bad, bad outcome,” Reid said
on the Senate floor.
CIR won’t pass- vote counts
Avila et al 7-9-13
Avila is a member of the ABC news Power Players team, internally referencing Tom Wong, political
scientist at UC, San Diego
“Path to 218: Why one political scientist is skeptical the House will get the votes to pass immigration
reform” By Jim Avila, Richard Coolidge, and Jordyn Phelps http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-playersabc-news/path-218-why-one-political-scientist-skeptical-house-112127290.html
What are the chances that the House of Representatives will pass comprehensive immigration reform?
Political scientist Tom Wong has been taking a scientific approach to answering that very question,
tallying votes and crunching numbers to forecast the potential outcomes, and tells Power Players he’s
“skeptical” the House will follow the Senate’s lead and pass a comprehensive bill. Based on his own
vote tally, Wong says there are 203 solid ‘yes’ votes in the House and an additional 11 votes that are
likely but not guaranteed. “If we take that 203 number, add 11 more we're at 214, and we need 218 for
a majority, so this ends up being a game of inches,” says the assistant professor at the University of
California, San Diego. “It could go either way in the House.” The 11 votes that Wong has designated as
maybe votes are for representatives who are facing tight reelection races in 2014. Wong says more
than 60 percent of congressional districts are not racially diverse, with white populations making up
more than 80 percent of those districts. “If we just make these broad assumptions that immigration
reform is going to benefit communities of color and we have a lot of representatives who don't have
large communities of color in their district, then a ‘no’ vote may actually reflect the preferences of one's
constituency,” Wong says. Wong has a track record of success in his approach to vote counting, which
takes into account complex profiles for each member of Congress. As far back as March, his models
predicted that the Senate would get 67 ‘yes’ votes — and the final tally of the Senate’s vote came out to
68.
House is in no rush to pass the bill-No public outcry and Boehner’s not pushing
Matthews 7/3, Laura Matthews received her Masters in journalism from Columbia University and is a U.S. Politics reporter for the
International Business Times, (Laura, July 3, 2013, “Here's Why House Republicans Are In No Rush On A 2013 Immigration Reform Bill”
http://www.ibtimes.com/heres-why-house-republicans-are-no-rush-2013-immigration-reform-bill-1333259)nasokan
There’s no sense of urgency by House Republicans to quickly pass a comprehensive immigration
reform bill, because there’s no public outcry as yet -- and business and religious groups are just as
divided as lawmakers.¶ “The faith community is divided on this issue as well,” Rep. James Lankfor, R-Okla., told the Hill. He added that
business groups are divided over the flow of future immigrants and a guest worker program.¶ The Senate passed its comprehensive
immigration reform bill last week, with a solid 68-32 vote. It was the result of bipartisan negotiations with the pro-business Chamber of
Commerce and the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the U.S., working to find common ground on issues such as admitting
foreign workers.¶ Now
all eyes are looking at the House, where immigration reform advocates are hoping
members will follow suit with a plan that also provides a path to citizenship for the 11 million
undocumented immigrants currently in the country.¶ “Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team
face a decision that will have ramifications for a generation: Block a roadmap to citizenship vote,
obstruct the will of overwhelming majorities of working people and face a generation of electoral
decline -- or support citizenship and embrace America’s diverse future,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said last week.¶ But
Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, is refusing to bring the Senate’s version of an immigration reform
bill to the House floor for a vote. He is also in no hurry. the Republican conference will hold a special meeting on
Wednesday. A bipartisan group in the House has been working on a comprehensive bill but is yet to produce it. So far, the House has
begun working on single-issue bills that deal with border security, interior enforcement and guest
worker programs.¶ “If immigration reform is going to work, it’s essential that the American people have the confidence that it’s being
done correctly,” Boehner said last week. “That’s how the House will approach this issue.”¶ Despite the tough talk, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and
a member of the House Gang of Seven, whose bipartisan work for immigration reform mirrors the Senate's Gang of Eight, believes Boehner will
compromise. He told MSNBC earlier this week that a majority of the House is ready to vote on reform, especially dozens in the Republican
caucus.¶ “Boehner
is not the kind of -- how would I say it -- ideological guys,” Gutierrez said. “He’s not a
very ideological person when it comes to pushing. He wants to reach a consensus, I believe that about
him, and he’s in a quandary right now with a majority of his party that doesn’t want him to allow a
vote for comprehensive immigration reform.”
Thumpers
Obamacare Thumper
Obamacare changes kill CIR – raises doubt in the house
Dan Weil, 7/8/13, John Fund: Obamacare Delay Jeopardizes Immigration Reform, NewsMax,
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Fund-Obamacare-immigration-delay/2013/07/08/id/513818
The White House decision to postpone the employer mandate in Obamacare will make it more
difficult for Congress to pass immigration reform, insists National Review Online columnist John Fund.¶
"The Obama administration's instinctive dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law are finally
catching up with it," he writes. "Few Republicans in the House — even those who devoutly want
immigration reform — trust the Obama administration to enforce with consistency and integrity
anything that passes Congress."¶ Part of that stems from the White House's action on Obamacare. The
act requires any company with more than 50 full-time employees to offer health insurance as of 2014 or
face a fine. Last week the administration pushed back the start date of that provision to 2015.¶ "White
House aides fretted that enforcing the mandate's timetable would hurt job creation in the run-up to the
2014 midterm elections and put Democratic control of the Senate in jeopardy," Fund says.¶ "The White
House could have handled the problem as the Constitution envisioned and opened up negotiations
with Congress to change the law. But it quickly concluded that the Republican House would demand
too much in exchange for any adjustment to the law."¶ Fund notes that "the greatest damage from
delaying the employer mandate may come in the way it solidifies House Republican doubts about the
immigration bill," a view that was confirmed by Tennessee Rep. Phil Roe.¶ "They have shown no
respect for traditional Constitutional separation of powers, and that makes it difficult to pass laws
where the fear is that they will simply ignore the parts they don’t like," Roe told Fund.
Obamacare changes thump CIR
Brian Beutler, 7/8/13, “Right Realizes It Can’t Kill Immigration Reform Without An Excuse”, TPM,
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/conservatives-immigration-reform-excuse.php
While Republicans settle on a least-bad immigration strategy, it’s dawned on reform opponents and
their conservative allies that if the effort dies in the House, they’ll need to bring a plausible excuse to
the public — that is, if they hope to sidestep at least some of the blame for the debacle.¶ And they think
they’ve found one.¶ Specifically, they hope to draw a connection between the White House’s recent
health care reform implementation decisions and border security measures in the Senate’s
immigration bill to claim their opposition to comprehensive reform stems not from substantive
objections but from a sense that the Obama administration will ignore parts of an immigration law it
doesn’t like.¶ “If you look at this Obamacare debacle that they have right now, this administration is
actually deciding when and where to actually enforce the law. And that’s what some of us in the
House are concerned about,” Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), who until recently was a leading immigration
reform negotiator in the House, said Sunday on Meet the Press. “If you give to this administration the
authority to decide when they’re going to enforce the law, how they’re going to enforce the law … I can
tell you that Janet Napolitano has already said that the border is secure. So what’s going to happen is
that we’re going to give legalization to 11 million people, and Janet Napolitano’s going to come to
Congress and tell us that the border’s already secure, and nothing else needs to happen.”
Aff Link Turns
Plan Popular – Farm Lobby
Farm lobbies are pushing for comprehensive reform which would ensure a guest
worker program
Chebium, 6/7 (Raju, Desert Sun Washington Bureau, Jun. 17, 2013, “Growers lobby for immigration
bill: Proposed measure being debated in the Senate could prove tough sell in the House,” My Desert,
http://www.mydesert.com/article/20130616/
NEWS10/306160009/Growers-lobby-immigration-bill)
WASHINGTON — Farm groups in California, the nation’s top agricultural producer, are lobbying for the Senate’s
immigration bill, which proposes bringing in thousands of new migrant workers and allowing undocumented employees already in the
U.S. to become legal, permanent residents in about 10 years. But their push could hit a wall in the House, where
conservative Republicans oppose what they call “amnesty” to 11 million undocumented immigrants in
the U.S., even though critics acknowledge California farmers have a labor-supply problem. The California farm lobby says the
measure being debated in the Senate would ease chronic labor shortages that plague fruit and
vegetable growers in the Coachella, Central and Salinas valley, where the bulk of the nation’s “specialty” crops are grown. The bill
would scrap the unpopular H2A migrant worker visa and create a new guest worker program — the “W”
visa — under which at least 336,000 migrant workers could come to the U.S. for the first five years after implementation. It would also
allow hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers to apply for “blue” cards first and then for
“green,” or permanent residency, cards. The full legalization process would take about 10 years for migrant workers, more
quickly than others. And the measure calls for a special employer-verification system for agricultural employers separate from the “E-Verify”
system other industries would have to use. Congress must put
migrant farmers on the road to legalization because
if they leave the state’s agriculture industry would collapse, according to the California Farm Bureau, Nisei Farmers
League and others who helped craft the agricultural provisions and are part of a 70-member coalition lobbying for its passage. Paul Wenger,
president of the California Farm Bureau, urged the House to accept the “workable” solutions in the Senate bill. “We
have to have a
reliable supply of labor. What we need is regulatory certainty,” he said. “We have a unique opportunity this year —
and this year alone — to solve an ongoing problem.” If Congress eliminates the labor provisions now it may ignore
the issue for years, he warned. California growers have been waiting since the 1986 immigration law for Congress to create a stable
supply of migrant workers to fill the gaps created by the scarcity of domestic applicants for farm jobs, advocates say. Manuel Cunha, president
of Nisei Farmers League, urged the House to embrace the Senate’s agriculture-specific provisions instead of trying to come up with a lesssuitable alternative. “We’re
not rubbing the Senate (bill) in their face, but we’re saying, ‘Look at it. We
worked for four solid months with four senators and the labor side and we came up with something,’”
Cunha said in a recent interview in Fresno. “Take away your politics and look at the issue and look at the merits of
what we’re doing here.” California Republicans from heavily agricultural districts like Rep. Devin Nunes of Tulare don’t reject the
Senate’s agriculture provisions outright, but say they won’t work as promised. It’s “laughable” to think the measure would help California
growers, he said. For one, it would sharply ratchet up labor costs, said Nunes, adding that he’s working on a somewhat similar set of proposals
for possible inclusion in a House immigration bill. “There’s been a concerted effort by some to say, ‘Just take the Senate bill.’ I’ve been telling
people ad nauseam that is a fatal strategy. That will kill immigration reform,” Nunes said. The Senate agriculture provisions were written by
Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida and Orrin Hatch of
Utah. Bennet and Rubio are members of the “Gang of Eight,” a bipartisan group of senators that crafted the overall bill. A similar bipartisan
effort to write a comprehensive bill is sputtering in the House, the victim of partisan bickering. House GOP leaders hope to pass a number of
narrower bills and reach a compromise with the Senate later. Advocates reject a farm worker bill introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.,
saying it would require workers to go home periodically, heightening the possibility of a sporadic supply of workers. The Senate’s proposed W
visa program would require growers to pay transportation costs for the workers, provide them with housing or housing allowances, and pay
them wages ranging from at least $9.17 an hour for nursery and greenhouse workers to $11.87 for farm equipment operators. The wage
provisions are expected to spark fierce opposition in the House. California’s minimum wage is $8 an hour, but some farmers pay more than that
already. For instance, Central Valley farmers typically pay their workers at least a dollar more, Cunha said, rejecting suggestions that mandating
a higher wage would ruin local growers. Migrant workers in southern California’s Coachella Valley could make up to $15-$20 an hour, according
to Saul Manriquez of Rancho Harvest, a labor contracting firm that works with growers in the Coachella and Salinas valleys. Undocumented
workers seek a living wage and also want to pay taxes and become part of U.S. society, he said, adding that they don’t want to be separated
from their families or to live in constant fear of deportation. “They’d rather be part of the system than not be here at all,” Manriquez said, as his
workers harvested watermelons in a southern California field. “They want to do better for themselves and also for their families. They want to
raise families here because ... the educational system is much better.”
Growers say they are forced to depend on seasonal
migrant workers — many of whom are undocumented — because Americans shun the hard labor involved. For
instance, Cunha said San Joaquin Valley growers needed about 80,000 workers in the late 1990s, but were able to attract just three citizens or
legal residents through California’s welfare-to-work program. Margit Chiriaco Rusche, southern district director of California Women for
Agriculture, said if migrant workers are willing to work, it’s only fair for Congress to make them part of mainstream U.S. society. “There
are
so many farmers that have tried to employ ... Americans and they last maybe an hour. They can’t do
this work. This is a cultural thing,” she said in an interview in Coachella. “It’s not fair to these people for us to
glean from them what we need and not allow them the human dignity” of becoming legal residents.
Ellen Way, part owner of California’s top bell-pepper producer Prime Time International, urged Congress to
stress practicality over ideology. Having food grown in the U.S. to American standards is important for national security but “to do
that we have to have a workforce,” she said. “As a voter, I’m looking for Congress to grow up and to be responsible
and to work together. I think Americans are sick of this bickering,” Way said. Even critics of the Senate’s immigration bill, like Rosemary
Jenks of Numbers USA, acknowledge that American farmers have a labor problem and are justified in wanting an effective migrant-worker
program. But the Senate’s proposed W visa is temporary in name only because workers could eventually apply for green cards, she said. And
once they become permanent residents, they leave farm work for less-strenuous and better-paying work, she said. Under an ideal guest worker
program, Congress would let people come in for specified periods of time and require them to return home, Jenks said. “The Senate bill doesn’t
do that. The Senate bill says, ‘Bring your families, we’ll educate your kids,’” she said in a telephone interview Friday. “Who’s going to be paying
for their kids’ education? American taxpayers. Who’s going to be paying for their health care? ... American taxpayers.”
Farm Lobbies want a functioning guest worker program
Florido, 1/28 (Adrian, a reporter for the Fronteras Desk where he covers the U.S.-Mexico border,
immigrant and tribal communities, demographics, and culture, January 28th, 2013, “Farmers And
Advocates Want Guest Worker Reform,” Fronteras, http://www.fronterasdesk.org/content/farmersand-advocates-want-guest-worker-reform)
SAN DIEGO -- As talk of immigration reform heats up, overhauling the nation’s guest worker program as part of an
immigration reform package has become a top priority for the nation’s farm lobby. They say making it
easier to bring in foreign labor is more important than ever as domestic farm labor has become scarce
in recent years. Noel Stehly said his organic farm is an example. It’s at the end of a winding country road an hour north of San
Diego. It’s 200 acres, but his crops, mostly orange and avocado groves, stretch out in rows across just 110 of those acres. “I’ve had to cut
back on what I plant in my fields. I’ve decided not to harvest some things because I couldn’t get the labor to do it,” he said. It’s
been a common complaint among farmers for the last three to four years: The economy and tougher
immigration enforcement have sapped the local workforce dry. In theory, this shouldn’t be a problem. A federal
guest worker program called H-2A allows Stehly, or any farmer in the nation, to bring in as many
temporary foreign workers –- say, from Mexico –- as they need. But Stehly hasn’t even considered it. Instead, he relies on a
core team of longtime employees to recruit friends and family for seasonal labor when it’s harvest time. He said the H-2A program is
cumbersome and expensive. “Sure the H-2A program says go ahead and bring farm workers in, but the
H-2A program doesn’t
work,” said Eric Larson, director of the San Diego County Farm Bureau, which represents San Diego farmers. To participate in H-2A, farmers
have to prove to the Labor Department that they tried to hire U.S. workers but couldn’t. They have to transport guest workers from their home
country, provide housing and three meals a day. They also have to show their guest workers won’t depress local wages, among other
requirements. All this means lots of money, paperwork and often, attorneys. “Consequently nobody uses it,” Larson said. “I think we have one
farmer in San Diego County that uses the H-2A for about eight workers, where in reality we have 10,000-12,000 farm workers in San Diego
County.” Nationally, farmers recruit about 55,000 H-2A workers each year, mostly in Florida and the Midwest. But
farmers want to
make bringing in guest workers easier . What Larson wants is simple: a card that would let Mexican farm
workers cross the border when needed, and return home when farmers’ seasonal needs end. But that
proposal is meeting resistance, largely from groups concerned that a liberalized guest worker program could hurt workers. They point to stories
like a farmer in Oceanside, north of San Diego, who wouldn’t give his name so as not to jeopardize his chances of getting hired to pick tomatoes
next summer. He’s picked fruit in San Diego since he arrived illegally in the 70s. He became a citizen when Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty,
and for years he’s picked on a large tomato farm that has used temporary H-2A workers. He said working alongside guest workers has increased
pressure to pick fruit quickly. The contracted guest workers are young and expected to work fast, for long hours, and he said that puts pressure
on older, local workers like him. “The bosses tell us, ‘move it, move it!’” he said. “We have to keep up with the contract workers.” But he said
it’s impossible for older workers like him to keep up, and he worries that because of that, his working days on that farm may be numbered.
Cynthia Rice is an attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance, which provides legal aid to farm workers. She said that worker’s story highlights
the threat H-2A poses to both guest workers and U.S. farm workers. “The
H-2A program still creates a second class of
workers,” Rice said. Under H-2A, guest workers are bound to the employer that recruited them, and aren’t allowed to seek work elsewhere
if they’re mistreated, overworked or underpaid. They’re legally protected against abuse, but in practice, Rice said, most workers have little
recourse in such cases except to endure or go home. “The H-2A worker can’t really vote with his feet,” she said. She said
that captive work force makes it easy for an employer to impose grueling production demands on guest workers, who have no choice but to
meet them. That’s also bad for older, slower workers like the one from Oceanside, who fear being replaced for not keeping up. Concerns
of
abuse and displacement of local workers are driving some advocacy groups across the country to
oppose any kind of guest-worker program. They say that contrary to farmers’ claims, labor is available, and their focus is on
legalizing the millions of undocumented people already in the U.S. so they can fill these jobs, and possibly demand higher wages. But
industry and farmers say they have to remain competitive, and say their ability to bring in efficient
guest workers is key to that.
A reformed and expanded guest worker program is widely expected, which is why some advocates
are pushing for more worker protections. Noel Stehly, the citrus and avocado farmer, says what’s clear to him is that he needs the work, and
the proof’s in his farm operating below capacity. “How come that’s so tough? Because our
one recent afternoon. Now, for the first time in a long time, it
politics doesn’t want to do it,” he said
looks like politicians are serious about tackling the issue.
Farmers plead for immigration reform- crops are being left to rot in the fields
Associated Press, 13 (July 8th, 2013, “Farmers worry about fate of immigration bills,”
http://www.onenewsnow.com/ap/business/farmers-worry-about-fate-of-immigrationbills#.UdxwRD7wKNw)
Across the state's orchard belt, cherry trees already sag under the weight of bright-red clusters, yet many trailers and wood-frame cottages that
should be bustling with migrant families stand empty. McGuire is waiting to hear whether crews will show up to pick his crop in mid-July.
"We're running out of time," he said, pulling aside leafy branches to inspect his ripening fruit on gently sloping hillsides a mile inland from Lake
Michigan. From Christmas tree growers in the Appalachians to Wisconsin dairy farmers and producers of California's diverse abundance of
agricultural leaders are pleading with Congress for an immigration bill that includes
more lenient and less complex rules for hiring farm workers. A measure that recently cleared the Democratic-led
fruits and vegetables,
Senate contained provisions that the farm lobby said were promising. The Republican-controlled House is expected to take up the issue shortly.
But with agriculture's once-mighty political influence in decline as its workforce has fallen to 2 percent of the population, it's uncertain how the
industry will fare. Farmers'
complaints about a shrinking labor pool are being overshadowed by the
ideologically charged issues of border security and giving legal status to people in the country illegally.
McGuire, 42, a self-described conservative who usually votes Republican, was among representatives of the American Farm Bureau Federation
who made their case on Capitol Hill last week. His Michigan group went to the offices of eight lawmakers and to the Senate floor, buttonholing
members or their staffers. "Each office had their party speech," McGuire said, recalling one member's argument about border security. But the
border must already be pretty secure, McGuire said, "because we don't have the labor in this country that we used to have." Michigan farmers
hire about 45,000 seasonal workers in the typical year, many of them immigrants. Some of the asparagus
crop was left in the field
this spring because too few pickers were available. In neighboring Wisconsin, immigrant workers make up more than 40
percent of the hired labor force at increasingly large dairy operations, according to a 2008 University of Wisconsin study. Kevin Krentz, who
milks 500 cows near Berlin, said finding enough help locally is a constant struggle. "It's not a job that's 9-to-5," Krentz said. "It's a job that's done
when the cows are fed, when the cows are milked, when the crops are harvested." The situation poses a test for the House GOP, said Tom
Nassif, president of Western Growers, a trade organization that represents the fresh produce industry in California and Arizona. A Republican
who held several positions in the Reagan administration, Nassif said some in the party are so concerned about illegal immigration that they're
trying to sabotage any chance for reform. But if the House doesn't find something it can pass, he said, voters
"are going to lose
complete faith in the party's ability to legislate. All the national statistics show the American people
believe in immigration reform." The industry insists its chronic labor shortage isn't a matter of low pay, but too few Americans
willing to deal with the long hours, hot weather and other hardships of farm labor. "The truth is, not even farm workers are raising their
children to be farm workers," Nassif said. The Senate bill
would enable experienced farm workers to obtain "blue
cards" making them eligible for year-round residency. Applicants who entered the U.S. illegally would have to pay a fine,
catch up on taxes and pass a background check. Another new program would allow farmers to hire foreign "guest workers" who would be
issued three-year visas. But such policies might be a hard sell with House conservatives who deride the idea as "amnesty." Rep. Justin Amash,
whose western Michigan district includes the city of Grand Rapids and outlying farm country, is typical of Republicans feeling pressure from
both sides. Home-state farmers visited his Washington, D.C., office twice last week. Mark Youngquist, an apple grower from Amash's district,
later gave one of his aides an orchard tour. During a town-hall meeting the same day, the second-term Republican described the farm labor
shortage as "a problem we should deal with" and called for compromise on immigration. But Amash's comment that deportation wasn't a
realistic way to deal with all 11 million people believed to be in the country illegally drew angry shouts. "They're criminals," one man protested.
Youngquist, 53, another staunch Republican, said he wished his fellow conservatives were more sympathetic toward immigrants who fill jobs
that no one else will take. The
more intense border enforcement appears to be taking its toll, he said. His migrant
sitting on a beautiful crop
of apples. Unless things change, none of it is going to get picked." labor housing that is usually half-full for the approaching apple harvest is now "at zero," he said. "We're
Farmers support the aff – specific to uncapped
Abbott 5-16-13
Political Journalist for Reuters
“U.S. grower group asks for no limit on foreign field workers” May 16, 2013|Reuters By Charles
Abbotthttp://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-16/news/sns-rt-usaimmigrationfarmworkersl2n0dx2g6-20130516_1_bob-goodlatte-workers-u-s-house
"Farmers need the program to be uncapped," said Lee Wicker, deputy director of the North Carolina
Growers Association, the largest H-2A user group in the country. Its members expect to employ 7,500
guest workers during the growing season as well as thousands of Americans. At a Judiciary
subcommittee hearing, Wicker said farmers can face bankruptcy if they cannot get enough workers into
the field when crops are ready to pick. Also, consumers pay higher produce prices if crops rot in the
field. Goodlatte's bill would create a H-2C visa, good for up to three years and renewable for 18 months
at a time, for farm, seafood and food processing employees. It would be the first time processors could
hire guest workers for year-round jobs. A coalition of growers and the United Farm Workers union
backs the Senate approach, which includes a path to citizenship for farm workers in the country
illegally as well as a new guest worker program. It allows visas to run for up to three years at a time but
does not include packing-plant workers.
Farm Lobbies Key Agenda
The agricultural industry- Farm Lobbies- are the deciding factor in the immigration bill
Nixon, 4/18 (Ron, Domestic Correspondent at The New York Times, April 18, 2013, “Fate of the
Immigration Bill May Hinge on Farm Districts,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/
2013/04/19/us/immigration-bills-fate-may-hinge-on-farm-districts.html?_r=0)
WASHINGTON — Any chance of getting immigration legislation through the House will most likely depend on
representatives like Doc Hastings. While he has not been the most outspoken about immigration issues, proponents of an
overhaul are counting on Mr. Hastings, a Republican, for one reason: His Congressional district, which
cuts a wide path through the center of Washington State, depends heavily on agriculture, an industry
with a significant stake in the outcome of the debate. Much of Washington’s $46 billion agriculture sector is in Mr.
Hastings’s district, where farmers grow everything from apples to wheat. Local agribusinesses there rely on a work force
largely composed of immigrants, thousands of whom are believed to be in the country illegally. A
coalition of 11 agriculture groups has launched a major lobbying campaign in support of an immigration overhaul. Members of the effort,
known as the Agricultural Workforce Coalition, see representatives from districts where thousands of jobs depend on agriculture as key to any
effort to pass the legislation. Agriculture
Department data shows that Republicans represent 17 of the top 20
districts where agriculture is a major industry. And farm groups are hoping that local concerns will trump national politics as
the legislation moves forward in the Republican-controlled House, where it will most likely face a tough challenge from conservatives who have
been hostile to previous attempts to change the system. “Republicans
from big agriculture districts will definitely be
the deciding factor in getting any type of immigration reform through the House,” said Dean Norton, a dairy
farmer who is president of the New York Farm Bureau. “There is a lot of clamoring in these districts to do something
about immigration.” Mr. Hastings has not said if he would support the immigration legislation introduced in the Senate, but he has
backed efforts to help the farm sector in the past. Neal Kirby, Mr. Hastings’s spokesman, said the congressman “has long
advocated for a guest worker program for agriculture that is workable and will provide central
Washington farmers with the legal work force they need to fill jobs that Americans are not” willing to
do. “Developing a workable program as a part of immigration reform is critical to central Washington’s economy,” he said. The farm
sector has been a core constituency of the Republican Party for many years.
the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington research group, shows that since 1990,
given to Republicans in Congress.
Campaign contribution data from
agriculture interests have mostly
Last year, farm-heavy districts voted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney. Tom Nassif, president
of the Western Growers, and Chuck Conners, president of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, two of the organizations pushing for
immigration legislation, were advisers to Mr. Romney during the campaign. Agriculture’s
main focus is on changing the H-2A
visa program, which allows fruit and vegetable growers, slaughterhouses and other agribusinesses to hire temporary workers
for jobs that cannot be filled by Americans. The system allows foreign workers to enter the country on a visa for no longer
than one year. But agriculture officials say the current system does not work because industries like dairy farming and meat production are
year-round enterprises and are unable to fill their need for workers. They also say the program is overly bureaucratic. Among the changes the
farm sector wants to see is the replacement of the seasonal visa program with one that would allow workers to accept a job under a three-year
visa. The agriculture groups, which lobbied heavily on Capitol Hill as a group of senators worked to draft an immigration bill, say they will soon
began a similar campaign in the House. “We
will bring the weight of growers in all 50 states to the Senate and the
House in support of this legislation,” said Tom Stenzel, chief executive of the United Fresh Produce Association, a trade group of
fruit and vegetable growers. Despite high unemployment in Mr. Hastings’s Washington district, growers and other farm interests there say they
still suffer from worker shortages because of current immigration laws. Mr. Kirby, Mr. Hastings’s spokesman, said the congressman had met
with the farm lobbying coalition and had been in contact with growers. “This
has been a longtime priority of Congressman
Hastings,” he said.
Farm Lobby hold the most power in congress- “Cow Tax” incident proves
Drum, 11/9 (Kevin, a political blogger for Mother Jones, November/December 2009 Issue
“Betting the Farm Think the ag lobby—with so much to lose from global warming—might want to help
pass a climate bill? Don't be silly,” Mother Jones,
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/11/betting-farm)
You've heard the rumors that the Pentagon engineered 9/11. You know about the folks who think Barack Obama wasn't born in America. Last
summer you learned every possible synonym for "death panel." But have you heard the one about the cow tax? Unless you're a farmer,
probably not. This one goes back to the
waning days of the Bush administration, when the EPA, after a long fight from
environmentalists, grudgingly released a preliminary notice that outlined how the Clean Air Act could be
used to control greenhouse gases. Buried deep in the document, on page 44,377 of that day's Federal Register to be
exact, was a comment from the USDA warning that if the proposed rules were applied to the ag sector—
which generates CO2 emissions in many ways, from cow burps to soil tillage—"even very small" farms might be
affected. The American Farm Bureau Federation leaped into action: DC bureaucrats were proposing a cow tax! It could
cost producers as much as $175 for each dairy cow! Farmers freaked out. The Bush administration, of course,
had no intention of regulating greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act, let alone applying any such regs
to farms. Neither does the Obama administration, which never viewed the Clean Air Act as anything
other than a vague fallback threat to help gain support for its own climate bill. But the lesson from the
cow-tax uprising was clear anyway: Don't ever, ever get crosswise with the ag lobby. They will sink you. So
when the Waxman-Markey climate bill was written, power plants were covered. Chemical factories
were covered. Refineries were covered. But agriculture? Not covered. At all. Farms can emit greenhouse gases
until sea levels have risen enough to give Iowans an ocean view and never pay a dime. With agriculture fully exempt from emission caps, the
farm lobby was happy. Right? Of course not. "It
really has taken on a life of its own," Farm Bureau lobbyist Rick Krause told the
AP in June—modestly understating his own role in spreading the cow-tax meme in the first place. "This is something that people
understand. All that we have to say is that [cows] are the next step with these proposed permit fees.
And people are still talking about it." They are indeed. Because while most industries would be happy to win a total and
unconditional victory, agriculture isn't like most industries. They still had complaints, chief among them the fact that the bill would modestly
raise the price of energy and chemicals in the future, and farmers buy energy and chemicals. Everyone else does too, of course, and that's the
whole point: Higher prices will provide an incentive to use less energy and fewer chemicals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing
global warming. But
everyone else doesn't have the power of the ag lobby behind them. "Farm Bureau"
may sound rural and heartlandish, but in reality it's a multibillion-dollar trade association cum
insurance company with branches in all 50 states and close ties to agribusiness giants like Archer Daniels Midland and
Novartis, not to mention a few dozen farm-state senators. With clout like that, shared sacrifice clearly isn't an acceptable
option, even in the service of fixing a problem that poses an enormous threat to farmers. (Global warming is projected to hit heartland states
the hardest—and even small shifts in temperature can have disastrous consequences for crop yields.) And so, the
lobby demanded
compensation for those higher energy and chemical prices, even though they would mean only a tiny hit to farm
incomes—1 percent at most for the next nine years, according to the USDA. The compensation they got came via something called offsets.
Under Waxman-Markey's cap-and-trade provisions, you'd have to buy permits for the CO2 you emit, but you can reduce the number of permits
you have to buy if you do things to reduce greenhouse gases. Some offsets are legitimate; some are smoke and mirrors. The way to support the
former and weed out the latter is to have the EPA keep a close eye on things. But the ag lobby insisted that the farm-friendly USDA be put in
charge of the offset program instead. Change the way you till the soil so that—maybe, possibly—less carbon is released, and voilà! You get a
check. The USDA estimates that an average wheat farmer could make an extra $1,775 a year this way. But that still wasn't enough for the ag
lobby. Next on their hit list was protection for ethanol. For years corn farmers have argued that ethanol has a lower carbon footprint than
gasoline. It turns out that this isn't true if you take into account the land-use changes that accompany ethanol production: The corn grown for
ethanol displaces feed corn, which displaces soybean crops, which causes Brazilian farmers 6,000 miles away to make up the difference by
growing more soybeans on their pastureland. This in turn displaces their cattle to new pastures created by clearcutting the rainforest, thus
wiping out all of ethanol's carbon benefits. The net effect, the
EPA's scientists have concluded, is that ethanol's real
carbon footprint is about the same as gasoline's—or even worse. The ag lobby's response was simple and
direct: They insisted that Waxman-Markey be changed to forbid federal agencies from considering
indirect land-use changes when assessing the greenhouse gas footprint of ethanol. End of discussion. The
experts were agog. "This is not a close scientific call," wrote Michael O'Hare, a public policy professor at UC-Berkeley who's studied land-use
issues extensively for the California Air Resources Board. "If we are willing to make stuff up and stifle the science with legislation like this,
countries like India and China and the Europeans have no reason to get on board...It will be a catastrophe." In other words, by throwing their
considerable weight around, the ag lobby can smash political crockery halfway across the world. But they have more
subtle ways of showing their strength, too. Back in July, for example, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put a hold on Thomas Shannon, President
Obama's nominee for ambassador to Brazil. There was no question about Shannon's qualifications, only about his fealty to the corn lobby: In his
confirmation hearings, Shannon had the gall to suggest that eliminating import tariffs on sugar-based ethanol (mostly from Brazil) might be
"beneficial." Which it would be, since sugar ethanol is both cheaper and more environmentally friendly than domestic corn ethanol. But those
are fighting words in the Corn Belt, and Grassley lifted his hold only after the White House rolled over and reassured him in writing that the
ethanol tariff wouldn't be touched. They understood the score: Don't mess with the ag lobby. Not even a little bit. In
fairness, farmers have some arguments on their side. Regulating their greenhouse emissions is difficult, and exempting them is a defensible
position. Some offsets are useful, and the USDA might turn out to do a good job of regulating them. The anti-land-use provision is scientifically
shameless, but in practice it probably won't have much effect since it sunsets after five years. Protective tariffs are in place for lots of things
besides ethanol. And lobbyists in Washington have all lined up like pigs at a trough to get whatever goodies they can from the climate bill.
What distinguishes the farm lobby is the chutzpah to go back after an unconditional victory and
demand even more.
Lobbies Key- They meet with Obama to discuss comprehensive immigration reform
Bonner, 6/24 (Jeanne, freelance writer and radio producer based in Atlanta,June 24, 2013, “Farmers
Weigh In On Immigration,” GPB News, http://www.gpb.org/news/2013
/06/24/farmers-weigh-in-on-immigration)
ATLANTA — A Georgia farmer took part in a Washington roundtable Monday with Pres. Obama about the
immigration overhaul under consideration. Blueberry grower Jason Berry represented the views of farmers
from Georgia’s largest fruit sector. He's with Dole Berry Co. in Homerville, in southeast Georgia. He was part of a group of business leaders
meeting with Obama. If passed, the bill would affect Georgia farms and other businesses that rely on immigration
labor in several ways. But the guest-worker provision in the bill is the most critical, says Charles Hall, with the
Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. That’s because it would make it easier to hire temporary workers. Under the current program, Hall says
Georgia’s small farmers can’t always find workers when they need them. “The great need will be to
maintain a reasonable guest worker program so that workers can come into the U.S. for work and
that guest worker program is usable from a small grower's standpoint as well as a large grower's
standpoint,” he said. Some smaller farmers have struggled to fill jobs since Georgia passed an immigration crackdown in 2011. It bars companies from hiring
undocumented workers. Joe Cornelius is with the Georgia Blueberry Commission. He says the state law has made an already tight labor market even worse. And
that often means you can’t harvest the whole crop. “Some
of the crop goes to waste. Or you take a lower quality product
and you receive a lower price for it,” he said in a phone interview. He says as the blueberry sector in Georgia grows, there are more acres to
harvest but fewer workers. Cornelius says farmers have few options. He says when they use the current H2A foreign guest worker
program, they often can't use all of the workers the government helps them hire because they're not
up to par. But he says using skilled migrant workers also presents problems. “When you’re dependent on migrant laborers who
move from work their way up from Florida, you’re always worried you won’t have enough workers,”
he said. And he said the rumor mill has snared illegal and legal workers alike. " Just the fear of it has driven a lot of people away last
year and this year," he said. Some blueberry farmers have adapted by growing varieties that can be machine-harvested. But Hall with the growers
association said that option is only possible for fruit that won’t be sold directly to consumers at supermarkets. “Blueberry or any kind of mechanized harvesting is
going to cause the fruit to be bruised or scarred or have the skin broken," he said. "If they go to the fresh market, that harvest almost has to be done by hand.” The
Senate is expected to vote on the bill this week.
Farm Lobbies put pressure on congress for a guest worker program
The Lima News, 3/8 (Lima Ohio Newspaper, March 8, 2013, “Face time: Farmers lobby Congress on
their interests,” The Farm Credit Council
http://ae.cqrollcall.com/farmcredit/latest-news/farm-bill-news/face-time-farmers-lobby-congress-ontheir-interests/)
March 07–WASHINGTON — In about 10 groups of 10, Ohio Farm Bureau members armed themselves with
information packets and Buckeye candy and knocked on doors Wednesday morning, lobbying members of
Congress on the Farm Bill, immigration reform and water quality regulation. Wednesday was the last of three days of
education and lobbying done by county Farm Bureau presidents gathered in Washington. Bureau members from West Central Ohio visited Rep.
Jim Jordan, R-Ubana, and Rep. Bob Latta, R-Bowling Green. The larger group also heard from Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Avon, and Sen. Rob
Portman, R-Cincinnati. Troy Ernest, a hog farmer from eastern Allen County, had a simple message to deliver to Jordan on behalf of the
organization. “ We
want a good reformed guest worker program for those people in agriculture who use
the guest worker program,”
Ernest said. Others in the group reminded Jordan about the many fruit and vegetable growers he has
in his district, some of which is new from redistricting, especially in Sandusky and Crawford counties. Jordan sits on the Judicial Committee
subcommittee that’s dealing with immigration reform. True to form, he was blunt with the men in his office, who know that Jordan’s first
priority on immigration is a secure border. “I’ll tell you, what the president did last week (releasing undocumented inmates from prison)
doesn’t help matters,” Jordan said. “You have to do what’s right, respect the rule of law, and secure the borders first. … If you’re not going to
secure the border, it’s tough to get anywhere else.” In Jordan’s mind, border security is a large hurdle to get over, but if it can be done, he’d
consider other pieces of policy. If his security concerns are satisfied, than “we
should look at trying to make things better
for people who want to come here and work legally. I’m all for that.” Jordan also reminded the group he’s in favor of
moving farmers away from subsidies and special programs, and moving to a market-based system for agricultural commodities, with “some
kind of insurance.” Auglaize County Farm Bureau President Rick Tangeman said crop insurance is very important to farmers. “We need to save
whatever we can of the risk management through crop insurance,” Tangeman said. Farmers want a new five-year bill that addresses safety net
needs such as crop insurance. The current bill is actually an extension of the old one. While the Senate passed a version last year, the House did
not. Instead, as part of Fiscal Cliff negotiations, Congress extended the old Farm Bill through the end of September. It was the Republican
leadership in the House, according to published reports, that refused to bring a farm bill to the floor for a vote in 2012. Latta, whose 5th
Congressional District is the largest agricultural district in the state, said the general dysfunction of the federal government is preventing
passage of a new Farm Bill. “Too
many things keep getting in the way: Making tax cuts permanent, the debt
ceiling, sequestration, a budget, then the debt ceiling again,” Latta said. “All those other things have occupied people,
but they’ve got to get the farm bill out of there. We just can’t go to Sept. 30 and pass another (extension). To get all the things you want done,
it has to be a new bill, you have to start over. That’s not real good news, but that’s where it’s at.” No
changes can be made to an
extension; changes in the Farm Bill can’t be made until there is a new five-year bill that’s written from
scratch. That is what the Senate plans to do, Brown told the group during a Wednesday morning speech. Brown sits on the Senate
Agriculture Committee. The Senate passed its version of a Farm Bill in 2012, but now that work will start over. Politicians are good at playing the
blame game: For two days, farmers have been hearing about the Senate’s failure to pass a budget, but on Wednesday, Brown reminded the
group it was only the Senate that passed a Farm Bill in 2012. And, in the Senate Agriculture Committee, senators agreed on savings in an
attempt to avoid the across-the-board budget cuts that are happening now. “ Some
the Farm Bill, and what you can accomplish with it,”
people don’t understand the breadth of
Brown said. “It’s a food bill, a development bill, energy bill,
conservation bill. There were some parochial, southern interests last year in the House and the House couldn’t get its act together to pass a
bill.” Portman voted against that Senate-passed bill in 2012, because it violated the Budget Control Act, which was passed in 2011. Much of the
cost in the Farm Bill is from government nutrition assistance programs, such as food stamps. The cost of food stamps has doubled in the past
eight years, Portman said. “I don’t think we should measure compassion by how many people we get on food stamps,” Portman said. “We
should measure it by how many people we get off food stamps and get on to a job.” Portman supported the farm pieces of the farm bill, and
said he appreciated Farm Bureau’s move away from advocating for direct payments. “I
think it’s a good bill on the
commodities side, and I want to be able to support it,” Portman said.
The Farm Lobby rallies congress for immigration reform
Clayton, 4/13 (Chris, DTN/Telvent, April 13th, 2013, “Farm Workers Rally at Capitol for Immigration
Reform,” AgFax, http://agfax.com/2013/04/11/farm-workers-rally-at-capitol-for-immigrationreform/#sthash.Tboe94zN.dpuf)
Holding signs that said “Farm Workers Feed the World,” members of United Farm Workers union were among a
privileged few who got to be on stage Wednesday as thousands of people, mostly Hispanics, rallied at the
Capitol for immigration reform. Farm workers are among those with heightened expectations that the Senate negotiators could
unveil a new immigration proposal as early as next week that would seek to legalize up to 11 million people. If negotiations advance, the full
Senate could take up its legislation before Memorial Day. House negotiations are quieter, but the House also is expected to unveil a package
soon. Immigration reform leaders in Congress repeatedly cited the role of farm workers during the rally. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., one of
the “gang of eight” negotiating on a deal, talked about “farm
workers and fruit pickers” as being among those who
help keep the country going. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., talked about the chronic injuries from laboring for
the people who “put food on your table every day” and “pick our fruits and vegetables.” Diana Tellefson
Torres, national vice president for the United Farm Workers, said about 120 farm workers came from 30 states to lobby members of Congress.
She fired up the crowd, speaking in Spanish, by talking about a “sea of hope” in reforming immigration law. In lobbying Congress, Tellefson
Torres said she thought it was important for members of Congress and staffers to hear from farm
workers who were citizens, permanent residents and in the country illegally. Yet, talks about the
agricultural guest-worker component have been one of the final roadblocks to completing a deal in
the Senate. United Farm Workers opposes a broad guest worker program for agriculture while major
farm lobbies say such a program will be critical to maintain the food supply . Because of the nature of their
situation, it’s unknown exactly how many farm workers are now in the country illegally. Numbers range anywhere from 500,000 to 1 million,
but farm groups fear that once those employees gain legal status they will move on to new jobs and crops will go unpicked unless a new, easierto-use guest worker program is created. At a forum for agricultural reporters earlier this week, Craig Regelbrugge, co-chairman of the
Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform, said the current H-2A guest worker program for agriculture largely fails and provides only 5% or
so of all agricultural labor in the country. Moreover, the program doesn’t address farms such as dairy operations that need a stable, longerterm workforce. Regelbrugge said agriculture faces another variable. Regelbrugge cited Florida, saying tomato, citrus and strawberry growers
are “on the bubble” in trying to remain competitive with foreign growers who export almost unlimited product into the U.S. “ If
we get this
issue wrong, we risk sending those industries off shore — rapidly,” Regelbrugge said. Regelbrugge cited the challenges
faced by farmers as states have implemented tighter laws meant to force illegal immigrants out of their states. That has led to increased
what is different about agriculture is it is our food supply,
not to mention the downstream economic impacts,” he said. Regelbrugge was challenged on that statement by Eric Ruark,
situations of crops rotting in the fields. “I just want to be clear
director of research for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. FAIR opposes immigration reform bills and argues wages for farm
workers would go up through stronger enforcement. He also disputed claims that crops rotted in states such as Alabama and Georgia because
of tighter state laws. “I know a lot of these claims simply don’t pan out. They simply are not true.” Regelbrugge also touched on an issue that
could affect commodity prices. If fruit and vegetable farmers can’t find the labor, they will convert to “mechanized crops” such as corn,
soybeans and the like to continue farming their land. Speaking Tuesday to reporters, Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, a member of the House
Agriculture Committee, said the unemployment rate has been high for more than four years now, so it is becoming obvious that Americans
aren’t willing to take some of those jobs such as farm labor. Conaway said an agricultural guest worker component would likely be part of what
the House does as well. “Whatever we do in immigration reform we need to make sure it is in America’s best interests,” Conaway said.
“A
temporary worker program for ag is clearly in our best interest .” UFW, however, balks at a broader, newer guest
worker program. UFW likes a plan comparable to the one agreed to by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO labor union that would
allow 20,000 guest workers in the first year and gradually increase to up to 200,000 annually. The agribusiness group wants to start off with
200,000 guest workers. Tellefson Torres said there are already 1.6 million “professional” farm workers in the country, even though an
estimated 500,000 to 700,000 of them are in the country illegally. She said the number could be as much as 1 million farm workers in the
country illegally. “Supporting an unlimited number of foreign workers on top of the 1.6 million we have here now would increase the
competition for farm workers and depress the wages and conditions for farm workers,” she said. Tellefson Torres said some farm workers
under a labor contract have held the same job for decades. Some of those workers earn over $30,000 a year. Yet, after the 1986 immigration
reform bill, one of the problems for farmers after most of those workers were legalized is that they left the fields for less-intensive labor. Ruark
said if farmers can’t find employees, then it is because farm businesses aren’t offering enough incentives for legal Americans to take those jobs.
“We’ve seen claims over the last 30 years from agribusinesses that there is a shortage of farm workers available to do these jobs,” he said.
Going back to 1990, Ruark said wage increases for farm workers have not kept up with profit margins for agricultural operations. The call for a
new guest worker program for agriculture is a reflection that farmers aren’t responding to the market signals that farm wages are too low.
“Most of the workers are being employed by larger commercial farmers who can afford to pay these workers more,” he said. On issues such as
dairy, Ruark dismissed the market volatility, calling dairy farmers highly profitable and able to afford to pay domestic workers. Ruark noted
dairy farmers are subsidized. He said perhaps farm programs should be reversed then to subsidize the dairy workers rather than the farmers.
“When we are talking about the dairy industry, this is a very profitable industry, a very subsidized industry,” Ruark said. “So, we could have a
conversation about taking subsidies that go to agribusinesses and growers and giving them to the workers. That might be an option to think
about.” “If
you are having trouble paying farm workers, let’s subsidize the farm workers and not the
farmers.”
Plan Popular - General
Ag-First Guest worker program avoids politics—explicitly rejects pathway to
citizenship
Hinyub 12
(Chris, history and political science major from the Palm Beach Atlantic University, “Agriculture & Voters
Keen on Guest Worker Program” 5/10/12, pg online at http://ivn.us/2012/05/10/agriculture-voterskeen-on-guest-worker-program///sd)
Attempts to tackle comprehensive immigration reform at the state level has wounded agriculture and exposed an
unavoidable issue for farm-state lawmakers seeking election in 2012. Because U.S. citizens, by and large, will
not work in farm fields and because partisan gridlock over amnesty has kept comprehensive
immigration reform off Congress’ to-do list, agricultural stakeholders are pleading with lawmakers to reform the country’s
immigration policy to accommodate an ag-centric guest worker program. Last year, farm labor shortages gripped states that
had passed stringent immigration reforms. Since then the symptoms have spread, as entire regions are
feeling the pinch. Industry insiders have voiced concern that its only a matter of time before the
promised ‘papers please’ crackdowns of individuals detained in Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia – coupled with e-verify
mandates for employers in those states – translate to higher food prices at the grocery store…but not before the
failure of many American farms. To avoid this scenario, a coalition of 100-plus farm organizations led by the California-based
Western Growers farm/trade group are floating an idea to invite foreign guest workers into the U.S.
to harvest and process crops without giving them a path to citizenship. Industry leaders hope the plan could operate
parallel to the current H2A program in which migrants enter the U.S. for 12 months to work in agriculture before they are supposed to return
home. Under the new proposal, immigrant workers could renew their work credentials for another year, but would not be allowed to bring
their families into the states. “I don’t think there
is an appetite for comprehensive immigration reform (nationally)
so that’s why we’re trying an ag-first proposal,” said Tom Nassif, Western Growers’ President and Chief Financial Officer
during a conference call with reporters late last March. A Tarrance Group-conducted poll (PDF), which surveyed a broad cross section of the
American electorate in January, found that 70
percent of voters back such a plan. The survey showed
overwhelming support for a streamlined ag-first guest worker program from all likely voter groups
including Republicans, Tea Party supporters, Democrats and Independents. During an Agriculture Department
press conference last summer, American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman called for “new, innovative approaches
like programs where biometric identifiers can be provided (to guest workers) … who want to, frankly,
do the jobs that American workers will not do.” Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack reaffirmed Stallman’s claim that
farmers are hard pressed to find “legal” employees, urging Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform to prevent
farm labor shortages. “While some American citizens step up and take (farm) jobs, the truth is even when farmers make their best effort to
recruit a domestic workforce, few
citizens express interest. In large part that’s because this is hard, tough
work… “Simply put, our broken immigration system offers little hope for producers trying to do the right thing and make a living. But again
and again good faith efforts to fix this broken system – from leaders of both parties – fall prey to the usual
Washington political gains.” Most of Washington’s political gains (at least on the right of the spectrum) have hinged
on the treatment of immigration reform proposals that include amnesty or “citizenship pathways” as anathemas. The
revised guest worker plan pitched by agricultural interests grew up from that volatile soil. It bans any
such “pathway” outright. Nassif made it clear that his group does not want to attach immigration reform
language to the next Farm Bill, which has already been jeopardized by budgetary partisanship in the earliest phases of its deliberation.
Expect the agricultural industry to pitch its guest worker program to Congress before fall elections. According to Stallman, between $5
billion and $9 billion per year of production is dependent on workers whose legal status has not been
verified and who are assumed to be working illegally. He says that California accounts for almost $3 billion and Florida for $1 billion of that
total. “Most of that is in specialty crops like fruits and vegetables. But the livestock sector, particularly dairy, is also affected,” Stallman said. In
the debate over comprehensive immigration reform its difficult to gain a broad enough perspective not to disqualify one, if not more valid
points of view. This owes to the complexity of a political issue which holds livelihoods and the integrity of family units in its balance. But the
practical necessity of maintaining a constant and safe food supply while keeping American farms competitive and profitable is an issue of
pressing concern for all voters. If
farm labor shortages continue through the summer, a refined ag-first guestworker
program will likely be a national election issue.
Plan is key to relations and doesn’t link to politics – has support in Congress already
Shifter 13 (Michael, Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown
University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for
the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue, “A More
Ambitious Agenda” February 2013
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf\\CLans)
Second, practical approaches are needed to manage the complex issues related to immigration. Both
governments have acknowledged the economic value of appropriately regulated immigration. US and Mexican policy should be
directed toward increasing the role of immigration in economic expansion and job growth in the two
countries, ensuring that individual rights of all immigrants are respected, and curtailing violations of
immigration laws. Since the US presidential election in November, these have become attainable goals, endorsed by
the White House with good prospects for majority support in the US Congress.
Plan Popular – Republicans
Republicans want a guest-worker program
Johnson, 13 (Fawn, correspondent, May 29th, “Republican Platform Calls for Guest-Worker Program,”
National Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-conventions/republican-platform-calls-forguest-worker-program-20120821)
Republicans are attempting to balance their party's disparate opinions on immigration by taking a tough
stance on illegal immigrants in the United States while at the same time calling for a new temporary
foreign worker program. The Republican National Committee's 2012 platform on immigration, adopted on Tuesday, calls for a
"legal and reliable source of foreign labor through a new guest-worker program ." "It wasn't even attacked,"
crowed Brad Bailey, a Texas restauranteur who lobbied heavily for the inclusion of a guest-worker program in the document. Bailey was
expecting immigration hard-liners to go after the proposed temporary worker program because a standard GOP campaign line says that illegal
immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. Businesses dispute that statement, saying there are many jobs (like roofing and fruit-picking) that
Americans won't do. The Republican platform also seeks long-term detention for "dangerous but undeportable aliens" and proposes to make
gang membership a deportable offense. It is typical of electoral policy platforms to be vague on details--this isn't legislation, after all. It's the
tone that counts. Note the crime-related wording when it comes to gangs and detention, reinforcing an idea important to Republicans: that
they are tougher on illegal immigration than President Obama. "Complaining
about the problem is no longer working.
Republicans need to lead in repairing our nation's immigration policy," Bailey said on Monday in an e-mail to
supporters of a guest-worker program. The Hispanic vote is in play in the general election, and how Republicans handle the immigration
question will be a critical factor in determining whether conservative Hispanic voters can be convinced to cast their votes for Mitt Romney.
Hispanics as a group tend to be more conservative than traditional Democrats; half identify
themselves as "independent," according to a recent Gallup poll. But two-thirds of them voted for President Obama
in 2008, in part because he promised to push for a broad immigration overhaul that would create a path to
citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Some Republican strategists worry that harsh rhetoric from Republicans about
immigration will scare those independent Hispanics away. The inclusion of a guest-worker program in the GOP
platform marks a victory for business-oriented Republicans who are worried that a strict
"enforcement-only" approach to immigration will ruin certain industries, such as agriculture, which relies
heavily on undocumented immigrant labor. "It was brutal," said Bailey, the founder of the free-market nonprofit group The
Texas Immigration Solution, who is lobbying aggressively for businesses' access to foreign labor at the Republican National Convention. "I'm a
rookie. I didn't know anybody. I was stopping people during bathroom breaks." Bailey is flaming a tinder box within a party that has struggled
for years with its commitment to "the rule of law," which sometimes conflicts with businesses' consistent use of immigrant labor--both legal
and illegal. With
some 12 million illegal immigrants working in the United States, it is difficult to imagine the
government committing the resources to extricating all of them. Yet Republicans chafe at any policy that would ease
off on punishment for immigration violations. "We are a party that recognizes that illegal means illegal," said Kansas Secretary of State Kris
Kobach, a platform committee member and outspoken immigration hard-liner who was the brains behind Arizona's tough immigration law. "If
you want to open a job tomorrow, you can remove an illegal immigrant today." Kobach's considerable influence was on display at the
Republican platform committee meeting on Tuesday, as he shot down several suggestions from other members who questioned the necessity
of mandating electronic verification of workers or asked for market-based quotas on foreign workers. At Kobach's request, the committee
added language to the platform calling for mandatory electronic verification of workers, a border fence, and an end to "sanctuary cities" and instate tuition for illegal immigrant college students. Bailey knew he was fighting an uphill battle when he brought his proposal for a temporary
worker program to the Republican convention. He is one of many business leaders who say enforcement-minded Republicans should adopt a
broader view of immigration to acknowledge their need for labor.
Many business leaders want more than a guest-
worker program. Texas has advocated work visas for undocumented immigrants who are already in
the country. But that idea goes too far for GOP members who are squeamish about giving any legal status to illegal aliens. "When you are
sitting in the back of the room and have no relationships with anyone on the subcommittee, you are fighting an uphill battle," Bailey wrote in
his e-mail. "We
understand that this is NOT a perfect document. But sometimes in life and in politics we
have to compromise and negotiate."
Plan popular with house republicans
Parker, 2/26 – Ashley Parker is a Washington-based reporter for The New York Times, and has also written for The New York Times
Magazine. Previously, she worked as a researcher for Maureen Dowd, a Times columnist (“House Republican Expresses Support for Guest-
Worker Program”, 2/26/13, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/house-republican-expresses-support-for-guest-workerprogram/?_r=0)
Representative Robert Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, appeared willing to carve out a sliver of middle ground on
Tuesday in the debate over the future of the nation’s immigration system, offering up the possibility of a guest
worker program as a trial case for how the country handles both legal and illegal immigration. At a
House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the topic of agricultural workers, Mr. Goodlatte, the chairman of the
full committee, said that he could support a measure that would offer at least temporary legalization for
illegal immigrants who are currently in the country working in the agriculture industry. “A guest worker
program should help farmers who are willing to pay a fair wage for law-abiding, dependable workers
— not punish them,” Mr. Goodlatte said. “And for this reason I support replacing the H-2A program and
implementing new policies that will bring our illegal agricultural workers out of the shadows , as a first
step in the process of overhauling our nation’s immigration system.” An H-2A visa allows workers into the country to perform temporary or
seasonal agricultural work. As Mr. Goodlatte
acknowledged, the vast majority of farmworkers in the United States — as much as 70
percent of the farm labor force, according to growers’ groups – are immigrants here illegally. Mr. Goodlatte, a former
immigration lawyer, has previously taken a hardline stance on an immigration overhaul, opposing a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million
immigrants already in the country illegally. But he
has also said he is open to finding some middle ground between
deportation and full citizenship. The agriculture guest worker program, he implied on Tuesday, could be a
first step. “Addressing the complex labor issues of the relatively small agriculture sector can help us understand how we can build our
broader immigration laws and enforcement mechanisms in order to enhance the U.S. economy and make our immigration laws more efficient
and fair for all involved,” he said. Visas
for lower-skilled workers have proved a divisive issue in past
immigration debates, pitting the business community — which favors allowing guest workers into the country to help employers fulfill
their labor needs — against the labor community, which worries that immigrant workers could depress wages and take away jobs from
labor and business groups jointly called for a visa system that would meet labor
market demands while protecting American workers. The tone of Tuesday’s subcommittee hearing was far less heated
Americans. But last week,
than a full-committee hearing on broad immigration proposals earlier this month, and several members expressed optimism that, at least on
this topic, an agreement could be reached. Still, some House Republicans remained hesitant about the logistics of reforming the temporary
worker program. Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, said
that a “true” guest worker program would
have to be a “short” guest worker program, seeming to rule out the possibility of any form of legalization for the workers. And
Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, suggested a program that would “bond” workers; employers, he
explained, would be forced to post a bond of sorts — much like the bond system in criminal court — to ensure that their workers would
ultimately return home. “I’m going to guess from the look on your face that you haven’t discussed that,” Mr. King said, shortly after making the
suggestion. On Wednesday, the subcommittee is set to look at the record of the E-Verify program, the current tool to help employers
determine the legal status of newly hired workers.
Attitude shift—GOP supports guest worker initiatives
National Journal 5/29 (‘Republican Platform Calls for Guest-Worker Program’ Last Updated on May
29th, 2013 http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-conventions/republican-platform-calls-for-guestworker-program-20120821) L S
The Republican National Committee's 2012 platform on immigration, adopted on Tuesday, calls for a "legal
and reliable source of foreign labor through a new guest-worker program." "It wasn't even attacked,"
crowed Brad Bailey, a Texas restauranteur who lobbied heavily for the inclusion of a guest-worker program in the document. Bailey was
expecting immigration hard-liners to go after the proposed temporary worker program because a standard GOP campaign line says that illegal
immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. Businesses dispute that statement, saying there are many jobs (like roofing and fruit-picking) that
Americans won't do. The Republican platform also seeks long-term detention for "dangerous but undeportable aliens" and proposes to make
gang membership a deportable offense. It is typical of electoral policy platforms to be vague on details--this isn't legislation, after all. It's the
tone that counts. Note the crime-related wording when it comes to gangs and detention, reinforcing an idea important to Republicans: that
they are tougher on illegal immigration than President Obama. "Complaining
about the problem is no longer working.
Republicans need to lead in repairing our nation's immigration policy," Bailey said on Monday in an e-mail to
supporters of a guest-worker program. The Hispanic vote is in play in the general election, and how Republicans handle the
immigration question will be a critical factor in determining whether conservative Hispanic voters can be convinced to cast their votes for Mitt
Romney. Hispanics
as a group tend to be more conservative than traditional Democrats; half identify themselves as
"independent," according to a recent Gallup poll. But two-thirds of them voted for President Obama in 2008, in part
because he promised to push for a broad immigration overhaul that would create a path to citizenship
for some illegal immigrants. Some Republican strategists worry that harsh rhetoric from Republicans about immigration will scare
those independent Hispanics away. The inclusion of a guest-worker program in the GOP platform marks a
victory for business-oriented Republicans who are worried that a strict "enforcement-only" approach
to immigration will ruin certain industries, such as agriculture, which relies heavily on undocumented immigrant labor.
No link: GOP wants federal guest worker program
Serrano 12
(Alfonso, senior editor at TIME, “ Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration
Laws” 9/21 pg online at http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billiondollar-losses-on-immigration-laws///sd)
With the federal government sitting on the sidelines, some state legislatures in response to that pressure have
started to consider enacting guest-worker programs, often after heavy lobbying from agricultural and business groups.
Utah, for example, recently approved a program that, starting this year, will allow undocumented immigrants to work in the state legally as long
as they pass background checks.
The measure, though, is subject to federal approval. Several other states,
considered similar legislation. In Texas last year, Republicans signed off on a
party platform that calls for a national guest-worker program. And just before the GOP convention in August, the R epublican
including California, Oklahoma and Vermont, have
N ational C ommittee approved a platform on immigration that calls for a guest-worker program .
there has never been a greater need for federal leadership for immigration reform ,”
says Walden. “The United States farmer is still the most efficient in the world, and if we want to be in
charge of our food security and our economy and add favorably to our balance of payments, we need to support a labor
force for agriculture.”
“We feel strongly that
AT: Piecemeal Links
Double-bind – either CIR won’t pass absent the plan, or plan pop with Republicans
Narvette, 2/19 - Ruben Navarrette is a CNN contributor and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers
Group (“Guest worker issue may kill immigration reform”, 2/19/13, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/opinion/navarrette-immigrationreform)
All those who are hoping that comprehensive immigration reform is going to happen this year -- Latinos,
businesses, churches, agriculture industry, law enforcement and others -- are in for a rude awakening. The trick for politicians will be
to look as if they're doing something, when really they're doing nothing. But, regardless of how it looks, it's a long shot that Congress will pass
immigration reform this year. That's bad news for those who want to give the undocumented a chance to get right with the law and develop a
sensible, fair and efficient policy for future immigrants. But it's good news for those who resist legalizing the undocumented because they're
afraid of foreigners -- either because of competition with their work ethic, or that they're changing the culture and complexion of the country.
Is enforcement key to fixing America's immigration system? The problem isn't just Republicans, who can't get on the same page about whether
they want to be reformers. It's also Democrats, who seem to be playing the immigration reform camp for chumps. The signs are everywhere, if
you know where to look. For instance, a few days ago, a draft of President Obama's immigration reform plan
was leaked. It took four
years to write, and yet its key points fit on a cocktail napkin with room to spare. Here's what is in the plan: more border security, a
requirement that employers use an electronic system to verify if prospective hires are eligible to
work, and a long path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the
United States. Obama's immigration plan leaked Obama: Harvest immigrants' talents How long? The undocumented could immediately
apply for a special protective status to avoid deportation, but it would take them about eight years to get legal permanent residency (a green
Here's what is not in the plan: a guest worker program .
Republicans have repeatedly insisted that this needs to be in the mix for them to vote for any reform
package . The fact that it was left out tells us that Obama isn't serious about reform and ensures that
his plan would be, as Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said, "dead on arrival" in Congress. The idea would be to bring
in a few hundred thousand temporary "guest workers" to do the hard and dirty jobs that Americans
won't do at any wage. When the work is done, and the workers have been paid a fair salary, they go home. And another batch is
card) and another four or five years to become a U.S. citizen.
brought in. It's not a perfect solution. But you won't find any of those in the immigration debate. The first U.S. president to push for guest
workers was Abraham Lincoln. Industries were facing labor shortages during the Civil War and, with Lincoln's support, Congress in 1864 passed
The Act to Encourage Immigration. The bill allowed employers to recruit foreign workers and pay their way to America. There were more guest
workers during World War I. But the concept really became popular during World War II and the Cold War. From 1942 to 1964, under the
Bracero program (as in "brazo", which is Spanish for arm as in someone who works with his arms and hands), nearly 5 million guest workers
came in and out of the United States. In fact, arguably, the reason the Braceros stopped coming was because journalist Edward R. Murrow -- in
the 1960 CBS documentary, "Harvest of Shame" -- exposed the horrible treatments the workers received at the hands of employers, including
low wages, unsanitary conditions, dilapidated housing, etc. Congress pulled the plug soon thereafter. But exploitation
doesn't have
to be part of the deal, and not every guest worker program is run as badly as that one. There are apple
growers in Washington State who don't have to scramble for pickers at harvest time because the same crews return every year. The growers
lure them back by paying decent wages and providing clean living quarters. Everyone is happy. Well, maybe not everyone. Many in organized
labor hate the concept of guest workers because their leaders are busy peddling the fantasy that the hard and dirty jobs in question are sought
after by union members. Sure. Then why aren't they doing them now? Answer: Because they're hard and dirty. It's
time for Congress
to create a new guest worker program for the agriculture industry where employees can have decent
wages, access to health clinics, livable housing, workers comp in case of injury, and legal protection so that they aren't
exploited. Of course, there's the catch. If growers have to pay for all that, labor economists say, it might well kill the incentive for them to
participate. But it's those same growers who are now complaining that they aren't able to find American workers who are willing to pick a
variety of crops that can't be harvested by machine -- peaches, plums, apples, lettuce, tomatoes, avocadoes, nectarines, strawberries,
blueberries, apricots, table grapes, etc. So those employers will have to make some tough choices. If they want a reliable labor supply, it'll cost
them. That's the way it should be. There is no free lunch. Either way,
it's a guest workers program that will make or break
the prospects for immigration reform. I'm betting it's the latter.
Ag guest worker progam and piecemeal reform are both popular with republicans
News Press 7-1-13
“Immigration bill: Florida reps not receptive to Rubio Fellow Republicans: Senate bill too broad, poorly
prioritized.” July 1, 2013 http://www.newspress.com/article/20130702/NEWS/307020021?odyssey=mod%7Cmostcom
Rep. Tom Rooney, an Okeechobee Republican who represents portions of Lee County, said the Senate
bill tries to do too much. “The House is addressing immigration reform one step at a time, starting with
securing the border,” he said. “I’m hopeful that we can at least pass legislation to provide a functional
guest worker program for our farmers, and to improve border security. After that, it’s anyone’s guess.”
The sentiments of Radel and Rooney echo those of House leaders, including Speaker John Boehner, ROhio, who favor a narrower, more piecemeal approach to changing the law -- one that doesn’t include
a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants-- than the approach taken by the Senate bill.
Piecemeal links are non-unique – piecemeal efforts in the House now
Schepers 7-8-13
Reporter for People’s World, civil and immigrant rights activist, and doctorate in cultural anthropology
from Northwestern University
“What next for immigration reform legislation?” by: EMILE SCHEPERS july 8
2013http://peoplesworld.org/what-next-for-immigration-reform-legislation/
Several Republican representatives say they are going to present bills to solve the immigration
problem piecemeal. These will be concentrated on new mechanisms of repression and new temporary
guest worker programs, and probably will not offer citizenship or perhaps even legalization to the
estimated 11 million undocumented. Congressman Goodlatte says he is open to offering citizenship to
people who were brought to this country without papers when they were children, but will oppose it
for other undocumented immigrants.
Unions aren’t against the plan—they want guest workers to fill undesirable jobs
Elias 13
(Thomas, masters in journalism from Stanford, “Farm labor shortages may drive immigration changes”
Sandiego Source, newspaper, May 10, pg online at
http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?SourceCode=20130510tza&Commentary_ID=109&_t=F
arm+labor+shortages+may+drive+immigration+changes#.Ucypofkphsk//sd)
There has been some dispute over whether the labor shortages California farmers reported over the
last few years are real. It turns out they are very real, but that doesn’t quiet the skeptics. “We are told that unless we allow
criminals, illegal aliens [the] freedom to take American jobs, our agriculture will be destroyed,” wrote conservative blogger Steve Frank, former
president of the California Republican Assembly, last year. “Like most other statements of the lamestream media, that is a downright lie.” He
used the fact that this state’s farm profits were up in 2011 — from $11.1 billion the previous year to $16.1 billion — to call the reported
shortage “phony.” Those profit numbers came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But the USDA also reports on crop production and
some of those numbers tell a different story, while also implying that the added profits may have been a result of smaller supplies. For example,
California growers produced 1.5 million tons of raisin grapes last year, compared with 1.8 million in
2011, causing prices to increase while grape-harvesting expenses dropped. Prices were also up for table grapes
from $306 per ton to $358 and the price of canned apricots went from $330 to $419 per ton, while production was down. So there’s
more to the farm profit picture than just the bottom line. The price per pound or ton also counts for a lot. And both
wholesale prices and profits rose last year, making it an outstanding year for agriculture. With 2011-12 a relatively wet winter and prices at or
near peaks for almost all crops, there
was only one reason for production to be down last year: a shortage of
labor. This was caused in part by stricter enforcement of immigration laws, with the Obama administration already having deported more
illegal immigrants than the George W. Bush administration did in its full eight years. Farm labor problems persisted in 2012, although they’ve
sometimes been hard to quantify. The Western Growers Association said last fall that its members were reporting 20 percent fewer laborers
available than the year before. At the same time, the California Farm Bureau Federation put the shortage between 30 per cent and 40 percent
of the workforce needed. Those numbers are not official, but the group said U.S.
workers were not taking the vacant jobs.
That was consistent with the results of an experiment conducted several years ago by Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, who had every Employment Development Department office in the state list farm jobs as available. Fewer than 10
unemployed U.S. citizens applied for that work, even though it paid well over the state’s hourly
minimum wage. One Santa Barbara County farmer with crops as varied as lemons and strawberries reported that he had to leave some
of his produce to rot in the field last summer and fall. Similar waste occurred in Kern, Butte and Riverside counties, among others. One reason:
A high percentage of California fruit and vegetable pickers are illegal immigrants. Farm bureau organizations in other states report similar labor
shortages. So farmers want any immigration changes coming from Washington, D.C. this year to include a guest-worker program. Agriculture
organizations that usually support Republican politicians have pushed several years for a system allowing temporary hiring of foreign workers if
employers cannot find U.S. citizens or legal residents to take their jobs. Organized labor
has long opposed such a revival of
the old bracero program that allowed U.S. employers to bring in unskilled foreign workers during and
after World War II, the unions claiming it could deprive U.S. citizens of work. But the nation’s largest
labor group, the AFL-CIO, has now worked out a deal with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other
business interests that would allow workers to be imported as needed to fill jobs that otherwise would go
unfilled. The proposed visa would not specify a single employer for each worker, so that employers
could no longer discipline migrant workers by threatening to have them deported if they’re not docile.
It would also include wages above the federal minimum and require decent working conditions. The Chamber
also agreed to the unions’ idea of setting up a new government bureau to curtail work visas when unemployment rises to as-yet unspecified
levels. Two
things are clear from all this: It’s highly likely that any major immigration change legislation
passing Congress this year will have a guest-worker component. And that this is happening mainly
because of the labor shortages here and in other big farm states.
AT: Unions Link
Labor already on board
Stiles 6-21-13
Political reporter at National Review
Immigration: Democrats on Board By Andrew Stiles 6-21-13
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351666/immigration-democrats-board-andrew-stiles
Notably, the AFL-CIO, which opposed the 2007 legislation, is backing the Gang of Eight, having struck a
deal with Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and the Chamber of Commerce on the issue of guest
workers. By signing on to the Gang’s proposal, the powerful union (with its supersized campaign war
chest) has given most Democrats a green light to support it. A top Republican senator tells National
Review Online he wouldn’t be surprised if every Democrat voted for the proposal, given the strong
desire to pass it with at least 70 votes and put pressure on the GOP-controlled House.
Impact D
AT: Hegemony Impact – Yes Heg
Their authors are all hype—US hegemony is stronger than ever—three reasons prove
Drezner 12 (Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts, senior editor at The National Interest, “Regarding ‘Global Leadership,’”
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/category/wordpress_tag/hegemonic_stability_theory, June 4, 2012)
So, America is doomed, right? ¶ To be honest, this sounds like a lot of pious baloney. As Michael Beckley
points out in a new article in International Security, "The United States is not in decline; in fact, it is
now wealthier, more innovative, and more militarily powerful compared to China than it was in 1991." The whole
article is worth a read, and a good cautionary tale on the dangers of overestimating the ease of national catch-up:¶ The widespread
misperception that China is catching up to the United States stems from a number of analytical flaws, the
most common of which is the tendency to draw conclusions about the U.S.-China power balance from data that
compare China only to its former self. For example, many studies note that the growth rates of China’s per capita income, value
added in hightechnology industries, and military spending exceed those of the United States and then conclude that China is catching up. This
focus on growth rates, however, obscures China’s decline relative to the United States in all of these
categories. China’s growth rates are high because its starting point was low . China is rising, but it is not
catching up.¶ What about the future? One could point to the last few months of modestly encouraging economic data, but that's
ephemeral. Rather, there are three macrotrends that are worth observing now before (I suspect) they come up in the
State of the Union: ¶ 1) The United States is successfully deleveraging . As the McKinsey Global Institute notes, the
United States is actually doing a relatively good job of slimming down total debt -- i.e., consumer, investor and
public debt combined. Sure, public debt has exploded, but as MGI points out, that really is the proper way of doing things after a financial
bubble:¶ The deleveraging processes in Sweden and Finland in the 1990s offer relevant lessons today. Both endured credit bubbles and
collapses, followed by recession, debt reduction, and eventually a return to robust economic growth. Their experiences and other historical
examples show
two distinct phases of deleveraging. In the first phase, lasting several years, households,
corporations, and financial institutions reduce debt significantly. While this happens, economic growth
is negative or minimal and government debt rises. In the second phase of deleveraging, GDP growth rebounds and
then government debt is gradually reduced over many years....¶ As of January 2012, the United States is most
closely following the Nordic path towards deleveraging. Debt in the financial sector has fallen back to levels last seen in 2000,
before the credit bubble, and the ratio of corporate debt relative to GDP has also fallen. US households have made more
progress in debt reduction than other countries, and may have roughly two more years before returning to sustainable levels of
debt. ¶ Indeed, the deleveraging is impressive enough for even Paul Krugman to start sounding optimisti c: ¶
the economy is depressed, in large part, because of the housing bust, which immediately suggests the possibility of a virtuous circle: an
improving economy leads to a surge in home purchases, which leads to more construction, which strengthens the economy further, and so on.
And if you squint hard at recent data, it
looks as if something like that may be starting: home sales are up,
unemployment claims are down, and builders’ confidence is rising.¶ Furthermore, the chances for a virtuous circle
have been rising, because we’ve made significant progress on the debt front.¶ 2) Manufacturing is on the mend . Another positive
trend, contra the Harvard Business School and the GOP presidential candidates, is in manufacturing. Some analysts have already
predicted a revival in that sector, and now the data appears to be backing up that prediction. The Financial Times' Ed Crooks
notes:¶ Plenty of economists and business leaders believe that US manufacturing is entering an upturn that is not just a
bounce-back after the recession, but a sign of a longer-term structural improvement. Manufacturing
employment has grown faster in the US since the recession than in any other leading developed economy,
according to official figures. Productivity growth, subdued wages, the steady decline in the dollar since 2002 and rapid pay inflation in emerging
economies have combined to make the US a more attractive location.¶ “Over the past decade, the US has had some huge gains in productivity,
and we have seen unit labour costs actually falling,” says Chad Moutray, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers. “A lot of
our members tell us that it sometimes is cheaper to produce in the US, especially because labour costs are lower.Ӧ Now, whether this boom in
manufacturing will lead to a corresponding boom in manufacturing employment is much more debatable. Still, as The Atlantic's Adam Davidson
concludes: "the still-unfolding story of manufacturing’s transformation is, in many respects, that of our economic age. It’s a story with much
good news for the nation as a whole. But it’s also one that is decidedly less inclusive than the story of the 20th century."¶
3) A predicted
decline in energy insecurity . British Petroleum has issued their Energy Outlook for 2030. The Guardian's Richard Wachman provides
a useful summary:¶ Growth in shale oil and gas supplies will make the US virtually self-sufficient in energy
by 2030, according to a BP report published on Wednesday.¶ In a development with enormous geopolitical implications, the country's
dependence on oil imports from potentially volatile countries in the Middle East and elsewhere would
disappear, BP said, although Britain and western Europe would still need Gulf supplies.¶ BP's latest energy outlook forecasts a growth in
unconventional energy sources, "including US shale oil and gas, Canadian oil sands and Brazilian deepwater, plus a gradual decline in demand,
that would see [North America] become almost totally energy self-sufficient" in two decades.¶ BP's chief executive, Bob Dudley, said: "Our
report challenges some long-held beliefs. Significant
changes in US supply-and-demand prospects, for example,
highlight the likelihood that import dependence in what is today's largest energy importer will decline
substantially."
Other countries are looking for power, but America far exceeds them – American
strength is incomparable
Beckley 11 (Michael Beckley, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2011-2012,
Christian Science Monitor, “Don’t Worry, America: China is Rising But Not Catching Up,”
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/21624/dont_worry_america.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpr
oject%2F58%2Fquarterly_journal%3Fparent_id%3D46, December 14, 2011)
As President Obama made clear during his recent tour of Asia, the United States is committed to countering China's rise
in the region. But can it succeed?¶ Most people think not, and understandably so. While China's economy grows at 9 percent per year,
the US reels from economic recession and political paralysis. US opinion polls consistently show that majorities of Americans believe China is
the world's dominant economic power. And according to the Pew Research Center, pluralities in 15 out of 22 countries believe that China will
But this widespread view is wrong , a fabrication based on sloppy
analysis and outdated conceptions of national power. People who believe that China is overtaking the US make at least
one of three mistakes.¶ First, they confuse growth rates with total growth. Since 1991, China's per capita income grew 15
overtake the US as the world's superpower.¶
percent annually, and its military spending rose 10 percent annually. By contrast, America's per capita income and military spending grew at
annual rates of 4 percent and 2 percent respectively. Yes, 15 is greater than 4, and 10 is greater than 2. What could be simpler?¶ But growth
rates are not comparable. The average Chinese income in 2010 was $7,500. Fifteen percent of $7,500 is actually less money than 4
percent of $47,000, the average American income that year. Despite China's higher growth rates, the average Chinese
citizen is $17,000 poorer compared with the average American today than he was in 1991.¶ Over the same time period, Chinese
military spending declined by $140 billion relative to America's, even when excluding funds for the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. China's growth rates are high because its starting point was low. China is rising, but it
is not catching up.¶ Second, many observers rely on flawed indicators to gauge Chinese economic power.
For example, some analysts believe that China is the world's "leading technology-based economy" because it exports more high-technology
products than any other country.¶ But Chinese
high-tech exports are not very Chinese and not very high-tech:
Over 90 percent are produced by foreign firms and consist of imported components that are merely assembled in
China. These percentages have increased over time, a trend that suggests Chinese firms are falling further behind foreign competitors.
Indeed, in any category — research and development, patents, profits — Chinese high-tech firms have fallen further behind their American
counterparts over the last two decades.¶ Another misleading statistic is China's debt-to-GDP ratio, which the Chinese
government lists at 17 percent. America's debt-to-GDP ratio, by contrast, will remain above 60 percent through 2020.¶ But most Chinese state
spending is not reported in official figures because it is funneled through investment entities connected to local governments. Studies that
account for this spending place China's debt-to-GDP ratio between 75 and 150 percent.¶ And
things are only likely to get worse
for China. Because of the one-child policy, China will soon suffer the most severe aging process in
human history. The ratio of Chinese workers per retiree will plummet from 8:1 today to 2:1 by 2040. The fiscal cost of this swing in
dependency ratios alone may exceed 100 percent of China's GDP. The American working-age population, by contrast, will
expand by 17 percent over the next 40 years. America’s fiscal future may not be bright, but it is brighter than China's.¶ Finally,
people tend to conflate size with power. China will soon boast the largest economy in the world, and
many observers interpret this event as a power transition between the United States and China.¶ But size is not power . After all,
China was the world's largest economy during its "century of humiliation" when it was ripped apart by Western
powers and Japan. Britain, by contrast, ruled a quarter of the globe in the 19th century but was never, even at its peak, the largest economy. In
fact, Britain's GDP was half the size of China's and far smaller than India's when it invaded and subjugated both nations.¶ Of course, China's size
makes it an important player on transnational issues, particularly climate change and trade. Moreover, China's military can threaten the United
States without catching up, compensating for technological inferiority with asymmetric strategies and a greater willingness to take risks and
bear casualties.¶ But
China is not an emerging superpower in the mold of the Soviet Union, nor is it a great
power like early-twentieth century Germany. It is a large developing country and will remain so for the
foreseeable future. Americans, therefore, should not fear China . But neither should they shy away from competing
with this rising power for influence in Asia.
AT: Hegemony Impact – Heg Resilient
US hegemony is extremely resilient
Ajami 08 (Fouad Ajami, MacArthor Fellowship winning, Lebanese-born US professor and writer on Mid
East issues, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford,“It is not yet time to pen "The Decline and
Fall of the American Empire",” http://www.usnews.com/opinion/fajami/articles/2008/10/29/fouadajami-the-resilience-of-american-power, 10-29-08)
So this great imperial democracy of ours has been financing its deficits, and its consumer society, with the savings of the sovereign wealth funds
of China, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Great powers throughout history, we know, were creditor nations, whereas
ours is the quintessential indebted society. We could hear the gloating of America's critics and enemies as soon as the subprime loan crisis
descended upon us. From Malaysia to Venezuela, and from Europeans we had badgered about their brand of a capitalism more regulated than
ours, there were unsparing critics who savored this moment. For them, we had gotten our comeuppance. Our Masters of the Universe, with
their financial "derivatives" and new "instruments," were only pretenders.¶ There can be no doubt that we were due for our moment of
reckoning. But Edward Gibbon wannabes should proceed with caution. It
is not yet time to pen The Decline and Fall of the
American Empire. Rome was long dead and buried when Gibbon, working in London, published his first volume of The History of the
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1776. The destiny of the American empire is still unfolding. The bailout package, a
staggering $700 billion, is only 5 percent of our national output; the country could afford it. While some may seek to write the obituaries of the
American imperial republic, a survey of universities placing in the top 500 globally, conducted by Shanghai University, gave the United States a
huge lead in such institutions: 159 versus 31 in Japan, 30 in China (the data include Hong Kong and Taiwan), and 2 in India.¶ For
all the talk
about the rise of China and India, these societies, long mired in poverty and squalor and handicapped
by dominant traditions of inequality and caste, are in no position to inherit the American place in the
order of nations. They lack the openness of the United States, its sense of obligation to other lands, its
willingness to defend the global order.¶ After the partisanship in our country subsides, Americans know that the
alternative to the American order in the world is not the hegemony of China or Russia or India but
rather outright anarchy. The Chinese, shrewd about the ways of the world, acknowledge this. They are content to
work and prosper, and move large numbers of their people out of poverty, under American primacy and tutelage. The Chinese hold
well over a trillion dollars in American treasury securities. They are not about to bring the house down. The Chinese know Asia's bloody history.
American hegemony has been benign, and the alternatives to it are infinitely worse. Likewise in the volatile
Persian Gulf: The commerce of that vital region and the traffic of its oil depend upon the American Navy. No one in that tinderbox wants a Pax
Iranica, and the Indians and the Europeans are not contenders to assume what has been America's role.
AT: Economy Impact – Econ Resilient
The economy is resilient—four reasons
Newman 13 (Rick Newman, writer for US News, “Thank the Fed for the ‘Resilient’ Economy,”
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/03/05/thank-the-fed-for-the-resilienteconomy, March 5, 2013)
It's getting awfully hard to argue that the Federal Reserve isn't helping the economy.¶ The Fed began its controversial quantitative easing
strategy more than four years ago, and a lot of people have been wondering when it's going to work its magic. Most Fed critics point to the
unemployment rate, which is still highly elevated at 7.9 percent. Plus, the economy is still growing slowly and the recovery we're supposedly in
is the weakest in 70 years.¶ [READ: Disgusted by the Sequester? Blame Yourself]¶ But the
economy is, in fact, showing tangible
improvement in four key areas, and Fed policies are at least partly responsible. In general, the Fed has used a variety of tactics to
push interest rates to abnormally low levels, in order to spur borrowing, force investor money out of bunker-mentality securities like Treasury
bonds, and stimulate normal types of economic activity after a panicky recession. There's no modern precedent for what the Fed has done, so
nobody really knows how long it's supposed to take for quantitative easing to work.¶ But it is working, finally. Here's the evidence:¶
1. The
housing market has turned around . The housing bust began in 2006 and ended in 2012. Average prices fell by about 31 percent
during that time, according to the Fiserv Case-Shiller index. But housing has now flipped from a drag on the economy to
a sector that's creating jobs and contributing to growth, which is one of the indirect ways the Fed hopes to lower the
unemployment rate.¶ Three factors are now powering the housing sector: More affordable prices, easing
credit standards that allow more buyers to qualify for mortgages, and low interest rates engineered by the Fed. It took a long
time for the housing market to recover, but there was probably no other way to work through millions of foreclosures and allow prices to find
2. Auto sales are strong . Annual auto sales
peaked at more than 17 million in 2005, then fell by 40 percent from that level during the recession. This year, automakers are
likely to sell about 15.5 million cars, which represents a solid recovery that's helping bring back jobs
and contribute to growth. The car industry is recovering faster than housing, because lenders have been more willing to
grant auto loans than mortgages—including to subprime borrowers. As with housing, low rates have lured buyers, and
even prompted them to spend more, since the monthly payments are lower than they'd otherwise be. TrueCar.com reports that
an equilibrium. Without low interest rates, it almost certainly would have taken longer.¶
the average price of a new car has risen by more than $2,000 during the last three years, to nearly $31,000.¶ [PHOTOS: The 2013 Geneva Motor
Show]¶
3. The stock market is booming . The S&P 500 index has soared by 132 percent from the low point it
reached in March 2009, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has even eclipsed the prior all-time high set in Oct. 2007. During the last four
years, the rising market has almost directly coincided with intensifying QE announcements from the Fed. That
makes sense, since QE is designed to force investor money out of low-yielding bonds into riskier assets like stocks. It seems to have worked, and
the stock-market rebound has restored virtually all the financial wealth lost during the market plunge in 2008 and 2009.¶
4. The
economy is weathering fiscal austerity . Forget the invisible hand. The Fed is more like an invisible fork lift that's propping up
the economy at the same time politicians in Washington are harming it. The tax hikes that went into effect at the start of
the year and the "sequester" spending cuts that just began will help reduce federal deficits, but they'll also
cut GDP growth by a full percentage point or so this year. Upcoming battles over the expiration of government funding and the federal
borrowing limit could represent further hits to the economy.¶ Yet the
stock market has remained buoyant and other
indicators show the economy continues to hum along—largely because Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has said the Fed is
committed to its easing strategy.
Econ resilient—recent studies prove
Reuters 6-20 (“U.S. activity gauge at five-year high, shows economic resilience,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/us-usa-economy-index-idUSBRE95J0S820130620, 6-20-13)
(Reuters) - A
gauge of future economic activity touched its highest level in nearly five years in May as a
strengthening housing market continues to lend support to the overall economy. ¶ The Conference Board said
on Thursday that its Leading Economic Index increased 0.1 percent to 95.2 last month, the highest level since
June 2008.¶ While the increase in the index was less than economists' expectations for a 0.2 percent gain, it followed a solid 0.8 percent
rise in April.¶ "Despite the month-to-month volatility, the LEI's six month growth rate remains steady, suggesting that
conditions in the economy remain resilient ," said Ataman Ozyildirim, an economist at The Conference Board.¶ "Widespread
gains in the leading indicators over the last six months suggest there is some upside potential for economic activity in
the second half of the year."
The American economy has been through a lot and has remained resilient
Oxley 04 (Michael G. Oxley, Congressman Michael G. Oxley is serving his eleventh term in the United
States House of Representatives and is Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services,
“America on the Rebound: The Resilience of the U.S. Economy,”
http://ashbrook.org/publications/onprin-v12n1-oxley/, April 2004)
America is on the rebound. No other economy in the history of the world could take the setbacks that
we have endured and respond with such amazing resilience. We have overcome the devastation of 9/11,
the betrayal of Enron and WorldCom, and the disappointment of the tech bubble, all of this while fighting
the war on terrorism. Even with all of that, our economy is showing new life. We have successfully met every challenge
presented to us in this new, young century, just as we did in the last.¶ For nearly one hundred years, there was a battle over which economic
system was best—one based on free markets or one based on government control. During the Great Depression, some thought capitalism was
fatally flawed. The power of the state was on the rise, with the Soviet Union in the forefront trying to spread communism. Other countries
turned to heavy regulation, nationalizing key industries, and creating welfare states. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev actually said, "We will
bury you." He wasn’t talking about war. He was convinced that communism would outgun the free market. ¶ But the system built on central
planning and oppression was the one that failed. The world didn’t know just how badly the Soviet Union and its satellites had deteriorated until
the fall of the Berlin Wall. But the West was suffering from its own problems. The 1970s brought stagflation, a miserable mix of high inflation
and unemployment. Nationalized industries were bloated and inefficient. Taxes, subsidies, and overregulation were causing us to slowly sink
into an economic swamp. People no longer believed that government had all the answers. ¶ After years on the fringes, a school of free market
thought led by economist Milton Friedman gained new credibility. I remember reading Friedman at Miami University in the 1960s and thinking:
he’s right.¶ The powerful ideas of privatization, supply side tax cuts, and free trade would make their comeback, first in Great Britain under
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and in 1980 in the U.S. with the election of Ronald Reagan as President. Americans were tired of the wellintentioned overspending of the 1970s that had wrecked the economy. They were tired of endless inflation and high interest rates, and they
were ready for Ronald Reagan’s tough medicine. The American people stayed the course through a difficult recession because they knew the
medicine of less government, less spending, and tax cuts would work. They knew that taxing and over-regulating business simply meant fewer
jobs. They knew that too much government spending sapped the nation’s economic strength. And they knew that erecting trade barriers would
simply close us out of markets where people wanted to buy American products.¶ By 1983, the economy had turned toward prosperity. In his
Farewell Address to the nation, President Reagan told the story of an economic summit that year, when one of the world leaders turned to him
and said, "Tell us about the American miracle." The American miracle is really common sense economics. What’s miraculous, though, is that we
actually put those ideas in practice, which is a rarity around the world. As we all know, it’s easy to say but hard to do.¶ I came to Congress in
1981, just after Ronald Reagan swept in a new class of Republicans in 1980. I cast my first vote proudly—yea from the Fourth District of Ohio in
favor of the Reagan tax cut. We were proud to be called Reagan Robots.¶ President Reagan was also right about the Soviet Union. His defense
policies played a huge role in bringing down the Soviet empire…peacefully.¶ When communism collapsed, countries returned to capitalism,
equating it with freedom. During the 1990s, a global economy based on free enterprise and trade blossomed. The U.S. was, and is, the
dominant economic power and a beneficiary of open markets. The Dow Jones Average has risen from 800 in the early 1980s to more than
10,000—not a bad investment.¶ One of the most notable books describing the effects of globalization is The Lexus and the Olive Tree, written
by the columnist Tom Friedman. Friedman explains how the whirlwind expansion of free enterprise and open markets is changing the world.
Nations that are part of the international trading system generally have higher standards of living. Those that are open tend to be freer.¶ To
bring investment to a country, business demands a stable set of laws, transparent finances, safeguards against corruption, and openness.
Democracy and freedom go along with that or aren’t far behind. The Asian Tigers were the first to catch on to this, and the economies of South
Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore took off. Ironically, the financial markets are bringing about reforms in countries that the United
Nations never could. Technology has, of course, made a huge difference. The Internet has made this a smaller world, permitting companies to
operate virtually anywhere. The proliferation of information sources has made it harder for totalitarian societies to maintain control through
censorship.¶ This hit home for me during the trips I made to China. My first visit came some time after the student uprising at Tiananmen
Square, a revolution conducted in part by fax. It was a sobering time. Although China was making progress with economic reforms, it appeared
that the hardliners who ordered the crackdown wanted to return to the bad old days. But the reforms had deep roots. During my next visit, I
met with the Mayor of Shanghai, who sounded like the world’s biggest capitalist. The entrepreneurial spirit was incredible. China’s explosive
growth continues to this day. We have many issues with China, and they’re not where they need to be on human rights. But this is the largest
market of the new century: 1.3 billion people. If we ignore it, others will gladly replace us.¶ Some
look at China and ask if the
U.S. can compete in the global economy. We can, because we have an innate ability to adapt to new
conditions. Our economy is more agile than ever, and I’d offer the following reasons why. Call it my five-part
formula for economic resiliency.¶ A first principle is sound economic policy —having a clear understanding of the
proper role between government and the private sector. Tax policy is important. As far back as President John F.
Kennedy, tax cuts have created growth. If you look at President Bush’s two tax cuts, the package in 2001 came just in time and
prevented the turndown caused by the horrible terrorist attacks of 9/11 from being even more severe. The 2003 tax cuts sparked new growth.
There’s a simple reason behind this: individuals will almost inevitably
spend a dollar more productively than the
federal government. Wise monetary policy fits in here. We’ve been fortunate to have knowledgeable stewards in Federal Reserve
Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and, before him, Paul Volcker. They’ve made informed decisions on interest rates that have helped to keep
deregulation and privatization . The shift from regulation to competition has
saved consumers money, promoted innovation, and given rise to entirely new industries. We’ve now had
inflation low.¶ A second principle is
more than two decades of experience with deregulation, starting with airlines, trains, and trucking and moving to energy, telecommunications,
and financial services. A joint Brookings Institution/Mercatus Center study found that consumers
have saved from 10 to 25
percent from the deregulation of network industries, and the array of new services is astounding.¶ Perfect markets don’t
develop overnight. Sometimes government confounds the problem with poor policy, like the failed electricity restructuring law in California.
There are those who long for a return to the days of command-and-control. But I don’t think that consumers really want to give up the services
and savings that have come from competition.¶ A third bedrock of a resilient economy is
free trade . I’ve alluded to how it lifts
economies and promotes freedom. But because a single plant closing often gets more attention than the diffuse benefits of free
trade to the general public, let’s discuss in plain terms why it’s good for the U.S.¶ First, virtually every other country has higher
tariffs than we do. So the U.S. automatically gains in any trade deal by winning more access for our products. Exports
are deeply ingrained into our economy. Twenty-five percent of our recent growth has come from exports. One in five jobs in the U.S.
is now export-related. And those jobs pay better than the average—wages are typically 13 to 18 percent higher. The choices created
by trade save the average consumer as much as $2,000 annually. Until the recent approval of Trade Promotion Authority, the U.S. was in
danger of slipping. The Europeans were sealing more trade deals, establishing holds in emerging markets that we might not have been able to
break.¶ It’s interesting to me that after ten years, NAFTA still stirs such emotions. It has a good record. While the rhetoric is all over the map,
impartial studies admit that U.S. exports to Mexico have risen substantially, especially in high value products. Mexico is more stable and
democratic and a lucrative North American trading zone has formed. In fact, Canada and Mexico are by far the largest export markets for Ohio.
The Buckeye State has a big stake in international trade. We’re the sixth-largest exporting state, sending nearly $28 billion in goods to other
countries in 2002. Our factories ship cars, rubber, glass products, machinery, plastics, paper, and medical instruments all over the world. You
can trace 20 percent of Ohio’s manufacturing jobs to exports; and on the farm, every third row of corn and soybeans is sent overseas. ¶ Ohio has
also been the beneficiary of foreign investment that has created 200,000 jobs. Perhaps the most dramatic example is Honda. Governor Jim
Rhodes showed great foresight when he traveled to Japan to persuade Honda to build a new automobile plant in Ohio. Approaching its 25th
year of manufacturing in the U.S., Honda directly employs 13,000 people in four Ohio facilities and thousands more in its supplier chain of 125
companies. Honda realized it needed a presence in the U.S. in order to succeed in this market. As a result, workers in my congressional district
are drawing a good paycheck, and the standard for vehicle manufacturing has been raised substantially.¶ A fourth factor of resilience is the
adaptability and creative spirit of Americans . We’re always willing to experiment with new and more
efficient technologies, from the assembly line to e-commerce. Wal-Mart gained its edge by using computers to track inventories.
Factories have cut their costs through just-in-time manufacturing. Chairman Greenspan has said that the growth in productivity is one reason
why the U.S. sustained a long period of both low inflation and low interest rates. While higher productivity is probably temporarily responsible
for a job lag, it’s a must for lasting prosperity. ¶ In the end, we
succeed because of the entrepreneurial skills of our
people. Maybe the Horatio Alger stories sound corny to some people. But America is a place where great software companies do begin in a
garage, and where people are willing to take great risks in order to succeed. It’s not easy to teach innovation like this, but it has always been
part of our society. I think it
starts with a basic belief in freedom, that people are able to pursue their
dreams.¶ So, when I’m asked about the economy, I am optimistic. We overcome our challenges. But there’s
no denying that some of these changes are unsettling. We have gained jobs from globalization, and have also lost them. But the solution isn’t
what the WTO protestors did in Seattle, which was to trash the Starbucks coffee shop, or to revert to knee-jerk protectionism. Some forget that
the Depression was made even worse by the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs.¶ There are things immediately under our control, such as
improving our own competitiveness. Regulations, lawsuits, outdated work rules, and health and energy expenses add about 22 percent to U.S.
manufacturing costs. By passing energy legislation and even modest tort reform, we can start to get a handle on those costs.¶ Look at the
asbestos mess. Legitimate victims deserve compensation, but we now have a system where runaway lawsuits are driving companies into
bankruptcy. Owens-Illinois is a major employer in the Toledo area that has been sued 300,000 times. But despite even the urging of the courts,
efforts in Congress to come up with an equitable and scientific solution to asbestos compensation have been blocked by the powerful trial
lawyers lobby.¶ We
also need to emphasize worker training. Our competitive advantage over developing countries is adding
value to the products we make, and it takes a skilled workforce to do that. When companies do move, the workers left behind need access to
education and retraining programs. In nearby Mansfield, we were able to get a $100,000 federal grant for technology training at North Central
State College.¶ To compete successfully, our citizens need a more thorough understanding of how the global economy works. The media can do
a better job here, because a lack of balance is unfair and even harmful. Why do a few hundred protestors get more coverage than the actual
details of an agreement that could benefit millions of poor people? Why is a factory closing front-page news, but stories on companies quietly
adding 10, 20, or 50 new jobs due to expanded markets less compelling?¶ There is a fifth and final principle of economic resiliency:
the
ability of our system to reform, to move forward, to solve problems, and to become more efficient .
An important part of the American miracle is the political will and the ability to adapt to changing
circumstances. Over the years that I have been involved in economic and business issues, we have been willing to
modernize our markets and remake our economy. We are willing to change, to throw out things that don’t work,
even though the future might be uncertain. America would never allow itself to sink in quicksand like the German economy or
get bogged down by bad bank loans like Japan.¶ The principles of democracy and fairness apply to our government,
and they also govern our marketplace. People in America wouldn’t stand for zero competition in the telecommunications
business; they wanted choice and better service and better prices. So the telecommunications business changed, and the 1996 Telecom Act
was passed. Consequently, the amount and accessibility and speed of information have exploded. In spite of the
burst bubble that set the industry back, telecommunications is now on a track of sustained growth.¶ The individual investor looms large in the
capital markets as well. The markets are constantly evolving, constantly becoming more democratic. Investors
were paying too much in spreads under the old system of fractional pricing, and we were able to prevail upon the exchanges to implement
dollars-and-cents decimal pricing. Now, you see your stock price in dollars and cents, and you pay less to Wall Street when you buy or sell.
Economy won’t collapse—five reasons
Roche 11 (Cullen Roche, writer at Pragmatic Capitalism, “5 REASONS THE U.S. ECONOMY WON’T
COLLAPSE,” http://pragcap.com/5-reasons-the-u-s-economy-wont-collapse, 9-9-11)
I keep repeating that the debate over a double dip is meaningless. Why? Because we’ve been in one long balance
sheet recession this entire time. So, a good way to think about this is to think of the U.S. like a boxer. We were knocked
flat on our back in 2008 and have since struggled to one knee. We never got back to our feet though. So these
conversations that imply we might be on the verge of falling down again are rather pointless. Sure, we
might fall down again, but we already have one knee on the canvass! The point is, with this much slack in the
economy, it’s unlikely that any economic downturn from here will be substantial. Does that mean I think the
U.S. economy can’t contract from here? No, but I would be very surprised if we were to experience another blow similar to the 2008 recession
where real GDP fell 5%.¶ To put this argument in some perspective, analysts
at ING tend to agree. They see the economy
as muddling through, but not collapsing. They cite 5 reasons for this perspective:¶ “Cyclical sensitive sectors,
namely the housing sector and the auto sector, are already weak and are unlikely to contract much more.¶
Households’ balance sheets have improved since the global financial crisis. Lower rates over a considerable
period of time benefit net borrowers. Most US households will benefit from low borrowing rates.¶ The trade deficit is likely to narrow
due to slower import growth, decline in energy and commodity prices and a weak trade weighted
dollar.¶ Decline in commodity prices will check headline inflation and could lift households’ purchasing
power.¶ Investors’ fears are based on their most recent experience. The unpleasant memories of the global financial crisis
are biasing investors’ sentiments. ”¶ Equity markets could be a bit of a different story here. I am actually becoming increasingly concerned
about a potential profits recession in the USA as international growth tapers off (remember, the market is not the economy). But with all of this
doom and gloom in the air, I think it’s important to keep things in some perspective. The
downside for the US economy as a
whole isn’t enormous here. We just don’t have that much further to fall because we never really got up….¶ Source: ING
AT: Economy Impact – Doesn’t Turn Democracy
Economic collapse doesn’t destroy a democracy
Luttwak 07 (Edward Luttwak, reviewing Niall Ferguson’s The War of the World: Twentieth-Century
Conflict and the Descent of the West, “The War of the World by Niall Ferguson,”
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-war-of-the-world-by-niall-ferguson/, March 2007)
But economic volatility did not undermine the democratic systems of the English-speaking countries or
of France, the low countries, Scandinavia, or Switzerland. Not only that, but some countries that remained
democratic, like Australia and the U.S., actually underwent greater economic dislocation than did countries
like Japan and Spain that lost whatever democratic institutions they had. To be sure, one does not demand of a historian that he provide
scientific explanations covering every single case, but these exceptions do nevertheless greatly weaken Ferguson’s thesis.¶ In general, no
matter how plausible economic explanations of political change may appear, on closer examination it always
turns out that the stronger determinant is the prior political culture. Although a society’s political health is certainly
influenced by its economic system and that system’s performance, this influence is felt only over the span of generations; short-term
volatility has a much smaller impact . In particular, democracies that are solid enough can overcome
almost
anything —including not only economic collapse but prolonged foreign occupation—while experimental democracies
sustained only by enlightened minorities are much more easily fractured. This seems obvious and in some ways tautological, but no less true for
that.