MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Politics – Immigration Reform
1NC Shell ............................................................................................................................................... 2
O/V ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Now is key ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Will pass .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Plan costs capital ................................................................................................................................. 15
A2: Winners Win ................................................................................................................................. 18
A2: PC Theory False ............................................................................................................................. 19
PC Key.................................................................................................................................................. 21
Obama pushing immigration reform .................................................................................................. 23
A2: XO ................................................................................................................................................. 24
India Relations Impact Module ........................................................................................................... 25
LA ........................................................................................................................................................ 26
Ag Industry / Food Module ................................................................................................................. 28
Immigration reform – Hegemony Module.......................................................................................... 30
Won’t pass .......................................................................................................................................... 31
PC not key ........................................................................................................................................... 35
Cuba engagement popular.................................................................................................................. 36
Winners Win ....................................................................................................................................... 37
Political capital theory not true .......................................................................................................... 40
Bioterrorism Defense .......................................................................................................................... 42
India defense....................................................................................................................................... 48
1
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
1NC Shell
Immigration reform will pass – but continued investment of political capital is key
CHARLES RICHARDSON | JUN 13, 2013 11:58AM Immigration reform edges forward in the US
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/worldisnotenough/2013/06/13/immigration-reform-edges-forward-in-theus/
Comprehensive immigration reform passes its first hurdle in the US Senate. The jury is still out on
whether the Republican leadership will be willing to let it through the House without weakening it
beyond recognition.¶ Yesterday morning (Australian time) the United States Senate held its first vote on
comprehensive immigration reform. It wasn’t on the bill itself, only a motion to proceed to debate – noone thinks that the current bill is going to be the final version – but it was still an impressive success:
with 60 votes needed, the closure motion had 82 in favor and only 15 (all Republicans) against.¶ For their
different reasons, both sides want a reform bill passed. For the Obama administration it would be
another significant legislative achievement and would provide a path to citizenship for millions of
unauthorised immigrants – who, not irrelevantly, might be expected to eventually vote Democrat. For
the Republicans, it’s an essential step to try to prove to the voting public, particularly Hispanics, that
they are not a bunch of crazy racists.¶ Speaking shortly before the Senate vote, the president pushed
strongly for reform, calling the present system “broken” and saying it “hasn’t matched up with our most
cherished values.” He made it clear that the bill as it stands is a compromise – “nobody is going to get
everything that they want” – but indicated that he was basically happy with it and that, as he put it,
“there’s no reason Congress can’t get this done by the end of the summer.”¶ Getting something like
the present bill through the Senate won’t be very difficult. The problem is the House of
Representatives, where the Republicans hold a majority and where Republican representatives tend to
be further to the right and more beholden to nativist voters than their colleagues in the Senate.¶ Even
so, the numbers are almost certainly there in the House as well, given that if the Democrats vote
solidly they only need 17 Republicans to vote with them for a majority. But the Republican leadership,
and particularly speaker John Boehner, have the power to prevent a measure they disapprove of
being put to a vote.¶ So the current manoeuvring on the bill is mostly about what needs to be done to
win over the House Republican leaders. Interviewed on ABC News this week, Boehner said “I would
expect that a House bill will be to the right of where the Senate is,” but seemed clearly open to the idea
of a bill being allowed to pass the House with only minority support among Republicans. There is a limit
to how far he can go in this direction without alienating his rank-and-file, but if they are going to
overthrow him then immigration is probably not the most likely issue.
The Cuba Lobby has huge sway and will block other legislation in backlash to the plan
The Register 4-21 “The Cuban chill”, April 21st, 2013,
http://www.registerguard.com/rg/opinion/29740770-78/cuba-lobby-policy-china-political.html.csp
Policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally pivotal
state of Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political
denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents in
line behind a policy that, as President Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is
supported by virtually no other countries. (The last time it came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly,
only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point
is not that a Cuba Lobby exists, but that it astonishingly lives on — even during the presidency of
Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus
far. Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby isn’t one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of
2
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
exiles, sympathetic members of Congress and nongovernmental organizations, some of which
comprise a self-interested industry nourished by the flow of “democracy promotion” money from the
U.S. Agency for International Development. And like its Sino-obsessed predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was
launched at the instigation of conservative Republicans in government who needed outside backers to
advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling
New Dealers in the Truman administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald
Reagan’s administration battling congressional Democrats over Central America policy. At the Cuba
Lobby’s request, Reagan created Radio Martí, modeled on Radio Free Europe, to broadcast propaganda
to Cuba. He named Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban American National Foundation, to lead the
radio’s oversight board. President George H.W. Bush followed with TV Martí. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C.,
and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., authored the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, writing the
economic embargo into law so no president could change it without congressional approval. Founded at
the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, CANF was the linchpin of the
Cuba Lobby until Mas Canosa’s death in 1997. “No individual had more influence over United States
policies toward Cuba over the past two decades than Jorge Mas Canosa,” The New York Times
editorialized. In Washington, CANF built its reputation by spreading campaign contributions to bolster
friends and punish enemies. In 1988, CANF money helped Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman defeat
incumbent Sen. Lowell Weicker, whom Lieberman accused of being soft on Castro because he visited
Cuba and advocated better relations. Weicker’s defeat sent a chilling message to other members of
Congress: challenge the Cuba Lobby at your peril. In 1992, according to Peter Stone’s reporting in
National Journal, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli, seduced by the Cuba Lobby’s political
money, reversed his position on Havana and wrote the Cuban Democracy Act, tightening the embargo.
Today, the political action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands out
more campaign dollars than CANF’s political action arm did even at its height — more than $3 million
since 1996. In Miami, conservative Cuban--Americans long have presumed to be the sole authentic voice
of the community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro
terrorist groups such as Omega 7 and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two
Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s
documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF,
played in creating it. Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby has struck fear into the heart of the foreignpolicy bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the
executive branch, routinely punishes career civil servants who don’t toe the line. One of the Cuba
Lobby’s early targets was John “Jay” Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, who was given
an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then assistant
secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor reported from Havana that the Cubans were
serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America. In 1993, the Cuba
Lobby opposed the appointment of President Bill Clinton’s first choice to be assistant secretary of state
for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he once had visited Cuba. Clinton dumped Baeza. Two
years later, Clinton caved in to the lobby’s demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton
Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995 migration accord with Cuba that created a safe,
legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba
told me he stopped sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often
leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could report to
the department by telephone. During George W. Bush’s administration, the Cuba Lobby completely
captured the State Department’s Latin America bureau (renamed the Bureau of Western Hemisphere
Affairs). Bush’s first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan
administration and favorite of Miami hard-liners. Reich had run Reagan’s “public diplomacy” operation
demonizing opponents of the president’s Central America policy as communist sympathizers. In 2002,
3
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Bush’s undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious
charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence officer for Latin
America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to this
mischaracterization of the community’s assessment, Bolton and Reich tried repeatedly to have him
fired. When Obama was elected president, promising a “new beginning” in relations with Havana, the
Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the senior
Cuban-American Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
vehemently opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his
president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a $410
billion omnibus appropriations bill, needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed the
requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased restrictions on
travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had to promise in
writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.
PC is key and finite
Nakamura 2/20 (David, “In interview, Obama says he has a year to get stuff done”, 2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/20/in-interview-obama-says-he-hasa-year-to-get-stuff-done/, CMR)
President Obama said Wednesday he’s eager
to move quickly to enact his second-term agenda, acknowledging that
he has a severely limited time frame before the political world begins thinking about the next election cycle in 2014 and beyond. ¶ Obama
told a San Francisco television station that he
wants to “get as much stuff done as quickly as possible. ”¶ “Once we get through
this year, then people start looking at the mid-terms and after that start thinking about the presidential election,” Obama said during a brief interview with KGO, an
ABC affiliate. “The American people don’t want us thinking about elections, they want us to do some work. America is poised to grow in 2013 and add a lot of jobs
as long as Washington doesn’t get in the way.”¶ Obama’s
remarks were an acknowledgement that a second-term
president’s ability to use his political capital faces rapidly diminishing returns, highlighting the high
stakes of his bids to strike deals with Congress on issues from tax reform, budget cuts, immigration reform and gun
control.
Immigration reform key to STEM leadership and biotech innovation
Scullion ’13 (Christine, “Manufacturers Take the Lead In STEM Education”, January 8,
http://www.shopfloor.org/2013/01/manufacturers-take-the-lead-in-stem-education/27254, CMR)
The U.S. the leading producer of cutting-edge products
Whether it’s
such as those on display at the Consumer Electronics Show.
in IT, biotech , aerospace, medical devices or heavy machinery, US companies will be the ones to
constantly and consistently create new and better things. This future promises to be bright, but only
if we have the workforce capable of pushing that leading-edge . And right now, that doesn’t look like a
very good bet. The lack of a skilled workforce is a constant threat to manufacturing growth. In fact in a recent survey
82% of manufacturers reported a moderate-to-serious shortage in skilled production labor. Worker shortages abound not only
among machinists and welders but also in occupations requiring expertise in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM),
where the unemployment rate today lies well below 4%.¶ The US needs to refocus our workforce training resources
and reform our immigration system to continue to grow and innovate. Immigration reform is a serious
issue for Manufacturers not only in the High-tech arena but across manufacturing sectors. Without a skilled workforce – from the
4
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
PhDs to production labor, the
nation’s economy will suffer and jobs will be moved overseas. Access to the
right individual with the right skills at the right time will ensure that the US remains a global
innovation leader.
The impact is bioterror
Chyba 4 - Co-Director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford
Institute for International Studies, and an Associate Professor at Stanford University
[Christopher & Alex Greninger, “Biotechnology and Bioterrorism: An Unprecedented World” Survival,
46:2, Summer 2004]
In the absence of a comprehensive and effective system of global review of potential high-consequence research, we are instead trapped in a kind of offence–
defence arms race. Even as legitimate
biomedical researchers develop defences against biological pathogens, bad
actors could in turn engineer countermeasures in a kind of directed version of the way natural pathogens evolve resistance to anti-microbial drugs. The
mousepox case provides a harbinger of what is to come: just as the United States was stockpiling 300m doses of smallpox vaccine as a defence against a
terrorist smallpox attack, experimental modification of the mousepox virus showed how the vaccine could possibly be circumvented. The United States is now
funding research on antiviral drugs and other ways of combating smallpox that might be effective against the engineered organism. Yet there are indications
that smallpox can be made resistant to one of the few known antiviral drugs. The
race
future has the appearance of an eternal arms
of measures and countermeasures. The ‘arms race’ metaphor should be used with caution; it too is in danger of calling up misleading analogies to the
nuclear arms race of the Cold War. First, the biological arms race is an offence–defence race, rather than a competition between offensive means. Under the
BWC, only defensive research is legitimate. But more fundamentally, the driver of de facto offensive capabilities in this arms race is not primarily a particular
adversary, but rather the ongoing global advance of microbiological and biomedical research.
nefarious applications
Defensive measures are in a race with
of basic research, much of which is itself undertaken for protection against natural disease. In a sense, we are in an arms
race with ourselves. It is hard to see how this arms race is stable – an offence granted comparable resources would seem to be necessarily favoured. As with
ballistic missile defence, particular defensive measures may be defeated by offensive countermeasures. In
implementing defensive measures will require
not only
research
the biological case,
but drug development and distribution plans. Offensive
measures need not exercise this care, although fortunately they will likely face comparative resource constraints (especially if not associated with a state
programme), and may find that some approaches (for example, to confer antibiotic resistance) have the simultaneous effect of inadvertently reducing a
pathogen’s virulence. The defence must always guard against committing the fallacy of the last move, whereas the offence may embrace the view of the Irish
Republican Army after it failed to assassinate the British cabinet in the 1984 Brighton bombing: ‘Today we were unlucky, but remember we have only to be
lucky once – you will have to be lucky always’.40 At the very least, the defence will have to be vigilant and collectively smarter than the offence. The
only
way for the defence to win convincingly in the biological arms race would seem to be to succeed in discovering and
implementing certain de facto last-move defences, at least on an organism-by-organism basis. Perhaps there are defences, or a web of
defences, that will prove too difficult for any plausible non-state actor to engineer around. Whether such defences exist is unclear at this time, but
their exploration should be a long-term research goal of US biodefence efforts. Progress might also have an important impact
on international public health. One of the ‘Grand Challenges’ identified by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in its $200m initiative to improve global
health calls for the discovery of drugs that minimise the emergence of drug resistance – a kind of ‘last move’ defence against the evolutionary
countermeasures of natural microbes.41 Should a collection of such defensive
ultimately succumb to a kind of globalised
moves prove possible, bioterrorism might
dissuasion by denial :42 non-state groups would calculate that they could not hope to
achieve dramatic results through biological programmes and would choose to direct their efforts elsewhere.
Extinction
Steinbruner 97 John D. Steinbruner, Brookings senior fellow and chair in international security, vice
chair of the committee on international security and arms control of the National Academy of Sciences,
Winter 1997, Foreign Policy, “Biological weapons: a plague upon all houses,” n109 p85(12), infotrac
Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction,
there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons
do not reproduce
themselves and do not independently engage
in adaptive behavior ; pathogens do both
of these things. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular
event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and
5
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to
estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for
tactical military planning. The use of a
pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be
precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively
enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most
likely to have a decisive effect and
therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other
direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be
capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire
world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global
contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.
6
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
O/V
Disad outweighs –
Failure to reform immigration ensures collapse of US biotech innovation necessary to
dissuade and contain a bioterror attack
Risk of attack is high – only counter-measures solve
Glassman ’12 (James, “Expert: U.S. unprepared for bioterrorism attack”, April 5,
http://www.bioprepwatch.com/us_bioterror_policy/expert-u-s-unprepared-for-bioterrorismattack/323620/, CMR)
A recent essay published in Forbes magazine supports the contention that the
United States remains woefully unprepared , if
not uninterested, in the chances that it will face an attack using biological weapons.¶ James Glassman, a former
undersecretary of state for public affairs and public diplomacy and the founder of the George W. Bush Institute, said that the
United States remains vulnerable to an attack that could potentially kill hundreds of thousands of people because it lacks a
means of producing needed medical countermeasures , according to Forbes.¶ Three years ago, a Congressional commission
concluded that there is 50 percent chance that there will be an attack using a weapon of mass destruction somewhere
in the world by 2013. The Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism declared that the weapon used would more
likely be biological than nuclear.¶ Regardless, Glassman said that the public has heard little about bioterrorism since the anthrax attacks in
2001, despite the considerable risk.¶ “Terrorists
could spray Bacillus anthracis from crop-dusters over football stadiums,”
Glassman wrote, Forbes reports. “Or they could send intentionally infected fanatics out to spread the smallpox virus through
a crowded city, doing far more damage than a brigade of suicide bombers.”¶ Glassman pointed to last October’s Bio-Response Report
Card study, issued last year by the Bipartisan WMD Terrorism Research Center, as proof that the country needs to do more to confront the
threat of bioterrorism. The report card gave the United States a “D” grade for its detection and diagnosis capability and for the
availability of medical countermeasures.¶ Glassman said that larger biopharmaceutical firms have done little to
develop countermeasures, but small firms have filled the gap with mixed success.
New tech will ease delivery, increase bioweapon lethality—experts agree
Judith Miller, contributing editor, "Bioterrorism's Deadly Math," CITY JOURNAL, Fall 2008, pp. 53-61.
The challenge grows larger each day as the biotech revolution spreads skills and knowledge
around the globe. Margaret Hamburg, a physician who served in senior health posts in the federal
government and in New York City, calls the explosion of biotechnology "frightening." In a speech last September,
she speculated on a variety of weapons, some already existent and others still being researched,
that foes might deploy one day: aerosol technology to deliver infectious agents more efficiently
into the lungs; gene therapy vectors that could cause a permanent change in an infected person's
genetic makeup; "stealth" viruses that could lie dormant in victims until triggered; and biological
agents intentionally engineered to be resistant to available antibiotics or evade immune
response.
It will cause extinction
Anders Sandberg et al., James Martin Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford
University, "How Can We Reduce the Risk of Human Extinction?" BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS,
9-9-08, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction, accessed 5-2-10.
7
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been made in
reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a global thermonuclear war and a
resulting nuclear winter. We may face even greater risks from emerging technologies. Advances
in synthetic biology might
make it possible to engineer pathogens capable of extinction-level pandemics . The knowledge,
equipment, and materials needed to engineer pathogens are more accessible than those needed
to build nuclear weapons. And unlike other weapons, pathogens are self-replicating , allowing a
small arsenal to become exponentially destructive . Pathogens have been implicated in the
extinctions of many wild species. Although most pandemics "fade out" by reducing the density of susceptible populations,
pathogens with wide host ranges in multiple species can reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentional
release of engineered pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and lethality might be
capable of causing human extinction . While such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may increase as
biotechnologies continue to improve at a rate rivaling Moore's Law.
Threat is real and growing--Aum Shinrikyo would have eventually succeeded if not
caught by the authorities
Rita Grossman-Vermaas, Brian D. Finlay, and Elilzabeth Turpen, Ph.D., OLD PLAGUES, NEW
THREATS: THE BIOTECH REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPACT ON U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY, Henry L. Stimson
Center, March 2008, p. 2-4.
There is also precedent for the use of pathogens and toxin as bioweapons by sub-state terrorist
groups. On at least three occasions, Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese cult responsible for the 1995 sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo
subway system, dispersed botulinum toxin aerosols at multiple sites in downtown Tokyo and at US military installations in Japan.
Fortunately, their dissemination attempts were unsuccessful in causing fatalities, seemingly “due to faulty
microbiological technique, deficient aerosolgenerating equipment, or internal sabotage.”8 If the operations of this group
had not been disrupted by Japanese authorities, it is presumed that it would have eventually
overcome the technical hurdles and successfully weaponized the toxin. Aum Shinrikyo also experimented with
both anthrax and Ebola cultures. The ease of access to biological agents and weapons expertise by state
and non-state actors has greatly increased and become widely recognized as a serious domestic
and international security threat. This concern has only been heightened with scientific advances,
the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the events of September 11, 2001, and the dissemination
of the spore-forming bacterium that causes anthrax through the US postal system in October 2001.
8
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Now is key
Now is key – delaying will risk not enough time to pass
Caroline Kelley June 12, 2013 Can Congress Vote On Immigration Reform Before Its Vacation?
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/12/can-congress-pass-immigration-reform-before-itsvacation/#ixzz2WEmlydK5
A significant delay in the Senate could make it harder for the House to vote on immigration reform
before Congress goes on vacation. The House is scheduled to be in session for just 16 days following
the July 4 holiday before lawmakers begin their month-long vacation on August 5th. House Speaker
John Boehner has said he hopes the House can vote before then.¶ Reform advocates worry that if a bill
isn’t passed before August, opponents might marshal intense opposition to it in the media and at
lawmakers’ town hall meetings, just as they did with Obama’s health care plan in the summer of 2009,
which threatened to derail that bill. Ornstein thinks immigration reform could survive Congress’s recess,
but that the delay would make passage more difficult.
9
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Will pass
Will pass – New border security compromises give momentum
Jill Replogle, KPBS June 21 http://imperialbeach.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/hopefor-immigration-bill-with-injection-of-border-security
The Senate announced a major compromise on immigration reform legislation this week involving a
super-boost for border security.Here’s the gist of the deal: Double the size of the Border Patrol and
build 700 miles of new fencing. In return, get enough Republican votes to pass the immigration reform
bill while maintaining one of the bill’s key tenets — a path to citizenship for an estimated 8 million
immigrants currently in the country illegally.Backers of the bill hope the “border surge,” as some have
dubbed it, will also help its chances of passing through the more conservative House of
Representatives.Congressman Juan Vargas, a Democrat, represents California’s southernmost district.
He said the border security proposal is, perhaps, obligatory overkill.“They want to add another 20
thousand people there to prevent the maids and a lot of the gardeners from coming to the United
States, that’s ridiculous,” Vargas said. “But, ok, if that’s the ransom we’re going to have to pay to get
your vote, let’s do it.” Vargas said he is hopeful the beefed up bill will find favor in the House. The
question is whether or not Speaker John Boehner will even let it get to a vote.
Will pass – momentum with new border security compromise
NVO News, Immigration reform 2013 news: breakthrough possible, will the bill be passed?
June 22, 2013 | Filed under: world | Posted by: admin http://nvonews.com/2013/06/22/immigrationreform-2013-news-breakthrough-possible-will-the-bill-be-passed/
After facing a near collapse, the immigration reform bill witnessed a potential major breakthrough
after a new bipartisan proposal has been drafted in the Senate to dramatically increase border
security, demand that was raised by the Republican lawmakers since a long time.¶ The draft came
after a large number of Republican senators had maintained that they would not vote for immigration
reform unless it includes strong and verifiable steps to secure the country’s porous borders and stem the
flow of illegal crossers. A spate of disagreements taking place over the exact definition of what
constitutes adequate border security had threatened to derail the bill, which would provide a path to
citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, if clearedThe amendment, that
came after negotiating with the bipartisan group that wrote the original immigration reform bill,
mandates 20,000 more U.S. border agents, the construction of more than 1,000 kilometers of new
fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and an upgrade of border monitoring technology. Providing
legal status to the undocumented would proceed only after those conditions are met.
Will pass – new compromises will provide necessary votes
Alex Leary, Times Washington Bureau Chief Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:19am Immigration reform
compromise would improve border security http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/dealemerges-to-improve-border-security-in-immigration-bill/2127682
WASHINGTON — A deal to spend tens of billions more on border security was announced by a
bipartisan group of senators Thursday, who heralded it as a major breakthrough on a comprehensive
immigration bill that has been hung up over the issue.¶ The compromise would add 20,000 border
patrol agents — double the manpower in place now — complete 700 miles of new fencing along the
southern border and mandate other enforcement measures before millions of immigrants could apply
10
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
for green cards, a permanent residency status that can lead to citizenship.¶ "For people who are
concerned about border security, once they see what's in this bill, it's almost overkill," Sen. Bob
Corker, R-Tenn., who led the compromise with Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said on MSNBC.¶ Sen. Charles
Schumer, D-N.Y., a top negotiator on the original bill, gushed on the Senate floor about a "breathtaking
show of force" that would "inundate" the southern border. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., referred to it as a
"surge," invoking the troop buildup in Iraq.¶ It was a carefully constructed effort that paid immediate
dividends. At least one Republican senator, Mark Kirk of Illinois, said he could now support the bill.
Others who were considered open to the bill were moving in that direction.
Will pass – Ryan endorsement, Rubio clarification, Ayotte’s support and Boehner
motivation
Jonathan Chait 6/10/13 at 12:55 PM 97Comments Immigration Reform Back From the Brink
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/immigration-reform-back-from-the-brink.html
There was a moment last week when the prospects for immigration reform looked, if not grave, then
at least extremely dicey. Marco Rubio said he wouldn’t vote for his own bill. Raul Labrador, one of
four Republicans negotiating a bipartisan plan in the House, ominously withdrew from the negotiations
and even more ominously declared, “What may be the story at the end of this session is that Obamacare
killed immigration reform.Ӧ But the events since then have suggested just the opposite. Republicans
aren’t looking for a way to quietly fold their tent. In fact, the prospects of passage have probably never
looked stronger.¶ Several things have happened to undergird this conclusion. In the wake of
Labrador’s exit, Paul Ryan endorsed the House bill. Rubio then clarified, or revised, or in any case
communicated, that he’s not trying to back away but remains as committed as ever (“I won't abandon
this issue until it's done, until we get a bill passed.”). Republican senator Kelly Ayotte — a vulnerable
purple-state Republican, but not one given over to bipartisanship — announced her support for the
Senate bill.¶ Probably the most important development of the entire immigration saga is that John
Boehner is finally showing his hand, at least anonymously. Seung Min Kim and Jake Sherman report for
Politico, “privately, the Ohio Republican is beginning to sketch out a road map to try to pass some
version of an overhaul in his chamber — a welcome sign for proponents of immigration reform.”¶
Boehner apparently isn’t certain whether his plan will involve passing a bipartisan bill through his
chamber or passing some smaller, right-wing bill first. The key thing is the end game. Whatever the
House passes, it will prompt a conference to merge the House and Senate bills. In all likelihood, there
will be 218 votes to pass some kind of comprehensive reform through the House. But almost certainly,
the vast majority of those 218 votes will be Democrats. So the question isn’t whether Boehner will
support a comprehensive reform bill, but whether he will let one come to a vote.¶ One thing I learned in
the course of underestimating Mitt Romney’s chances of making it through a Republican primary is that
the public version of the intraparty debate does not perfectly reflect the real thing. Conservative
activists vent in public, and the party establishment tends to operate behind the scenes. The
Establishment seems to have decided to respond to the election by trying to take immigration policy off
the table. (Ryan’s support for reform is the strongest single indicator of the party Establishment’s
thinking.)¶ There is no doubt that conservatives will revolt against the bill. The major question is whether
John Boehner really wants to kill reform, whether he wants to cast a symbolic vote against reform while
letting Democrats pass it for him, or whether conservative opponents will force him to keep a bill from
coming up. The back-from-the-brink signals sent out by Establishment Republicans suggest Boehner and
the party’s Establishment don’t want to kill it.
11
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Will pass – vote counts prove it will pass despite amendment attempts
Nicole Debevec, United Press International 6-16-13 Read more:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/06/16/The-Issue-Immigration-reform-bill-finally-hits-Senatefloor/UPI-74111371375000/#ixzz2WQ5X3BsL
Debate finally began on the U.S. Senate floor last week on the bipartisan immigration reform bill seen
as the best opportunity in a while -- or for a while -- to overhaul the nation's immigration laws.¶ Senate
supporters still must fend off opponents' "poison pill" amendments designed to nothing more than
scuttle the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act. However,
Senate leaders and vote-counters expressed confidence the bill would pass with 60 votes, and
possibly 70, before the July 4 recess
Momentum toward passage – clearing early hurdles
Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial: Border bill earns support 6-14-13 Read more at
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20130614_Inquirer_Editorial__Border_bill_earns_suppo
rt.html#BWRoAiBh0Z0q73Xh.99
Don't get too excited, but proponents can smile at immigration reform's clearing of two early hurdles.
Three weeks ago, it was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and on Thursday, it survived an
attempt to saddle it with a counterproductive border-control amendment.¶ The amendment,
sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), would delay the reform bill's granting of provisional
legal status to millions of people without proper documentation until the U.S.-Mexico border has been
certified by Congress as under "effective control" for six months. But Congress is too prone to political
machinations to let it declare when the border is under control, which the amendment defined as
impervious to 90 percent of the people attempting to cross it illegally. Besides, the unadorned bill
already calls for a 90 percent apprehension rate through increased security efforts.
Will pass – Momentum and Obama push
Arab American News, Immigration bill clears early test vote; Obama calls for action Thursday,
06.13.2013, 10:02pm
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=USA&article=6944
The U.S. Senate voted on Tuesday, June 11, to begin debate and amendments on a historic immigration
bill, burying a procedural roadblock that opponents regularly use to delay or even kill legislation.¶ With
November's election results indicating broad support for updating the country's immigration laws, even
some senators who have expressed opposition to the Senate bill voted to allow the debate to go ahead.¶
By a vote of 82-15, the Senate cleared the way for the long-anticipated debate that could extend
through June.¶ Opponents of the bill quickly offered amendments to significantly change or possibly kill
the measure if adopted.¶ Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa introduced a plan requiring the
Obama administration to certify "effective control over the entire southern border" for a period of six
months before any of the 11 million undocumented residents in the United States could begin applying
for legal status.¶ "Border security first, legalize second," Grassley said.¶ Other Republican senators are
pushing similar proposals.¶ The legalization and ultimate citizenship for the 11 million is a central
component of the bill. Democrats and some Republicans have vowed to block any measure that leaves
their fate in doubt indefinitely.¶ Earlier on Tuesday, President Barack Obama sought to inject
momentum into the push for U.S. immigration reform.¶ "If you genuinely believe we need to fix our
broken immigration system, there's no good reason to stand in the way of this bill," Obama said at the
White House just hours before the Senate staged its first vote on the measure.¶ "If you're serious about
actually fixing the system, then this is the vehicle to do it," he said.¶ Obama, who won re-election last
12
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
year thanks in part to strong support from Latino voters, has made immigration reform a top priority of
his second term.¶ He had not given a major public address on the issue for some time, reflecting a White
House strategy of not wanting to get in the way of the bipartisan bill's progress in the Senate.¶ Obama's
speech on Tuesday was the first major departure from that strategy.¶ The Senate bill would authorize
billions of dollars in new spending for enhanced border security and create new visa programs for highand low-skilled workers in addition to providing a pathway to citizenship for the roughly 11 million
undocumented immigrants - many from Mexico and Central America - currently in the country.¶ As
Congress plunged into a contentious debate on the bill, freshman Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a
Democrat, delivered a Senate speech in support of the bill in Spanish.¶ Senate officials said it was the
first time in at least decades that a floor speech was spoken entirely in a language other than English.¶
MAJOR CHANGES AHEAD?¶ The bill, which has broad support from Obama's Democrats, will need
backing from some Republicans in order to give it momentum in the more conservative, Republicancontrolled House of Representatives, where the pathway to citizenship provisions face deeper
skepticism.¶ Four Republicans joined with four Democrats in writing the Senate bill earlier this year.¶ In a
sign of the hurdles to come, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said he expected immigration
reform to be law by the end of the year. But he said the Senate measures to enforce the changes and
secure the U.S. border with Mexico were inadequate.¶ And Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell
of Kentucky warned in a speech in the Senate: "In days ahead there will be major changes in this bill if it
is to become law."¶ Immigrant groups fear that too many changes could erode a delicate coalition now
pushing the bill.¶ Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, told ABC television in an interview that aired
on Tuesday: "I've got real concerns about the Senate bill, especially in the area of border security and
internal enforcement of the system. I'm concerned that it doesn't go far enough."¶ Boehner added that
reforming the nation's immigration system was his top legislative priority this year.¶ "I think by the end
of the year we could have a bill," he told ABC. Asked if that bill would be one to also pass the Democratled Senate and be signed into law by Obama, Boehner said: "No question
Immigration reform will pass – proponents are massively outspending in ad campaigns
that generate momentum
David Iaconangelo, Jun 12, 2013 02:18 PM EDT Immigration Reform Supporters Outspending
Opponents On Ads 3-1 http://www.latintimes.com/articles/5133/20130612/immigration-reformsupporters-outspending-opponents-ads-campaign.htm
An analysis of television advertising across the United States so far in 2013 by Kantar Media, a media
monitoring and marketing company, finds that supporters of the comprehensive immigration reform
bill currently being contemplated by the Senate are outspending opponents by more than 3 to 1.
Backers have poured in more than $2.4 million so far this year, in contrast to the approximate
$717,000 contributed by opponents, according to USA Today; 41 percent of the $2.4 million went
toward Spanish-language ads, while none of the opponents' money was appropriated for Spanishlanguage use.¶ The AFL-CIO, the biggest federation of unions in the United States, has put about
$419,000 toward ads supporting it, and another labor group, the Service Employees International
Union (SEIU), unveiled today the fifth ad in a blitz of commercials. The SEIU says the amount of money
contributed to the ad campaign reaches seven figures. The five spots feature five different groups of
people showing their support for the reform - veterans, small business owners, DREAMers, law
enforcement officials and Republican voters. An ally of the group, Ali Noorani of the National
Immigration Forum, indicated to Marketplace.org that the reform backers' advantage in ad spending
was a reflection of a broad coalition of support for the bill, saying, "The other side has outspent
proponents of immigration reform pretty significantly over the past decade. Only now are we starting to
13
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
catch up. But I think more importantly, now you've conservative faith voices, you've got business, you've
got labor, you have law enforcement, all making their opinions known in paid advertisements."
Will pass - AFL-CIO providing momentum in immigration reform fight
AFT News, 6-14-13 Ramping it up for immigration (American Federation of Teacher’s News)
reformhttp://www.aft.org/newspubs/news/2013/061413immigration.cfm
The AFT's lobby day was part of a broader push organized by the AFL-CIO. All told, labor immigration
reform advocates came from 27 states. At an AFL-CIO briefing before the Hill visits, AFL-CIO president
Rich Trumka (pictured below) described his work with the Chamber of Commerce to hammer out a
labor-business agreement that the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" senators who drafted the immigration bill
could use.¶ ¶ Labor is fighting aggressively to get immigration reform signed into law by August, if
possible, Trumka promised. "The bigger vote we get in the Senate, the more likely we are to get a bill
through the House.¶ "These workers are citizens in every way but name,” he said. "This is our chance
to fix a broken system that has been used to drive down the wages of every worker out there."
AFL-CIO lobby is super powerful
Center for Responsive Politics, last updated 2012
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000088
One of the most powerful unions in the country, the AFL-CIO represents more than 13 million workers
nationwide. The federation acts as an umbrella group for 64 unions, bringing together workers from a
wide range of industry and government jobs, from the Screen Actors Guild to the American Postal
Workers Union. hide¶ The AFL-CIO lobbies the federal government on job creation, worker safety and
health care issues, and it recorded its largest federal lobbying expenditure ($4.51 million) in 2010. It
has long supported Democratic candidates and frequently runs television ads against Republican
opponents. In 2002, the union filed suit against the sponsors of the campaign finance reform bill,
contending that the bill’s restrictions on campaign advertising violate free speech.
14
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Plan costs capital
Reforming Cuba policy will be a fight
Think Progress 4-9 “How the GOP Response to Beyoncé’s Cuba Trip Highlights Broken Policy”, April
9th, 2013, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/09/1838661/rubio-beyonce-cuba/
Experts at CAP and the Cato Institute alike agree that the policy has been an abject failure at achieving
the goals the United States set out. On taking office, President Obama sought to roll-back some of the
harsher restrictions the previous administration placed on Cuba, including removing a ban on
remittances from Cubans in the U.S. to their families back home and reducing travel restrictions on
Americans with immediate family in Cuba. Every step towards reforming Cuba policy, however, has
been met with kicking and screaming, mostly from the GOP with some Democrats joining in. While the
human rights violations the Cuban regime continues to perpetrate are most certainly a concern, campaign funding may play a
strong role in the perpetuation of U.S. policies. A 2009 report from Public Campaign highlighted the nearly $11
million the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, along with a “network of hard-line
Cuban American donors,” spent on political campaigns since 2004. In the report, those candidates who received
funding displayed a shift in voting patterns on Cuba policy in the aftermath of the gift
Removing the embargo would be a fierce political fight
DAMIEN CAVE Published: November 19, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easingembargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Any easing would be a gamble. Free enterprise may not necessarily lead to the embargo’s goal of free
elections, especially because Cuba has said it wants to replicate the paths of Vietnam and China, where
the loosening of economic restrictions has not led to political change. Indeed, Cuban officials have
become adept at using previous American efforts to soften the embargo to their advantage, taking a cut
of dollars converted into pesos and marking up the prices at state-owned stores.¶ And Cuba has a long
history of tossing ice on warming relations. The latest example is the jailing of Alan Gross, a State
Department contractor who has spent nearly three years behind bars for distributing satellite telephone
equipment to Jewish groups in Havana.¶ In Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main impediment to an
easing of the embargo, but there are also limits to what the president could do without Congressional
action. The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act conditioned the waiving of sanctions on the introduction of
democratic changes inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also requires that the embargo remain
until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected government. Obama administration officials say
they have not given up, and could move if the president decides to act on his own. Officials say that
under the Treasury Department’s licensing and regulation-writing authority, there is room for significant
modification. Following the legal logic of Mr. Obama’s changes in 2009, further expansions in travel
are possible along with new allowances for investment or imports and exports, especially if narrowly
applied to Cuban businesses.¶ Even these adjustments — which could also include travel for all
Americans and looser rules for ships engaged in trade with Cuba, according to a legal analysis
commissioned by the Cuba Study Group — would probably mean a fierce political fight. The handful of
Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred oppose looser rules.¶ When asked
about Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more American support, Representative Ileana RosLehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee,
proposed an even tighter embargo.¶ “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact,
should be strengthened, and not be altered,” she wrote in an e-mail. “Responsible nations must not
15
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
buy into the facade the dictatorship is trying to create by announcing ‘reforms’ while, in reality, it’s
tightening its grip on its people.”
The pro-embargo lobby has control over Congress and the White House – reforming
policy is impossible
US-Cuba Politics 5-14 “United States Cuba Relations – Why U.S. Cuba Policy Does Not Change:
Asymmetrical Absurdity”, May 14th, 2013, http://www.uscubapolitics.com/2013/05/united-states-cubarelations-why-us.html
Over the last decade we have seen many attempts to change U.S. Cuba policy beginning with lifting the travel
ban. All have failed. Most recently, we have seen the efforts to remove Cuba from the Terror List, a designation that Cuba does not
deserve and only serves to keep costs higher between the two countries, also fail. Conversely, we have seen the hand of the proembargo hardliners grow bigger and stronger. Legislation to expand Cuba travel is consistently blocked
or thwarted in Congress. Funding for clandestine “Democracy” programs like the ones that got Alan
Gross into a Cuban prison, still continue to be funded. The pro-embargo voting bloc raises money and
elected six Members of Congress to be their vanguards on the floors of Congress. Their capacity to even
reach into the White House, the Executive Branch, and establish themselves in gateway leadership
positions in the Congress all speak to a well concerted political effort. Government officials and policy
makers have to tow the hard line through the veiled and actual threats of holding up Presidential
appointments or congressional funding. Intelligence and reason have taken a back slide to raw political
power. Meet the consequences of distorted politics.
Recent embargo repeal bill proves backlash to opening trade with Cuba
National Journal 5-12 [Billy House - National Journal Daily Extra PM “Cuba Bill Ties Embargo to
Prisoner's Release”, May 12th, 2013
A veteran House Democrat introduced a bill last week to lift the 50-year-old U.S. embargo against Cuba.
But in a new twist, the bill would tie such a move to the "immediate" and "unconditional" release of an
American from a Cuban prison and the removal of Cuba from the State Department's list of states that
sponsor terrorism. "Cuba is no longer a threat to the United States, and the continuation of the embargo
on trade between the two countries declared in 1962 is not fulfilling the purpose for which it was
established," Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., said in announcing his legislation. While Rush's bill generally
follows in the footsteps of the United States-Cuba Trade Normalization Act that he initially introduced in
2009, Rush certainly is not the only lawmaker to craft legislation to ease relations with the island nation
off Florida. But by linking any lifting of the embargo to the release of American prisoner Alan Gross, a
Maryland man arrested in Cuba in 2009, Rush will surely draw the ire of Cuba-policy hard-liners inside
and out of Congress. While such opposition is almost certain to block the bill from becoming law, it
may also draw attention to issues that have all but frozen any efforts to improve relations between the
two countries. Gross had been working as a government subcontractor for the U.S. Agency for
International Development as part of a democracy-building program, only to be arrested and
prosecuted for alleged crimes against Cuba in providing satellite phones and computer equipment
without a permit. The Cubans claim his activities were aimed at destabilizing their government, and he is
currently serving a 15-year prison sentence. Meanwhile, the State Department continues to list Cuba as
a sponsor of terrorist groups, as it has since 1982. State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told
reporters recently that the administration "has no current plans to remove Cuba from the list," despite
calls for that. The list also includes Iran, Sudan, and Syria. U.S. lawmakers who were part of a bipartisan
congressional delegation that traveled to Cuba in February say their discussions with President Raul
16
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Castro revealed there is interest in improving relations, but they acknowledge that the imprisonment of
Gross and the State Department designation loom as major impediments. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.,
was on that trip, and he is one of two lawmakers to directly meet with Gross, who is from Van Hollen's
district. In an interview with National Journal, Van Hollen said, "The continued detention of Alan Gross
has been a significant obstacle to improved relations between the U.S. and Cuba." But the congressman
said the inability to resolve the matter serves the interests of hard-liners in both countries, who would
prefer not to see improved relations.
Plan’s massively controversial --- GOP hates it
Hanson 10 (Stephanie, Associate Editor and Coordinating Editor – CFR, “U.S.-Cuba Relations”, Council
on Foreign Relations Report, 1-11, http://www.cfr.org/publication/11113/uscuba_relations.html)
Ending the economic embargo against Cuba would require congressional approval. Opinions in
Congress are mixed: A group of influential Republican lawmakers from Florida--Lincoln Diaz-Balart, his
brother Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen--is strongly anti-Castro. Still, many favor improving relations with Cuba. In
2002, a bipartisan group of senators, the Congressional Cuban Working Group, proposed a set of measures that included lifting the travel ban and allowing private financing of food and
agriculture sales. In 2003, both the House and Senate voted to lift the travel ban, but the measure was removed after President Bush threatened a veto. In 2009, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the
top-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a report calling for U.S. policy changes. He said: "We must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and
deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests" (PDF) What is the likelihood that the United States and Cuba will resume diplomatic relations? Given the range of issues
dividing the two countries, experts say a long process would precede resumption of diplomatic relations. Daniel P. Erikson of the Inter-American Dialogue says that though "you could have the
the
near term. Many recent policy reports have recommended that the United States take some
unilateral steps to roll back sanctions on Cuba. The removal of sanctions, however, would be just one
step in the process of normalizing relations. Such a process is sure to be controversial, as indicated by
the heated congressional debate spurred in March 2009 by attempts to include provisions easing
travel and trade restrictions in a large appropriations bill. These provisions passed in a March 10
vote. "Whatever we call it--normalization, detente, rapproachement--it is clear that the policy process risks falling victim to
the politics of the issue," says Sweig. At the start of 2010, there were several bills before Congress
that aimed to lift travel restrictions, but experts think it's unlikely that these measures will pass
(MiamiHerald).
resumption of bilateral talks on issues related to counternarcotics or immigration, or a period of détente, you are probably not going to see the full restoration of diplomatic relations" in
17
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
A2: Winners Win
Only true for top agenda items.
Mathews and Todd, 2009 (Chris and Todd, political director at NBC, Hardball, June 22, google)
MATTHEWS: What are the political stakes for Obama get health care passed this year? Does the success of Obama`s presidency ride on it?
Chuck Todd is NBC News chief White House correspondent and NBC News political director, as well. Eugene Robinson‘s an MSNBC political
analyst, and of course, lest we forget—I never will—Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for “The Washington Post.” MATTHEWS: Gentlemen,
let‘s start and I want to start with Chuck, our guy on the beat. One thing we`ve learned, it seems, from presidents is you better win that
first year. Reagan won the first year. Bush won the first year. If you win the first year, you really get it going. If you
don`t win on
your big issue, your pet project, if you will -- and it`s more important than that -- you really set a standard for
defeat and you go down to further losses down the road. Your thoughts on this. CHUCK TODD, NBC CORRESPONDENT/POLITICAL
DIRECTOR: Well, no, you`re -- A, you`re absolutely right. And B, it`s, like, people that are familiar with the way Rahm Emanuel thinks on
trying to strategize when it comes to a legislative agenda and getting these big things done, you know, this is the lessons he
feels like he learned the hard way in that first two years of the Clinton administration, `93, `94, when a lot of their big things went down.
Sure, they got their big stimulus package, but they never did get health care. And that
when you look back on it.
is what defines those first two years
Overreaching burns capital.
Politico, 2009 (“RNC hopefuls predict Obama backlash” January 5, google)
The candidates vying to lead the Republican National Committee predicted at a Monday debate that the Obama
administration would outspend its political capital and spark a ballot box backlash. “I think they’re going to give us
the gift of an overreaching, overpowering government that will limit our freedom,” South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon
Dawson said, arguing that Obama’s agenda would amount to “overpromising and building up bigger government.” Saul Anuzis, who chairs
the Michigan GOP, agreed that Obama’s
agenda would open up political opportunities for Republicans.
Obama thinks that pol cap is finite – he’ll back off controversial issues even if he’s
winning
Kuttner 9, co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos, author of "Obama's
Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, 4/28/’9
(Robert, “Obama Has Amassed Enormous Political Capital, But He Doesn't Know What to Do with It,”
http://www.alternet.org/economy/138641/obama_has_amassed_enormous_political_capital,_but_he_
doesn%27t_know_what_to_do_with_it/?page=entire)
We got a small taste of what a more radical break might feel like when Obama briefly signaled with
the release of Bush's torture memos that he might be open to further investigation of the Bush's
torture policy, but then backtracked and quickly asked the Democratic leadership to shut the idea
down. Evidently, Obama's political self wrestled with his constitutional conscience, and won. Civil
libertarians felt a huge letdown, but protest was surprisingly muted. Thus the most important obstacle
for seizing the moment to achieve enduring change: Barack Obama's conception of what it means to
promote national unity. Obama repeatedly declared during the campaign that he would govern as a
consensus builder. He wasn't lying. However, there are two ways of achieving consensus. One is to split
the difference with your political enemies and the forces obstructing reform. The other is to use
presidential leadership to transform the political center and alter the political dynamics. In his first
hundred days, Obama has done a little of both, but he defaults to the politics of accommodation.
18
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
A2: PC Theory False
Political capital theory is true – newest data proves that presidents have significant
legislative influence
Beckman 10 – Professor of Political Science
(Matthew N. Beckman, Professor of Political Science @ UC-Irvine, 2010, “Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 19532004,” pg. 2-3)
Developing presidential coalition building as a generalizable class of strategies is itself instructive, a way of bringing clarity to presidential–
the study’s biggest payoff comes
not from identifying presidents’ legislative strategies but rather from discerning their substantive effects.
congressional dynamics that have previously appeared idiosyncratic, if not irrational. However,
In realizing how presidents target congressional processes upstream (how bills get to the floor, if they do) to influence downstream policy
standard tests of presidential influence have missed most of it.
Using original data and new analyses that account for the interrelationship between prevoting and
voting stages of the legislative process, I find that presidents’ legislative influence is real, often
substantial, and, to date, greatly underestimated.
outcomes (what passes or does not), we see that
Political capital theory is true – modern presidents have unique capabilities – it’s finite
Beckmann and Kumar 11
(Matt, Professor of Political Science, and Vimal, How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US
lawmaking, Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3)
Fortunately for
contemporary presidents, today’s White House affords its occupants an unrivaled supply
of persuasive carrots and sticks. Beyond the office’s unique visibility and prestige, among both citizens and their
representatives in Congress, presidents may also sway lawmakers by using their discretion in budgeting and/or rulemaking,
unique fundraising and campaigning capacity, control over executive and judicial nominations, veto power, or numerous other options under
when it comes to the arm-twisting, brow-beating, and horse-trading that so often
characterizes legislative battles, modern presidents are uniquely well equipped for the fight In the following
the chief executive’s control. Plainly,
we employ the omnibus concept of ‘presidential political capital’ to capture this conception of presidents’ positive power as persuasive bargaining. 1 Specifi cally,
we define presidents’ political capital as the class of tactics White House officials employ to induce changes in lawmakers’ behavior. 2 Importantly, this conception
of presidents’ positive power as persuasive bargaining not only meshes with previous scholarship on lobbying (see, e.g., Austen-Smith and Wright (1994),
Groseclose and Snyder (1996), Krehbiel (1998: ch. 7), and Snyder (1991)), but also presidential practice. 3 For example, Goodwin recounts how President Lyndon
Johnson routinely allocated ‘rewards’ to ‘cooperative’ members: The rewards themselves (and the withholding of rewards) . . . might be something as unobtrusive
as receiving an invitation to join the President in a walk around the White House grounds, knowing that pictures of the event would be sent to hometown
newspapers . . . [or something as pointed as] public works projects, military bases, educational research grants, poverty projects, appointments of local men to
national commissions, the granting of pardons, and more. (Goodwin, 1991: 237) Of course , presidential
political capital is a scarce
commodity with a floating value. Even a favorably situated president enjoys only a finite supply of
political capital; he can only promise or pressure so much. What is more, this capital ebbs and flows as realities and/or
perceptions change. So, similarly to Edwards (1989), we believe presidents’ bargaining resources cannot fundamentally alter legislators’
predispositions, but rather operate ‘at the margins’ of US lawmaking, however important those margins may be (see also Bond and Fleisher
(1990), Peterson (1990), Kingdon (1989), Jones (1994), and Rudalevige (2002)). Indeed, our aim is to explicate those margins and show how
presidents may systematically influence them.
Even if pundits exaggerate the president’s influence, it still is salient
Beckman 10 – Professor of Political Science
(Matthew N. Beckman, Professor of Political Science @ UC-Irvine, 2010, “Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 19532004,” pg. 17)
Even though Washington correspondents surely overestimate a sitting president's potential sway in
Congress, more than a kernel of truth remains. Modern presidents do enjoy tremendous persuasive
assets: unmatched public visibility; unequaled professional staff, unrivaled historical prestige, unparalleled fundraising
capacity. And buttressing these persuasive power sources are others, including a president’s considerable
discretion over federal appointments, bureaucratic rules, legislative vetoes, and presidential trinkets.9 So even
with their limitations duly noted, presidents clearly still enjoy an impressive bounty in the grist of
political persuasion - one they can (and do) draw on to help build winning coalitions on Capitol Hill.
19
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
20
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
PC Key
PC key to immigration reform
Justin Sink 06/13/13 01:03 PM ET Obama, Dems huddle on immigration Read more:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/305369-obama-to-meet-with-senate-dems-onimmigration#ixzz2WEmP1mZM
President Obama will meet Thursday with the four Senate Democrats who crafted a bipartisan
immigration reform bill. Obama will meet with Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Robert
Menendez (N.J.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.) — as well as Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee.¶ The Senate began debating the bill this week amid growing momentum for the
bill.¶ On Tuesday, Obama told lawmakers the “moment is now” to pass immigration reform at a rally
with labor and business leaders and students who are in the U.S. illegally at the White House.¶ “If you're
serious about actually fixing the system, then this is the vehicle to do it," Obama said. "If you're not
serious about it — if you think a broken system is the best America can do, then I guess it makes sense
to block it.”¶ Carney said Thursday that the White House is “heartened” by progress, before adding
more work must be done.¶ “The president’s interest is in the Senate recognizing that we have a unique
opportunity that has been a long time coming and isn’t likely to come again any time soon if we don’t
seize it to pass comprehensive immigration reform with bipartisan support,” Carney added.
PC’s key
Foley 1/15 Elise is a writer @ Huff Post Politics. “Obama Gears Up For Immigration Reform Push In
Second Term,” 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/obama-immigrationreform_n_2463388.html
Obama has repeatedly said he will push hard for immigration reform in his second term, and administration officials have said that other
contentious legislative initiatives -- including gun control and the debt ceiling -- won't be allowed to get in the way. At least at first glance,
he seems to have politics on his side. GOP lawmakers are entering -- or, in some cases, re-entering -- the immigration debate in the wake of disastrous results for their party's
presidential nominee with Latino voters, who support reform by large measures. Based on those new political realities, "it would be a suicidal
impulse for Republicans in Congress to continue to block [reform]," David Axelrod, a longtime adviser to the president, told The Huffington Post.¶
Now there's the question of how Obama gets there. While confrontation might work with Republicans on other issues -- the debt ceiling, for example -- the consensus is
that the GOP is serious enough about reform that the president can, and must, play the role of broker and statesman to get a deal.¶ It starts
with a lesson from his first term. Republicans have demanded that the border be secured first, before other elements of immigration reform. Yet the administration has been by many measures the strictest ever on immigration
enforcement, and devotes massive sums to policing the borders. The White House has met many of the desired metrics for border security, although there is always more to be done, but Republicans are still calling for more before
they will consider reform. Enforcing the border, but not sufficiently touting its record of doing so, the White House has learned, won't be enough to win over Republicans.¶ In a briefing with The Huffington Post, a senior
The administration is highly skeptical of
claims from Republicans that immigration reform can or should be done in a piecemeal fashion. Going down
that road, the White House worries, could result in passage of the less politically complicated pieces, such as an enforcement mechanism and high-skilled worker visas, while leaving out more
contentious items such as a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. ¶ "Enforcement is certainly part of the picture," the official said. "But if you
administration official said the White House believes it has met enforcement goals and must now move to a comprehensive solution.
go back and look at the 2006 and 2007 bills, if you go back and look at John McCain's 10-point 'This is what I've got to get done before I'm prepared to talk about immigration,' and then you look at what we're actually doing, it's like
One key in the second term, advocates say, will be
convincing skeptics such as Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas that the Obama administration held up its end of the bargain by proving a commitment to enforcement. The White
House also needs to convince GOP lawmakers that there's support from their constituents for
immigration reform, which could be aided by conservative evangelical leaders and members of the business community who are pushing for a bill.¶ Immigrant advocates want more targeted deportations
'check, check, check.' We're there. The border is as secure as it's been in a generation or two, so it's really time." ¶
that focus on criminals, while opponents of comprehensive immigration reform say there's too little enforcement and not enough assurances that reform wouldn't be followed by another wave of unauthorized immigration. The
Obama administration has made some progress on both fronts, but some advocates worry that the president hasn't done enough to emphasize it. The latest deportation figures were released in the ultimate Friday news dump:
mid-afternoon Friday on Dec. 21, a prime travel time four days before Christmas. ¶ Last week, the enforcement-is-working argument was bolstered by a report from the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, which found that the
government is pouring more money into its immigration agencies than the other federal law-enforcement efforts combined. There are some clear metrics to point to on the border in particular, and Doris Meissner, an author of the
report and a former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, said she hopes putting out more information can add to the immigration debate.¶ "I've been surprised, frankly, that the administration hasn't
done more to lay out its record," she said, adding the administration has kept many of its metrics under wraps. ¶ There are already lawmakers working on a broad agreement. Eight senators, coined the gang of eight, are working
on a bipartisan immigration bill. It's still in its early stages, but nonmembers of the "gang," such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) are also talking about reform.¶ It's still unclear what exact role
the president will play,
21
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
does plan to lead on the issue. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, said the White House seems sensitive to the fact that
Republicans and Democrats need to work out the issue in Congress -- no one is expecting a fiscal cliff-style arrangement jammed by leadership -but sources say he
while keeping the president heavily involved.
22
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Obama pushing immigration reform
Obama pushing immigration reform
David Nakamura,June 11, 2013 Obama reenters immigration-reform arena as Senate begins debate
on bipartisan bill http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-11/politics/39887343_1_immigrationoverhaul-president-obama-senate-group
After months of allowing a bipartisan group of eight senators to take the lead on drafting the bill,
Obama sought to reassert his position at a time when conservative Republicans have begun mounting
a forceful opposition.¶ The president said the 867-page bill is a compromise in which neither Democrats
nor Republicans would get everything they want. But he emphasized that the United States is a “nation
of immigrants” and said the estimated 11 million people who are in the country illegally deserve a clear
chance to become citizens.¶ “If you genuinely believe we should fix our broken immigration system,
there’s no good reason to stand in the way of this bill,” Obama said, flanked by a coalition of business,
religious and political leaders. “If you’re serious about actually fixing the system, then this is the
vehicle to do it.Ӧ By reentering the debate this week, the president is trying to exert his influence
while not upsetting the delicate balance of the bipartisan group that negotiated the deal, aides said.¶
Obama has made the immigration overhaul one of his top second-term priorities, but his
administration played mostly a supportive role as the Senate group negotiated the legislation. White
House aides have said the president recognizes that being too far in front on immigration could risk
scaring off Republicans fearful of being tied too closely to him.¶ But with the floor debate opening in the
Senate, Obama’s return to the spotlight comes at an important moment. Republican critics of the bill
have begun championing a series of amendments to further strengthen border security, which
immigration advocates fear would slow or even block the path to citizenship.
Obama pushing and PC key to immigration reform
Ben Wolfgang - The Washington Times June 13, 2013, 12:52
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jun/13/obama-meet-democratic-senatorsthursday-keep-pushi/
President Obama on Thursday will meet with key Democratic senators to discuss the ongoing push for
immigration reform, his spokesman said.¶ The group of five senators visiting the White House includes
the four Democratic members of the so-called “Gang of Eight,” the bipartisan group that helped draft
the controversial immigration measure, White House press secretary Jay Carney said¶ Also at
Thursday’s meeting will be Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, who on Wednesday introduced an
amendment to the legislation that would allow an American to sponsor his or her same-sex partner for a
Green Card.¶ It’s unclear whether the Leahy amendment — which could chip away at Republican support
for the bill — will be discussed.¶ Also at Thursday’s meeting will Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin of
Illinois, Charles Schumer of New York, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New
Jersey.¶ There will be no Republicans at the meeting, but that doesn’t mean the president isn’t
engaged with the GOP, Mr. Carney said.¶ “The president has in recent days been in contact with a
number of Republicans on the progress being made on comprehensive immigration reform. He is
reaching out to both parties,” he told reporters.¶
23
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
A2: XO
Our internal link proves Obama would back down without political capital
Executive action fails – deters employers and immigrants
Cox and Rodriguez ‘9 Adam & cristina Adam B. Cox is a Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law
School. Cristina M. Rodríguez is a Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. “The President
and Immigration Law” The Yale Law Journal 119:458 2009
For example, in
situations in which the Executive would prefer to admit immigrants with lawful status, it
is largely powerless to do so. Their lawful admission would be inconsistent with the admissions
criteria established by Congress. One instance in which the Executive might prefer access to the lawful path is when potential
immigrants are unable or unwilling to bear the risks associated with unlawful entry. Whereas many lowskilled migrants with few other options bear these risks, high-skilled immigrants often will not. Migration to the United States
may be less valuable to the latter, because they have more migration options, or because they have economic
prospects at home sufficient to support a family and live a good life. What is more, employers of high-skilled immigrants may
be much less likely to take the risk of flouting the immigration laws than employers of lower skilled labor. For
high-skilled migrants, then, the delegation of ex post screening authority substitutes poorly for ex ante
authority.
No executive action – Obama knows the risks
Hamilton 3/26 (Keegan, “How Obama Could (but Probably Won't) Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants
Today”, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/277799-dont-wait-for-presidentobama-to-act-on-immigration-reform#ixzz2OrYPaWXd , CMR)
With immigration-reform legislation inching toward the president's desk, it's unlikely he'll waste
political capital by halting deportations or even reducing the immigrant detainee population, despite the
budgetary considerations. The prospect of doing anything that might alienate Republicans, especially with a compromise so close, alarms activists like Tamar Jacoby,
president of ImmigrationWorks USA, an advocacy group comprised largely of small-business owners.¶ "We
have a Congress for a reason,"
Jacoby says. "To fix anything permanently you need to have legislation, and in order for that to happen it
has to be bipartisan. My worst nightmare is the president thinking, 'I don't need bipartisan legislation.
Why share credit with Republicans? I can just go on and do this myself.' I think that's a disastrous political strategy."¶ If the current
congressional push for immigration reform were to fail, however, a presidential pardon for undocumented immigrants with no criminal history might be Obama's
last ditch alternative to prosecutorial discretion. Rather than scaling back on detentions, Obama could instantly--and permanently-- legalize millions of illegal
immigrants. Beck, the Georgia law scholar, notes that the Constitution empowers the president to "grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United
States, except in cases of impeachment."¶ The question, he says, is "whether coming into the country in violation of the immigration laws or overstaying a visa
could be deemed an 'offense against the United States.'" But the president has broad powers of pardon, and it seems that Obama could exercise those powers here.
Beck cites United States v. Klein, an 1871 Supreme Court case that involved a presidential pardon issued during the Civil War to confederates who rejoined the
union and took an oath of loyalty.¶ But even
if executive-branch lawyers could put forth a legal rationale for the move,
there are political reasons why Obama would likely be reluctant to make it. Although potentially cementing loyalty from a
generation of Latinos, a mass pardon would likely be deeply unpopular with moderates and liberals who put faith in the legislative process, and would be
considered downright treasonous by many Republicans. Obama
could face Congressional censure or perhaps even
impeachment if he had any time remaining in office, and the backlash against Democrats could make the Tea Party-fueled,
Obamacare-inspired shellacking of 2010 look mild. ¶ "If in December 2016 Obama says, 'Unconditional pardon to
everybody in the country illegally,' that would totally dismantle Democratic Party governance for a
generation," Mayer says. " I don't think he wants that to be his legacy ."
24
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
India Relations Impact Module
Solves US-India relations
LA Times, 11/9/2012 (Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform, p.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigration-reform-eagerly-awaited-bysource-countries.html)
"Comprehensive immigration reform will see expansion of skilled labor visas ," predicted B. Lindsay
Lowell, director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at
Georgetown University. A former research chief for the congressionally appointed Commission on
Immigration Reform, Lowell said he expects to see at least a fivefold increase in the number of highly
skilled labor visas that would provide "a significant shot in the arm for India and China ." There is
widespread consensus among economists and academics that skilled migration fosters new trade
and business relationships between countries and enhances links to the global economy , Lowell
said. "Countries like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad from their expats with
the possibility of brain drain, and I think they still see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus
than not ," he said.
US/India relations averts South Asian nuclear war
Schaffer, Spring 2002 (Teresita – Director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and
International Security, Washington Quarterly, p. Lexis)
Washington's increased interest in India since the late 1990s reflects India's economic expansion and
position as Asia's newest rising power. New Delhi, for its part, is adjusting to the end of the Cold War.
As a result, both giant democracies see that they can benefit by closer cooperation . For Washington,
the advantages include a wider network of friends in Asia at a time when the region is changing
rapidly, as well as a stronger position from which to help calm possible future nuclear tensions in
the region . Enhanced trade and investment benefit both countries and are a prerequisite for
improved U.S. relations with India . For India, the country's ambition to assume a stronger leadership
role in the world and to maintain an economy that lifts its people out of poverty depends critically on
good relations with the United States.
25
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
LA
CIR key to Latin American stability
Gittelson ‘9 (Citation: 23 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 115 2009 THE CENTRISTS AGAINST THE
IDEOLOGUES: WHAT ARE THE FALSEHOODS THAT DIVIDE AMERICANS ON THE ISSUE OF
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM Robert Gittelson has been a garment manufacturer in the Los
Angeles area for over twenty-five years. His wife, Patricia Gittelson, is an immigration attorney with
offices in Van Nuys and Oxnard, California. Robert also works closely with Patricia on the administrative
side of her immigration practice. Throughout his career, Mr. Gittelson has developed practical, firsthand experience in dealing with the immigration issues that are challenging our country today.
In the alternative, should we fail to pass CIR, and instead opt to deport or force attrition on these millions of economic refugees through
an enforcement-only approach to our current undocumented immigrant difficulties, what would be the net result? Forgetting for now
the devastating effect on our own economy, and the worldwide reproach and loss of moral authority
that we would frankly deserve should we act so callously and thoughtlessly, there is another important political
imperative to our passing CIR that affects our national security, and the security and political stability of our neighbors
in our hemisphere. That is the very real threat of communism and/or socialism. First of all, the primary reason why millions
of undocumented economic refugees migrated to the United States is because the economies of their
home countries were unable to support them. They escaped extreme poverty and oppression, and risked literally everything
they had, including their lives and their freedom, to come to this country to try to work hard and support themselves and their families.
Deporting our illegal immigrant population back to primarily Latin America would boost the communist
and socialist movements in that part of our hemisphere, and if the anti-immigrationists only understood that fact, they
might rethink their "line in the sand" position on what they insist on calling 'amnesty. Communism thrives where hope is lost. The
economies of Latin American nations are struggling to barely reach a level of meager subsistence for the
population that has remained at home; Mexico, for example, has already lost 14% of their able-bodied workers to U.S.
migration.3" Without the billions of dollars in remissions from these nations' expatriates working in the
United States that go back to help support their remaining family members, the economies of many of
these countries, most of whom are in fact our allies, would certainly collapse, or at least deteriorate to
dangerously unstable levels. The addition of millions of unemployed and frustrated deported people
who would go to the end of the theoretical unemployment lines of these already devastated economies
would surely cause massive unrest and anti-American sentiment. The issue of Comprehensive Immigration Reform is
not simply a domestic issue. In our modern global economy, everything that we do, as the leaders of that global
economy, affects the entire world, and most especially our region of the world. If we were to naively
initiate actions that would lead to the destabilization of the Mexican and many Central and South
American governments, while at the same time causing serious harm to our own economy (but I digress ... ),
it would most assuredly lead to disastrous economic and political consequences. By the way, I'm not simply
theorizing here. In point of fact, over the past few years, eight countries in Latin America have elected leftist leaders. Just last year, Guatemala
swore in their first leftist president in more than fifty years, Alvaro Colom.3" He joins a growing list. Additional countries besides Guatemala,
Venezuela,32 and Nicaragua33 that have sworn in extreme left wing leaders in Latin America recently include Brazil,34 Argentina,3 5 Bolivia,36
Ecuador,37 and Uruguay.3s This phenomenon is not simply a coincidence; it is a trend. The political infrastructure of Mexico is under extreme
pressure from the left.39 Do we really want a leftist movement on our southern border? If
our political enemies such as the
communists Chavez in Venezuela and Ortega in Nicaragua are calling the shots in Latin America, what
kind of cooperation can we expect in our battle to secure our southern border?
26
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Extinction
Manwaring ‘5 (Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel and an Adjunct Professor of International Politics at
Dickinson College, venezuela’s hugo chávez, bolivarian socialism, and asymmetric warfare, October 2005, pg.
PUB628.pdf)
President Chávez also understands that the process leading to state
failure is the most dangerous long-term security
challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the
breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed
massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can host “evil” networks of all kinds, whether they
involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of ideological crusade such as
Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping,
corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These
means of coercion and persuasion can spawn further
human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in
women and body parts, trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide,
ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined
and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict.62 Peru’s Sendero Luminoso calls
violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure “armed propaganda.” Drug cartels operating throughout the
Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez
considers these actions to be
steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American
socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and operational
objectives, state and nonstate actors’ strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regime’s credibility and capability in
terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. Chávez’s
intent is to focus his primary
attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments’ ability and right to
govern. In that context, he understands that popular perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility
limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its
government is dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability
and
the threat of subverting or destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go
away. Virtually anyone can take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization
on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence, failing
and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue
states, criminal states, narco-states, or new people’s democracies. In connection with the creation of new people’s democracies,
one can rest assured that Chávez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given
opportunity. And, of course, the
longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states and people’s
democracies persist, the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and
prosperity.65
27
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Ag Industry / Food Module
Ag industry’s collapsing now---immigration’s key
Alfonso Serrano 12, Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws, Time, 9-21-12,
http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/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.”¶ (MORE: Why Undocumented Workers Are Good for the Economy)¶ 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.
Extinction
Lugar 2k | Chairman of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee and Member/Former Chair of the
Senate Agriculture Committee (Richard, a US Senator from Indiana, is Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, and a member and former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. “calls
for a new green revolution to combat global warming and reduce world instability,” pg online @
http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html)
In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other crises, it is
easy to lose sight of the long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril. One of the most daunting of them is
meeting the world’s need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only preventing starvation
and saving the environment, but also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go to war over
access to resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism and terrorism. Working to
feed the world will minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of [WMDs]
weapons of mass destruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today
to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will increase well beyond current international
production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake.
Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing world population will need
vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing
countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land disappears,
people destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed
themselves. The long-term environmental consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe.
Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50 years, we in the United States
will have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we have. That’s a tall order. My farm in Marion County,
Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by
2050, we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can
we possibly boost output that much? Well,
it’s been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling
techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced
2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those
results again. Given
the urgency of expanding food production to meet world demand, we must invest much
28
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
more in scientific research and target that money toward projects that promise to have significant
national and global impact. For the United States, that will mean a major shift in the way we conduct
and fund agricultural science. Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary
to feed the world. The United States can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our
success at increasing food production may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of
people and the health of our planet.
29
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Immigration reform – Hegemony Module
Immigration reform key to US heg, economic growth, and competitiveness
Robert Kagan, Published: June 14 Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
Immigration reform can prove U.S. strength and security
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/immigration-reform-can-prove-us-strength-andsecurity/2013/06/14/a3a9df70-d517-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html
Proponents of reform, on the other hand, take an optimistic view of the U.S. capacity to absorb and
benefit from immigration. On the Republican side, they also happen to be the leading proponents of
active U.S. involvement in the world, such as longtime internationalists John McCain and Lindsey
Graham. Like them, another of the immigration reform bill’s sponsors in the Senate, Marco Rubio, has
been a strong advocate for U.S. global leadership. His support for immigration reform clearly stems
from his basic confidence in the United States and his desire to ensure that it can continue to compete
and lead effectively.¶ One of the most important parts of the Senate bill is that it begins to shift our
immigration policy in a direction that most strengthens U.S. competitiveness. Right now, the country’s
immigration policies are heavily weighted in favor of family unification. That’s not merely unification of
the immediate, nuclear family — a worthy and necessary objective — but also extended family, which
has led to “chain migration.” The Senate legislation would eliminate certain categories of family
preference in favor of a more “merit-based” system. In particular, the expansion of the H1-B visa
program for highly skilled immigrants is the kind of measure that high-tech U.S. corporations are
clamoring for. As Rubio and others point out, thousands of foreign students receive excellent educations
at U.S. universities, learn invaluable high-level skills and are then sent back to their home countries, such
as China and India, which then get the full benefit of this American training. Why not keep those
graduates here, where we all would benefit?¶ And we do benefit. Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a
former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has convincingly argued that the right kind of
immigration reform can “raise the pace of economic growth by nearly a percentage point over the
near term, raise GDP per capita by over $1,500 and reduce the cumulative federal debt by over $2.5
trillion.” One of the reasons, he noted, is that “immigrants have traditionally displayed an
entrepreneurial bent, with rates of small business ownership above that of the native born population.”
Those with strong educational backgrounds, in particular, are more likely to make new discoveries and
start businesses, which in turn create jobs. For those worried about immigrants taking away jobs, the bill
has a provision preventing visas from being issued for work in areas of high unemployment.¶ After much
misguided hand-wringing about “American decline,” Congress has a chance to do something to
strengthen the United States at home and abroad. Majorities of Americans in both parties favor
immigration reform, a healthy sign of a return to optimism about the nation’s future. It would be a
healthy sign, too, if a bipartisan majority could come together and, along with the president, meet this
serious national challenge. Many people around the world, and many Americans, have doubts that we
can address any of the big problems facing our nation. Immigration reform is a good place to start
proving them wrong.
30
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Won’t pass
Won’t pass – republican divisions and lack of support, house especially troublesome
Sean Sullivan, Published: June 21, 2013 Three signs of trouble for immigration reform in the House
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/21/three-signs-of-trouble-for-immigrationreform-in-the-house/
The Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform effort picked up steam this week following an agreement to
beef up border security, a nonpartisan analysis concluding the bill would slash deficits by nearly $200
billion over the next decade, and conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly’s endorsement.
But over in the House is a different picture. There are some emerging signs of trouble on the other side
of the Capitol for comprehensive reform advocates. Here are the three biggest ones:
1. An unruly GOP Conference: The House’s failure to pass a farm bill Thursday was a stark reminder that
the lower chamber’s Republican Conference just can’t be led right now. Most Democrats voted against
the bill, but they were joined by enough conservatives who opposed it from the right to sink the
measure. From the “Plan B” debacle in last year’s debate over tax rates to a recent effort to ban
abortions after 20 weeks, the conservative wing of the House has made its voice heard on multiple
occasions. So if the Senate passes an immigration bill by a wide margin, it remains to be seen whether
that impresses anyone on the conservative side of the GOP Conference enough to shift their views.
Given the track record of House Republicans, it could be a hard sell even if the Senate bill gets 70+ votes.
2. Bohener’s Hastert Rule remark: House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed this week not to bring
an immigration bill to the floor that did not have the support of a majority of House Republicans. Setting
such a condition in advance only narrows the path to passage. Boehner didn’t rule out relying on
Democrats to pass a final version of immigration legislation that could be negotiated between the House
and the Senate. But the last thing he needs right now for his own political future is to stoke more anger
within his conference. Boehner will face pressure from Senate Republicans, donors, and other GOP
players to get immigration reform done. But he’s making clear early that despite all that, he’s not going
to walk away from his conference to get a deal done. And that hard line will make it more difficult for
reform to happen, given the opposition on the right to pillars of the Senate bill.
3. The GOP primary threat: This isn’t new this week but it bears repeating, because, as the gun debate
showed, it doesn’t matter what public opinion says or what other external factors exist, members of
Congress will ultimately prioritize the outlook of their constituents over whichever way the national
conversation is leaning. If they don’t, they up the chances of losing their jobs. Redistricting has
contributed to a situation in which many House Republicans represent safe GOP districts in which the
threat of a primary is worth more worry than being defeated in the general election. A vote for
immigration reform could become an easy way for potential challengers to get to the right of
incumbents in some Republican districts. And rest assured, GOP members will not lose sight of that.
Won’t pass – Boehner will block it
Steve Chapman June 21, 2013| Will Republicans allow immigration reform?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-21/opinion/chi-republicans-vs-immigration-reform20130621_1_house-republicans-gop-house-house-speaker-john-boehner
House Speaker John Boehner's announcement that he won't let an immigration reform bill come to
the floor without majority support among House Republicans -- even if it has majority support in the
House as a whole -- strikes me as a probably fatal blow to the legislation.¶ Everyone knows the national
Republican party needs to improve its image among Hispanic voters, the fastest-growing minority, if it's
31
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
going to elect a president in 2016 or 2020. But members of Congress put a lower priority on electing a
president than keeping their seats. And supporting immigration reform is not likely to help most GOP
congressman at the polls.
Won’t pass – cant reach agreement on citizenship vs border security
Gaston Gazette, EDITORIAL: A failed policy on immigration Published: Friday, June 21, 2013 at 18:51
PM. http://www.gastongazette.com/opinion/our-opinion/editorial-a-failed-policy-on-immigration1.162378
Current U.S. immigration policy is the worst of both worlds: Americans have poor border security while
social-welfare programs offer a financial magnet which helps attract low-skilled immigrants from all
parts of the world. Many of these low-skilled immigrants enter the United States illegally.¶ Any change in
policy must deal with both of these problems but, of late, it is questionable if the current immigration
bill making its way through the U.S. Senate will do much of anything to reform our current system.¶ The
immigration-reform bill has a tall climb. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives wants a
bill that does not grant citizenship to immigrants who are undocumented or who came to the United
States illegally — even if that process takes years.
¶ That the path to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants would take 13 years
is proof to many that the bill is not soft on illegal immigrants; however, it is also sure to be challenged in
court within nanoseconds of the bill being signed.¶ Of course, many will still dislike the bill — especially
if it is too loaded with “pork” amendments or tries to spend too much money on related spending
programs for immigrants.¶ For more than two decades, lawmakers have decided to do next to nothing
about illegal immigration — including enforcing existing law — while letting problems fester while more
undocumented aliens arrive every day.¶ Congress has approved some measures to increase border
security along the U.S.-Mexican border in the past decade, but it is far from enough. The job of securing
the border remains unfinished, and any immigration reform must substantially invest in new border
security if passage is expected.¶ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has filed for cloture on the border
security agreement to the immigration reform bill, setting up a key vote Monday evening that would
pave the way for the Senate to pass the bill by the end of next week.
32
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Won’t pass – many amendments will be poison pills and kill the final measure – both
sides will be responsible.
Sara Kugler 6:32 PM on 06/15/2013 Amendments may pose as ‘poison pills’ to immigration reform
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/15/amendments-may-pose-as-poison-pills-to-immigration-reform/
However, with hundreds of amendments being introduced on the Senate floor, it remains to be seen if
an immigration bill will ever reach the president’s desk.
Amendments introduced from both sides of the aisle could become “poison pills” to the larger reform
efforts, the Melissa Harris-Perry panel discussed on Saturday. One such amendment is Texas Republican
Sen. John Cornyn’s proposal that a 90% apprehension rate of undocumented immigrants be achieved
before the bill’s pathway to citizenship becomes enacted.
The New York Times editorial board wrote Friday that such a precise calculation is nearly impossible to
make, creating an impossible mandate that would indefinitely prevent a pathway to citizenship from
coming into effect.
Democratic consultant Jamal Simmons described Cornyn’s involvement with the bill as evoking
Peanuts’ “Lucy with the football”–citing Cornyn’s demands for concessions that weakened the 2007
immigration bill, only to vote against the final measure.
Other amendments seeking to build triggers for a pathway to citizenship into the bill have already
failed, including Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley’s proposal for the Department of Homeland Security to first
demonstrate six months of “effective” border control. That amendment was defeated in a 57-43 vote on
Thursday.
Controversial amendments still on the table include Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe’s push to allow
English-only workplace policies and to declare English as an official language. Another measure out by
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy would extend benefits to same-sex partners of undocumented immigrants.
Won’t pass – House has too much opposition and control.
Dallas Morning News, Hope of progress on immigration bill Last Modified: June 15. 2013 11:00PM
http://psdispatch.com/news/otheropinion/600551/Hope-of-progress-on-immigration-bill
The House is the wild card in the immigration reform game. Republicans, many of whom oppose any
path to legalization without verifiable border security benchmarks, hold 234 of the 435 House seats.
Even if the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill is passed, it will have to be reconciled with whatever bill, or
package of bills, the House approves.
Won’t pass House or Senate – Republican opposition
James Turnage on June 13, 2013. Senate Balks on Immigration Reform
http://guardianlv.com/2013/06/senate-balks-on-immigration-reform/
Some time ago I predicted that a comprehensive immigration bill would not pass this year. I was, and
am, nearly positive that the House has no intention of passing a bill. Now, I’m not so sure it will find a
way out of the Senate, which is balking on the reform bill.¶ Republicans and Democrats find a way to
disagree about everything in 2013. They can’t find agreement on procedure today, increasing doubt
that they will find any common ground on the actual legislation.¶ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
asked for an early vote on several Republican amendments, including increased border security.
Republicans pushed back and refused to agree on a super majority of 60 votes.¶ The battle is being
waged over amendments proposed by Republicans that would severely alter the bipartisan
agreement that came out of committee. Republicans were certain that an early vote might reject some
of their amendments, and Democrats see a simple majority as a way for those amendments to pass,
favoring the Republican position.¶ Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, an opponent of the bill, called Reid’s
33
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
move “provocative” and said if a 60-vote threshold is required “it really looks like the fix is in and the
bill’s rigged to pass basically as it is.”¶ Reid was quick to point out that Republicans have often demanded
the 60 vote requirement for other significant legislation.¶ Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, a leading critic
of the bill, also complained that, “We can’t just throw up a bunch of amendments here at the beginning
and people haven’t had time to digest them.”¶ The bottom line is that Republicans do not want
immigration reform. Although reform is one of the most serious issues facing our nation, and involving
over 11 million people, it appears that Congress will fail to find agreement on the issue.¶ Those following
the process closely are aware that border security would be the method used to block any form of
legislation this year. Grassley and Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, have proposed an amendment that
would forbid the passage of any amendments until an amendment requiring proof that the government
has ended 90 percent of illegal border crossings is passed.¶ Reid rightfully called the requirement a
“poison pill” because a guarantee of that magnitude is virtually impossible.
34
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
PC not key
Obama is not pushing immigration reform – he is backed off so the plan won’t really
impact its chances of passage.
Carl Leubsdorf 6-16 / The Dallas Morning News http://tdn.com/news/opinion/columnists/leubsdorflaying-odds-on-immigration-bill-s-future/article_5e3f5b0c-d46f-11e2-a122-001a4bcf887a.html
Since the strong 40 percent Latino support in 2004 for President George W. Bush, who backed
comprehensive immigration reform, backing for Republicans has steadily declined. In 2008, Obama
defeated Sen. John McCain by 67-31 among Hispanics and, in 2012, he defeated Mitt Romney by 71-27,
according to exit polls.¶ Despite one appeal for action this week, Obama is keeping a relatively low
profile, lest he antagonize potential GOP backers. But he has a lot of stake personally, given that this
may be the main item on his second-term agenda with a real chance of approval.
PC’s not key to immigration
Hirsh 2/7 Michael, chief correspondent for National Journal, previously served as the senior editor and
national economics correspondent for Newsweek, has appeared many times as a commentator on Fox
News, CNN, MSNBC, and National Public Radio, has written for the Associated Press, The New York
Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, Harper’s, and Washington Monthly, and authored two
books, "There's No Such Thing as Political Capital", 2013, www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-sno-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207
Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of
compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for
the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s
influence —his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for
Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his
personal
advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage
points in November. But the
movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Party’s recent
introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without
such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the
minority.
It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or , indeed, Obama at all .
35
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Cuba engagement popular
Bipartisan support for easing embargo on Cuba
By Bryan Bender | GLOBE STAFF FEBRUARY 21, 2013 Talk grows of taking Cuba off terror list Kerry
reviewing policy that could pave way for renewed relations
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/02/21/cuba-label-terrorist-state-longer-justifiedsome-officials-say/CmVFXsVC4M1R1WbHE8lb0H/story.html
The pressure to de-list Cuba as a terrorism sponsor comes as a bipartisan congressional delegation
traveled to Cuba this week to discuss how the two estranged nations might find ways to lift a US
embargo in place for five decades and cooperate on a host of economic, agricultural, and security
matters.¶ But the delegation, which included Representative James P. McGovern of Worcester, left Cuba
on Wednesday after failing in its immediate goal: to win the release of an American prisoner, Alan
Gross.The nearly four-year standoff over Gross is among a number of matters holding up efforts to
improve relations.¶ But despite that failure, the meetings were constructive, and the tone promising,
McGovern said in a phone interview, after meeting with President Raul Castro in Havana on Tuesday.¶
“They are interested in improving relations because it is in their interest. I feel they are really
interested in sitting down and engaging, where everything is on the table — the embargo, the travel
restrictions, migration, everything,” McGovern said.
36
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Winners Win
Winners win- Second term depends on bold legislative moves
Ignatius 11/7 (David Ignatius, longtime writer and reporter, studied political theory at Harvard College
and economics at Kings College, Cambridge, November 7, 2012, “A time for Obama to be bold,”
Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-gobig/2012/11/07/dbf545f8-28fc-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html?hpid=z4)
Barack Obama will be getting advice by the boatload over the next few weeks, but the best guidance
may be what emerges from Caro’s biography “The Passage of Power”: Think big. Find strategies and
pressure points that can break the gridlock in Congress, which was as rigid in 1963 as it is today.
Surprise your adversaries with bold moves and concessions that create new space on which to
govern.¶ As I watched Tuesday’s triumph, it seemed obvious that Obama needs the policy equivalent of
David Plouffe, his senior campaign adviser. Plouffe’s genius was to decide early on that the race
depended on nine battleground states; if he could deliver those states by a relentless and sometimes
ruthless assault, he would win the larger victory. He was like a general who concentrates his forces at
the points of greatest vulnerability and then prevails through sheer force of will.¶ Obama’s performance
as president has often lacked this decisive, strategic quality. The notes are there but not the policy
“music.” In both foreign and domestic policy, the impression of Obama, after his blunderbuss, firstyear battles on health care and the Israeli-Palestinian issue, has been of a careful president who reacts
to events, waits for others to make the first moves and plays to avoid losing rather than to win .¶
Well, Mr. President, what the hell’s the presidency for? ¶ A strategic second term would begin by
identifying a list of necessary and achievable goals, and then pursuing them with the unyielding
manipulative skill of a Lyndon Johnson. On the top of everybody’s list would be a budget deal.
Everybody knows, more or less, what it will require: changes in Social Security and Medicare that slow
the growth of entitlement spending; reform of the tax code that produces a fairer and simpler system
that raises revenue without limiting growth.¶ A road map is there in the Simpson-Bowles deficitreduction plan, and Obama administration officials have been thinking privately for months about how
to tweak the plan so it’s better and fairer. Mitt Romney’s generous concession speech Tuesday night
opened a possible door, and the president should follow up his statement that he will “look forward to
sitting down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country
forward.” The president and his new Treasury secretary (Jack Lew?) should take the next step and ask
Romney to help close the budget deal the country needs.¶ In foreign policy, Obama will need to be
equally strategic. What does he want to accomplish? My list: a deal with Iran that verifiably limits its
nuclear program and avoids war; a deal in Afghanistan that averts civil war when U.S. forces leave in
2014; a deal for a political transition in Syria (a shorthand Syria summary would be to organize the
opposition so that it’s strong enough to bargain, then help win a Nobel Peace Prize for Vladimir Putin).
And, finally, a deal to create a Palestinian state so that Israel has secure borders and the Arab world can
get on with the process of becoming modern and democratic.¶ All these primary foreign policy goals are
“deals,” and it follows that the president needs a dealmaker as secretary of state. Who could do that,
after Hillary Clinton leaves, probably at the end of January? John Kerry is an experienced man who
thinks outside the box and is willing to take risks. Even if the president is said to have found him
somewhat windy as the stand-in for Romney during debate preparation, Kerry has shown over the past
four years a willingness to negotiate with adversaries, in secret, to achieve results.¶ A longtime
Democratic adviser argues that Obama needs the “Bolten Plan,” as in Josh Bolten, the White House chief
37
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
of staff who mobilized the machinery of government to get it moving in the same direction in George W.
Bush’s second term. This will never be a happy model for Democrats, but it captures an important point:
A successful second term is less about ideology than about results .¶ Think big. Take risks. Get it done.
Maybe someone should slip a note in Obama’s desk drawer that asks: What would Lyndon Johnson have
done to make it happen?
Bold moves boost capital
Green, 2010 (David Michael Green, professor of political science at Hofstra University, “The DoNothing 44th President” June 11, google)
Moreover, there is a continuously evolving and reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness
and achievement. In the same way that nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president
up for achieving his or her next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go around. This is
absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in the way that Congress and especially the
Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush.
The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of power all too well. They
knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for
Congress and the press, they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to
pretend to preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the
illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning team. And so, with virtually the sole
exception of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did.
PC replenishes quickly
Mitchell 2009 (Lincoln Mitchell, Assistant Professor in the Practice of International Politics, Columbia
University, “Time for Obama to Start Spending Political Capital” June 18, google)
Throughout his presidential campaign, but more notably, during his presidency, President Obama has
shown himself to have an impressive ability to accumulate political capital. During his tenure in the
White House, Obama has done this by reaching out to a range of constituencies, moderating some of his
programs, pursuing middle of the road approaches on key foreign policy questions and, not
insignificantly, working to ensure that his approval rating remains quite high. Political capital is not,
however, like money, it cannot be saved up interminably while its owner waits for the right moment to
spend it. Political capital has a shelf life, and often not a very long one. If it is not used relatively quickly,
it dissipates and becomes useless to its owner. This is the moment in which Obama, who has spent the
first few months of his presidency diligently accumulating political capital, now finds himself. The next
few months will be a key time for Obama. If Obama does not spend this political capital during the next
months, it will likely be gone by the New Year anyway. Much of what President Obama has done in his
first six months or so in office has been designed to build political capital, interestingly he has sought to
build this capital from both domestic and foreign sources. He has done this by traveling extensively,
reintroducing to America to foreign audiences and by a governance style that has very cleverly
succeeded in pushing his political opponents to the fringes. This tactic was displayed during the effort to
pass the stimulus package as Republican opposition was relegated to a loud and annoying, but largely
irrelevant, distraction. Building political capital was, or should have been, a major goal of Obama's
recent speech in Cairo as well. Significantly, Obama has yet to spend any of his political capital by
meaningfully taking on any powerful interests. He declined to take Wall Street on regarding the financial
crisis, has prepared to, but not yet fully, challenged the power of the AMA or the insurance companies,
nor has he really confronted any important Democratic Party groups such as organized labor. This
strategy, however, will not be fruitful for much longer. There are now some very clear issues where
38
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Obama should be spending political capital. The most obvious of these is health care. The battle for
health care reform will be a major defining issue, not just for the Obama presidency, but for American
society over the next decades. It is imperative that Obama push for the best and most comprehensive
health care reform possible. This will likely mean not just a bruising legislative battle, but one that will
pit powerful interests, not just angry Republican ideologues, against the President. The legislative
struggle will also pull many Democrats between the President and powerful interest groups. Obama
must make it clear that there will be an enormous political cost which Democrats who vote against the
bill will have to pay. Before any bill is voted upon, however, is perhaps an even more critical time as
pressure from insurance groups, business groups and doctors organizations will be brought to bear both
on congress, but also on the administration as it works with congress to craft the legislation. This is not
the time when the administration must focus on making friends and being liked, but on standing their
ground and getting a strong and inclusive health care reform bill. Obama will have to take a similar
approach to any other major domestic legislation as well. This is, of course, the way the presidency has
worked for decades. Obama is in an unusual situation because a similar dynamic is at work at the
international level. A major part of Obama's first six months in office have involved pursuing a foreign
policy that implicitly has sought to rebuild both the image of the US abroad, but also American political
capital. It is less clear how Obama can use this capital, but now is the time to use it. A cynical
interpretation of the choice facing Obama is that he can remain popular or he can have legislative and
other policy accomplishments, but this interpretation would be wrong. By early 2010, Obama, and his
party will, fairly or not, be increasingly judged by what they have accomplished in office, not by how
deftly they have handled political challenges. Therefore, the only way he can remain popular and get
new political capital is through converting his current political capital into concrete legislative
accomplishments. Health care will be the first and very likely most important, test.
Winners win.
Singer, 2009 (Jonathan Singer, JD candidate at Berkeley and editor of MyDD, April 3, 2009, google)
Peter Hart gets at a key point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an
extent that's true. But it's important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and,
specifically, that when a President expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to
enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed, that appears to be what is happening
with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed
despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the
American public as a result. Take a look at the numbers. President Obama now has a 68 percent
favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll, his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those
surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's Democratic Party earns a respectable 49
percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in
the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in
Washington, 56 percent place the onus on the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on
Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent blame Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent
blame the Obama administration. So at this point, with President Obama seemingly benefiting from his
ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and further as a result of their knee-jerked
opposition to that agenda, there appears to be no reason not to push forward on anything from
universal healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq.
39
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Political capital theory not true
Political capital theory is bankrupt
Dickinson 2009 (Matthew Dickinson, professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught
at Harvard University, where he also received his Ph.D., “Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power”
May, google)
What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power. Political
scientists, like
baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous means of measuring a president’s influence
in Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative “box
scores” designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the
executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports
actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the president’s preferences? How often is a president’s policy position
supported by roll call outcomes? These measures, however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power – they are a better indicator of
congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a
(and political scientists) often focus on the legislative “endgame” to
gauge presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred
legislation enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence.
Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings of her
constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually predict how she will vote without needing to
know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the importance of a president’s veto power
president does. Although journalists
for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then, most
legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to say that presidents lack influence.
Instead, the primary means by which presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to determine the alternatives from which
Congress must choose. That is, presidential power is largely an exercise in agenda-setting – not arm-twisting. And we see this in the Sotomayer
nomination. Barring a major scandal, she will almost certainly be confirmed to the Supreme Court whether
Obama spends the
calling every Senator or instead spends the next few weeks ignoring the Senate
debate in order to play Halo III on his Xbox. That is, how senators decide to vote on Sotomayor will have almost
nothing to do with Obama’s lobbying from here on in (or lack thereof). His real influence has already occurred, in the
confirmation hearings
decision to present Sotomayor as his nominee.
Ideology
Fleisher Bond and Wood 2008 (Richard Fleisher, Fordham University Professor Department of
Political Science, Jon R. Bond, Texas A&M University Professor Department of Political Science, and B.
Dan Wood Texas A&M University Professor Department of Political Science, “Which Presidents Are
Uncommonly Successful in Congress?” in Presidential Leadership: The Vortex of Power,
http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/p/2005/american_congress/congress.wustl.edu/fleisher.pdf)
We should also continue to work to improve our understanding of the conditions that affect presidential success, and how they operate. Our
finding of significant interactions of party polarization with public approval and majority control is noteworthy. Party control sets the basic
condition for presidential success, and presidents do somewhat better in their honeymoon year. The marginal effect of public opinion on
success is conditioned by the level of partisanship in Congress. At low levels of partisanship, the president’s standing with the public has a
modest positive effect on success. But at high levels of partisanship, which have characterized Congress in recent decades, the marginal effect
of public approval diminishes (and even turns negative in the House). Party polarization also interacts with party control, enhancing the benefit
of majority status. Thus, polarized
parties further reduce the ability of presidential activities to affect
success even at the margins . In polarized periods, electoral processes reduce the number of moderate and
cross-pressured members, the very members who are most inclined to search beyond the primary cues of party and
ideology for guidance in making decisions. Fewer members who look beyond party and ideology, means fewer members subject to
presidential persuasion. This condition places a high premium on having majorities in the House and Senate. Unless the level of partisanship in
Congress declines, a rational strategy for a president who seeks to improve his legislative success is to focus on maintaining or winning partisan
40
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
majorities in the House and Senate. President Bush seems to have successfully followed this strategy in the 2002 midterm elections. Ironically,
electoral activities aimed at electing sympathetic majorities in Congress are likely to contribute to more party polarization.
High salience issues
Peake 2001 (Jeffrey S. Peake professor at Bowling Green State University Political Research Quarterly,
March 2001, “Presidential Agenda Setting in Foreign Policy,” Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 69-86)
Issues examined here are less salient than issues studied previously High salience hinders the
President's capacity to affect the agenda. If Congress and the media consistently attend to an
issue (due to its high salience), it is less likely that activity by the President designed to increase the
salience of an issue will have as noticeable an effect compared to an issue that is less salient.
Moderate to low salience issues may provide the President opportunities to noticeably affect
congressional or media attention. Lower salience decreases the competition Presidents receive from the
media, possibly increasing the President's influence in relation to other agenda setters. Salience is also
tied to the political importance of an issue. Increased political importance leads to high salience
over time for an issue among the media, the people, and Congress, so the President is not without
competition to influence the agenda. Congress and the media attend to highly salient issues
regardless of the President's agenda.
Err aff
Fleisher Bond and Wood 2008 (Richard Fleisher, Fordham University Professor Department of
Political Science, Jon R. Bond, Texas A&M University Professor Department of Political Science, and B.
Dan Wood Texas A&M University Professor Department of Political Science, “Which Presidents Are
Uncommonly Successful in Congress?” in Presidential Leadership: The Vortex of Power,
http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/p/2005/american_congress/congress.wustl.edu/fleisher.pdf)
Presidency scholars claim that presidential success is a function of both skill and political conditions. Although students
of
presidential-congressional relations have been unable to demonstrate convincingly that
presidential activities systematically affect success, the literature provides substantial theory and evidence regarding
the political conditions that determine presidential success in Congress. Our analysis contributes additional evidence that presidential success
on the floor of Congress is determined primarily by whether political conditions are favorable or unfavorable. Although our model leaves some
variance unexplained, few of the residuals would be considered outliers. That is, none of the ten presidents analyzed here were uncommonly
successful or unsuccessful relative to the conditions they faced. The few instances of uncommon success could occur by random chance.
Presidential skill, nonetheless, continues to occupy a central, if not dominant, position in the literature. This analysis cannot refute skill as an
explanation. Previous research has found a number of interesting and important cases on which a skilled performance (or lack of it) made the
difference between success and failure. But the debate over the relative importance of skills cannot be resolved simply by agreeing that skills
matter some of the time on some issues. If
presidential skill is to provide a theoretical understanding of presidential success on
par with that provided by political conditions, then we should be able to observe more than idiosyncratic
effects on a small number of issues. The burden of providing systematic evidence rests on proponents of the skill
part of the explanation. The persistent failure to find systematic evidence should raise doubts about skill as
scientific theory.
41
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Bioterrorism Defense
No impact
O’Neill 4 O’Neill 8/19/2004 [Brendan, “Weapons of Minimum Destruction” http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA694.htm]
Rapoport, professor of political science at University of California, Los Angeles and editor of the Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence, has
examined what he calls 'easily available evidence' relating to the historic use of chemical and biological weapons.
He found something surprising - such weapons do not cause mass destruction. Indeed, whether used by states, terror groups or dispersed in
industrial accidents, they tend to be far less destructive than conventional weapons. 'If we stopped
speculating about things that might happen in the future and looked instead at what has happened
in the past, we'd see that our fears about WMD are misplaced', he says. Yet such fears remain widespread. Post-9/11, American
David C
and British leaders have issued dire warnings about terrorists getting hold of WMD and causing mass murder and mayhem. President George W Bush has spoken of terrorists who, 'if
they ever gained weapons of mass destruction', would 'kill hundreds of thousands, without hesitation and without mercy' (1). The British government has spent £28million on stockpiling
millions of smallpox vaccines, even though there's no evidence that terrorists have got access to smallpox, which was eradicated as a natural disease in the 1970s and now exists only in
two high-security labs in America and Russia (2). In 2002, British nurses became the first in the world to get training in how to deal with the victims of bioterrorism (3). The UK Home
Office's 22-page pamphlet on how to survive a terror attack, published last month, included tips on what to do in the event of a 'chemical, biological or radiological attack' ('Move away
from the immediate source of danger', it usefully advised). Spine-chilling books such as Plague Wars: A True Story of Biological Warfare, The New Face of Terrorism: Threats From
Weapons of Mass Destruction and The Survival Guide: What to Do in a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear Emergency speculate over what kind of horrors WMD might wreak. TV
docudramas, meanwhile, explore how Britain might cope with a smallpox assault and what would happen if London were 'dirty nuked' (4). The term 'weapons of mass destruction' refers
to three types of weapons: nuclear, chemical and biological. A chemical weapon is any weapon that uses a manufactured chemical, such as sarin, mustard gas or hydrogen cyanide, to kill
or injure. A biological weapon uses bacteria or viruses, such as smallpox or anthrax, to cause destruction - inducing sickness and disease as a means of undermining enemy forces or
inflicting civilian casualties. We find such weapons repulsive, because of the horrible way in which the victims convulse and die - but they appear to be less 'destructive' than conventional
when it comes to chemical and
biological weapons, 'the evidence suggests that we should call them "weapons of minimum
destruction", not mass destruction', he says. Chemical weapons have most commonly been used by states, in military warfare. Rapoport explored various state uses of
weapons. 'We know that nukes are massively destructive, there is a lot of evidence for that', says Rapoport. But
chemicals over the past hundred years: both sides used them in the First World War; Italy deployed chemicals against the Ethiopians in the 1930s; the Japanese used chemicals against
the Chinese in the 1930s and again in the Second World War; Egypt and Libya used them in the Yemen and Chad in the postwar period; most recently, Saddam Hussein's Iraq used
chemical weapons, first in the war against Iran (1980-1988) and then against its own Kurdish population at the tail-end of the Iran-Iraq war. In each instance, says Rapoport, chemical
weapons were used more in desperation than from a position of strength or a desire to cause mass destruction. 'The evidence is that states rarely use them even when they have them',
he has written. 'Only when a military stalemate has developed, which belligerents who have become desperate want to break, are they used.' (5) As to whether such use of chemicals
was effective, Rapoport says that at best it blunted an offensive - but this very rarely, if ever, translated into a decisive strategic shift in the war, because the original stalemate continued
after the chemical weapons had been deployed. He points to the example of Iraq. The Baathists used chemicals against Iran when that nasty trench-fought war had reached yet another
stalemate. As Efraim Karsh argues in his paper 'The Iran-Iraq War: A Military Analysis': 'Iraq employed [chemical weapons] only in vital segments of the front and only when it saw no
other way to check Iranian offensives. Chemical weapons had a negligible impact on the war, limited to tactical rather than strategic [effects].' (6) According to Rapoport, this 'negligible'
impact of chemical weapons on the direction of a war is reflected in the disparity between the numbers of casualties caused by chemicals and the numbers caused by conventional
weapons. It is estimated that the use of gas in the Iran-Iraq war killed 5,000 - but the Iranian side suffered around 600,000 dead in total, meaning that gas killed less than one per cent.
The deadliest use of gas occurred in the First World War but, as Rapoport points out, it still only accounted for five per cent of casualties. Studying the amount of gas used by both sides
from1914-1918 relative to the number of fatalities gas caused, Rapoport has written: 'It took a ton of gas in that war to achieve a single enemy fatality. Wind and sun regularly dissipated
the lethality of the gases. Furthermore, those gassed were 10 to 12 times as likely to recover than those casualties produced by traditional weapons.' (7) Indeed, Rapoport discovered
that some earlier documenters of the First World War had a vastly different assessment of chemical weapons than we have today - they considered the use of such weapons to be
preferable to bombs and guns, because chemicals caused fewer fatalities. One wrote: 'Instead of being the most horrible form of warfare, it is the most humane, because it disables far
more than it kills, ie, it has a low fatality ratio.' (8) 'Imagine that', says Rapoport, 'WMD being referred to as more humane'. He says that the contrast between such assessments and
today's fears shows that actually looking at the evidence has benefits, allowing 'you to see things more rationally'. According to Rapoport, even Saddam's use of gas against the Kurds of
Halabja in 1988 - the most recent use by a state of chemical weapons and the most commonly cited as evidence of the dangers of 'rogue states' getting their hands on WMD - does not
show that unconventional weapons are more destructive than conventional ones. Of course the attack on Halabja was horrific, but he points out that the circumstances surrounding the
assault remain unclear. 'The estimates of how many were killed vary greatly', he tells me. 'Some say 400, others say 5,000, others say more than 5,000. The fighter planes that attacked
the civilians used conventional as well as unconventional weapons; I have seen no study which explores how many were killed by chemicals and how many were killed by firepower. We
all find these attacks repulsive, but the death toll may actually have been greater if conventional bombs only were used. We know that conventional weapons can be more destructive.'
terrorist use of chemical and biological weapons is similar to state use - in that it is rare and, in
terms of causing mass destruction, not very effective. He cites the work of journalist and author John Parachini, who says that over
the past 25 years only four significant attempts by terrorists to use WMD have been recorded. The most
effective WMD-attack by a non-state group, from a military perspective, was carried out by the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka in 1990. They used
chlorine gas against Sri Lankan soldiers guarding a fort, injuring over 60 soldiers but killing none. The Tamil Tigers' use of chemicals
angered their support base, when some of the chlorine drifted back into Tamil territory - confirming Rapoport's view
that one problem with using unpredictable and unwieldy chemical and biological weapons over conventional weapons is that the cost can be as great 'to the
attacker as to the attacked'. The Tigers have not used WMD since.
Rapoport says that
No bioterrorism and no impact---multiple obstacles
Stolar 6 October 2006, *Alex Stolar: Research Officer, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies,
“BIOTERRORISM AND US POLICY RESPONSES ASSESSING THE THREAT OF MASS CASUALTY,”
http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/1659566521IPCS-Special-Report-31.pdf, AJ
42
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Each of these steps presents significant hurdles for terrorists. Acquiring a strain of a Category A agent
which is significantly robust for storage, reproduction, transport, and dispersal, and which has the
virulence to infect large numbers to inflict mass casualties is very difficult. Likewise, growing, storing,
and transporting biological agents requires substantial financial, logistical, and technological resources,
as well as highly trained scientists and technicians. Most of all, according to William Patrick of the US
Army Biological Warfare Laboratories, dissemination is the largest hurdle for bioterrorism.4 Indeed,
after devoting billions of dollars and years of research, dispersal is still a challenge before US and Russian
biological weapons scientists. It is unlikely, at this stage, that terrorists will have the means,
sophistication, logistics, or motivation to carry out a bioterrorist attack. Preparing biological agents for
an attack is very hard and costly. Despite spending millions of dollars, and several years of work, the
Aum Shinrikyo cult was unable to develop an effective biological weapon. Likewise, the 2001 Anthrax
attacks in the United States involved very virulent Anthrax spores, but only five persons were killed.
More sophisticated spores and dispersal methods would be required for a mass causalty attack. As
Professor Milton Leitenberg notes, apart from the Rajneeshee cult attack in 1984, which sickened many,
but killed none, “there is apparently no other ‘terrorist’ group that is known to have successfully
cultured any pathogen.”5 Moreover, a lingering question is, why would terrorists use bioweapons in an
attack? Executing a biological weapon attack is difficult and expensive, and does not suit the modus
operandi of the sole group with the means to pursue bioterrorism, Al Qaeda. At present, Al Qaeda
favors simple attacks that generate great fear. 9/11 was executed with box cutters; the Madrid train
attacks with dynamite purchased from petty criminals6; the London 7/7 bombings utilized simple
explosives that could be fashioned with easily available materials and little expertise7; and the terrorists
in the recent plot to bomb flights from London to the US intended to use nail polish remover and hair
bleach.8 Al Qaeda favors creating great fear at little cost. Why would it stray from this effective formula
to bioterrorism which is expensive and of questionable reliability?9 The unavoidable conclusion is that
only a nation-state could conduct a bioweapon attack. However, a taboo against using biological
weapons exists—not since World War II has one state attacked another with biological weapons. Like
non-state actors, states seem to prefer the lower costs and high reliability of conventional weapons or
even chemical weapons. Accordingly, it seems the threat of bioterrorism in the near future is low.
Neither terrorists nor states seem likely to use bioweapons for attack. Therefore, though possible, it
does not seem probable that a mass casualty bioterrorist attack will occur over the next five to ten
years. It is unlikely that states will use bioweapons against other states. It is equally unlikely that states
will use a terrorist organization as a conduit to attack another state. Only terrorist organizations,
operating alone within a weak or failed state, would develop bioweapons for an attack against a state.
However, terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda presently lack the expertise, logistics, and equipment for
a bioterror attack. In the next five years, it is unlikely that terrorists will acquire such capabilities.
Beyond that time frame, what stands between terrorists and potent bioweapons are the policies of
individual states and multilateral bioweapon non-proliferation regimes. If the policies of states and the
relevant international regimes are robust, terrorists will be unable to mount bioterror attacks. If, on the
other hand, these policies and regimes are feeble, or even counterproductive, the threat of bioterrorism
will be real and grave. The present circumstances provide great reason for optimism. Unlike nuclear
terrorism, there is no imminent threat of biological terrorism. Thoughtful and effective strategies
implemented today can eliminate this threat. How often is this case true in international security? How
often can strategists say, this threat could be dangerous in a decade, but is not dangerous now, and can
be prevented forever if the right steps are taken? One would think that the world, and the US in
particular, would seize this opportunity to prevent this future threat; unfortunately, however, America’s
biodefense policies since 9/11 are hurting rather than helping efforts to minimize bioterrorism risks.
Bioterrorism presents a grave, but not imminent threat to America and the world. American leadership
is needed to make sure terrorists never acquire the ability to execute a mass casualty bioattack.
43
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
Unfortunately, America’s biodefense strategies are currently increasing the risks of bioterrorism. In the
years ahead, those American leaders responsible for protecting the US against bioterrorism should heed
the maxim which has served so many doctors so well for so long: Primum non nocere.
Your studies are wrong
CACNP 10 1/26, *CENTER FOR ARMS CONTROL AND NON-PROLIFERATION: SCIENTISTS WORKING
GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS, “BIOLOGICAL THREATS: A MATTER OF BALANCE,”
http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/biochem/articles/Biological%20Threats%20%20A%20Matter%20of%20Balance.pdf, AJ
The bioterrorist threat has been greatly exaggerated. New bioweapons assessments are needed that
take into account the complex set of social and technical issues that shape bioweapons development
and use by state and non-state actors, and that focus on more plausible threats than the worst-case
scenarios that have largely driven discussion to date. Offensive, including terrorist, use of biological
agents presents major technical problems. This is why the Soviet Union, United States, United Kingdom
and others needed to spend vast sums for decades in order to research and develop biological weapons.
Even then the results were considered an unreliable form of warfare, and there was little opposition to
their elimination by international agreement (indeed the US unilaterally eliminated its biological
weapons stockpiles). The effects of using biological materials, whether on a large scale or a smaller
terrorist scale, are highly uncertain. Although the 2001 anthrax letters created panic and had a
significant economic impact, the number of deaths and serious illnesses was very small. Existing
bioweapons assessments focus on a narrow set of assumptions about potential adversaries and their
technical capabilities. New bioweapons threat assessments are needed that take into account the more
complex set of social and technical issues that shape bioweapons capabilities of state and non-state
actors and that critically examine existing assumptions.
No bioweapons use---barriers overwhelm
Ouagrham-Gormley 12 Sonia Ben Ouagrham-Gormley is Assistant Professor in the Biodefense
Program at George Mason University, “Barriers to Bioweapons: Intangible Obstacles to Proliferation,”
International Security, Volume 36, Number 4, Spring 2012, pp. 80-114, pdf, AJ
This article challenges the conventional wisdom by showing that the success of a bioweapons program
also depends on “intangible factors,” such as work organization, program management, structural
organization, and social environment, that affect the acquisition and efacient use of scientiac
knowledge. In-depth studies of past weapons programs, including the former Soviet and U.S.
bioweapons programs described in this article, reveal that intangible factors can either advance or
degrade a program’s progress. In addition, the impact of these factors is felt more strongly within
clandestine programs, because their covertness imposes additional restrictions on the use and transfer
of knowledge, which more often than not frustrates progress. Therefore, focusing only on tangible
determinants of proliferation can lead to government policies that respond inadequately to the threat.
To more accurately identify the nature and evaluate the pace and scope of future proliferation threats,
and consequently develop more efacient nonproliferation and counterproliferation policies, scholars
and policymakers must include the intangible dimension of proliferation in their assessments. They must
also understand the factors that determine the mechanisms and the conditions under which scientiac
data and knowledge can be efaciently exploited. In 2008 the World at Risk, an inouential report written
by a bipartisan commis- sion chartered by Congress to assess U.S. efforts in preventing weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) proliferation and terrorism, predicted that a bioterrorism event would likely take
44
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
place by 2013.4 Without downplaying the nu- clear threat, the report concluded that a bioweapons
attack was more likely than a nuclear event given the availability of material, equipment, and knowhow required to produce bioweapons. Since 2001 a number of scientiac feats seem to illustrate the
growing ease with which potentially harmful biomaterial can be produced. These include the
inadvertent creation of a lethal mousepox virus by Australian scientists in 2001;5 the synthesis of the
poliovirus in 2002 by a team of scientists at the State University of New York at Stonybrook;6 the
construction in 2003 of a bacteriophage (phiX) using synthetic oligonucleotides by the Venter Institute,
located in Rockville, Maryland; and the synthesis of the arst self-replicating cell called Mycoplasma
mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 in May 2010.7 Further pushing the scientiac envelop, work begun in 2003 by the
synthetic bi- ology scientiac community to produce standardized short pieces of DNA may promise a
future in which biological agents can be assembled much like Lego pieces for various purposes; in
addition, synthetic DNA sequences are now commercially available, and the cost and time required to
produce biomaterial have decreased sharply in recent years. Finally, with the automation of various
processes, new technologies have the potential to simplify scientiac work and reduce the need for
skilled personnel.8 Another challenge in using others’ scientiac data is that tacit knowledge does not
transfer easily. It requires proximity to the original source(s) and an extended master-apprentice
relationship.19 Scientiac and technical knowledge is also highly local: it is developed within a speciac
infrastructure, using a speciac knowledge base, and at a speciac location. Some studies have shown that
the use of data and technology in a new environment frequently requires adaption to the new site.20
Successful adaptation often requires the involvement of the original scientiac author(s) to guide the
adjustment. For instance, some of the problems encountered during the production of the Soviet
anthrax weapon were solved only after the authors of the weapon in Russia traveled to Kazakhstan to
assist their colleagues. These individuals trained their colleagues, transferring their tacit knowledge in
the process, and helped adjust the technical protocols to the Kazakh infrastructure, which was
substantially different from that of the Russian facility. Even with the presence of these original authors,
ave years were needed to complete the process of successful transfer and use of bioweapons
technology.21 A further complication is that tacit knowledge can decay over time and may disappear if
not used or transferred. Studies have shown that trying to re-create lost knowledge can be difacult, if
not impossible.22 Finally, knowledge and technology development, particularly in complex technological
projects, is rarely the work of one expert. Instead it requires the cumulative and cooperative work of
teams of individuals with speciac skills. This is particularly true in weapons programs, which pose a
variety of problems spanning many disciplines. For example, biological weapons development can
involve mechanical and electrical engineering, chemistry, statistics, aerobiology, and microbiology,
demanding large interdisciplinary teams of scientists, engineers, and technicians. A successful weapon,
therefore, is not the product of an individual scientist working alone, but that of the collective work of
those involved in the research, design, and testing of the weapon.23 In this context, the efacient use of
written technical data would require access to or re-creation of the collective explicit and tacit
knowledge of those involved in its development, making the reproducibility of an experiment or object
particularly challenging. External factors can also interfere with the use and transfer of knowledge. In
the biological sciences, the properties of reagents and other materials used in scientiac experiments
may differ from one location to another and may vary seasonally. An experiment conducted successfully
in one location may not be reproducible in another because of the varying properties of the material
used, even when the same individual conducts the experiment.24 Other external factors that cannot be
easily identiaed or quantiaed can also interfere with an experiment, even when the task is performed by
an experienced scientist or technician who has had previous successes in performing the task.25 For
exam- ple, within the U.S. bioweapons program, the production and scaling up of bi- ological material
were routinely subject to unexplained failures whenever production was interrupted to service or
decontaminate the equipment. On these occasions, plant technicians at Fort Detrick—the main facility
45
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
of the U.S. bioweapons program—experienced, on average, three weeks of unsuitable production. The
scientiac staff could not identify the causes of such routine failures and could only assume that either a
contaminant had been introduced during the service or cleanup, or that the technicians changed the
way they were doing things and unconsciously corrected the problem only after several weeks.26 The
case of the Soviet bioweapons program demonstrates that covertness im- poses huge constraints on
knowledge management and has important impli- cations for the evaluation of state and terrorist
clandestine efforts to produce bioweapons. One may wonder, however, whether the lessons learned
from the historical analysis of the U.S. and Soviet programs apply to current covert pro- grams. States
and terrorist groups could arguably limit their biological endeavors to producing a small number of
weapons based on a small number of pathogens. In addition, they could beneat from recent
technological advances, which, by automating various tasks, sharply reduce the need for skilled personnel, as well as the time and cost required to complete scientiac work. Pub- licly available data
regarding recent terrorist and state biological weapons programs, however, suggest that even at a lower
scale, biological weapons endeavors are highly inouenced by some of the same intangible factors that
affected the U.S. and Soviet programs. In addition, studies on the use of new automated equipment in
microbiology, as well as analyses of recent experi- ments that seemingly illustrate the ease and speed
with which biological de- velopments can be achieved, have shown that these too are subject to the
cumulative and cooperative work of scientists and require the creation of new skills. Below, I assess the
role of intangible factors in two cases: the bioweap- ons programs of the terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo
and South Africa. I then discuss the difaculties associated with the use of new technology and the hidden contingencies of recent scientiac experiments. The U.S. and Soviet bioweapons programs offer
valuable insights for assessing future bioweapons proliferation threats. Certainly, the globalization of the
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries has enabled an increasingly widespread diffusion of
information, materials, and equipment that could prove beneacial to states or terrorist groups
interested in developing biological weapons. But although such inputs are necessary, they are hardly
sufacient to produce a signiacant weapons capability. As demonstrated in the U.S. and Soviet cases,
such intangible factors as organizational makeup and manage- ment style greatly affect the use of
acquired knowledge, the creation of tacit knowledge, and its transfer within the organization to enable
ultimate success. Importantly, these intangible elements are local in character and cannot be eas- ily
transferred among individuals or from one place to another. Although the effects of intangible factors
are more pronounced in large-scale bioweapons programs, given the increasing complexity introduced
by the need to produce a tested weapon with repeatable results, they also affect smaller-scale state and
terrorist group programs, as illustrated by South Africa’s and Aum Shinrikyo’s programs. Even programs
with more modest ambitions need to acquire the ex- pertise required to handle, manipulate, and
disseminate the agents selected, create an environment conducive to teamwork and learning, integrate
the ac- quired knowledge into the existing knowledge base, and adapt the technology to their
environment. These are complex and time-consuming tasks for pro- grams operating in a stable
environment. For covert programs fearful of detec- tion, the task is made more challenging as the
imperatives of maintaining covertness directly contradict the requirement of efacient knowledge use
and production. The revolution in biotechnology has not reduced the importance of the in- tangible
factors that shape bioweapons program outcomes. Although new breakthroughs in biotechnology can
frequently accelerate progress in labora- tory work, these new techniques still depend heavily on teams
of scientists and technicians developing new sets of skills through extensive experimen- tation. Only in
this way can they demonstrate the utility of these new breakthroughs for particular applications. Thus,
by taking into account the in- tangible dimension of proliferation, intelligence and policy ofacials can
under- stand more holistically how a state or terrorist group can actually use the tangible resources they
may have acquired. Ideally, developing a more thor- ough understanding of a program’s existing
research and knowledge base, as well as how the program is organized and managed, will provide
46
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
intelligence and policy ofacials with a better analytical basis for determining the time re- quired for the
program to achieve its goal. This in turn will help policymakers fashion interventions that are most
appropriate to respond to speciac threats. Gathering information about these intangible factors is
dependent on intelli- gence efforts, and this article provides insights into how better collection and
analysis on WMD threats might be accomplished. However, actions against a suspected program can
beneacially be implemented even in the absence of de- tailed information about its knowledge base and
organizational makeup. A policy aimed at frustrating the acquisition of skills, the collective
interpretation and integration of data and individual knowledge, and the accumulation of knowledge
can delay progress in a suspected program and possibly cause its failure. Much work still needs to be
done to further illuminate the mechanics of weapons development. It is important, for instance, to
gain a better under- standing of the inner workings of past state bioweapons programs and to identify
the role that sociotechnical and organizational factors have played in inouencing these programs’
achievements. Past and suspected terrorist pro- grams should also be revisited to investigate the impact
of organizational factors on their ability to develop weapons. It is also essential to more system- atically
identify the contingencies associated with new technologies and other laboratory techniques to better
understand the conditions of their use and the mechanism of their transfer to a new location or for a
different use. The role of new technologies in such experiments should also be systematically studied to
determine whether they actually eliminate the need for specialized skills or whether they require the
development of new skills. This new line of inquiry could help political science and policy scholars
further extend counterprolifer- ation and counterterrorism scholarship in new directions and support
the development of more effective ways to target and disrupt covert bioweapons programs.
Even if terrorists have bioweapons they can’t possibly disperse them
Smithson 05 Amy E., PhD, project director for biological weapons at the Henry L. Stimson Center.( “Likelihood of
Terrorists Acquiring and Using Chemical or Biological Weapons”.
http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?SN=CB2001121259)//MSO
Terrorists cannot count on just filling the delivery system with agent, pointing the device, and flipping
the switch to activate it. Facets that must be deciphered include the concentration of agent in the
delivery system, the ways in which the delivery system degrades the potency of the agent, and the right
dosage to incapacitate or kill human or animal targets. For open-air delivery, the meteorological conditions
must be taken into account. Biological agents have extreme sensitivity to sunlight, humidity,
pollutants in the atmosphere, temperature, and even exposure to oxygen, all of which can kill the
microbes. Biological agents can be dispersed in either dry or wet forms. Using a dry agent can boost effectiveness
because drying and milling the agent can make the particles very fine, a key factor since particles must range between
1 to 10 ten microns, ideally to 1 to 5, to be breathed into the lungs. Drying an agent, however, is done through a
complex and challenging process that requires a sophistication of equipment and know-how that
terrorist organizations are unlikely to possess. The alternative is to develop a wet slurry, which is much
easier to produce but a great deal harder to disperse effectively. Wet slurries can clog sprayers and undergo
mechanical stresses that can kill 95 percent or more of the microorganisms.
47
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
India defense
Deterrence prevents India/Pakistan conflict
Tepperman 2009 (Jonathan Tepperman, Deputy Editor at Newsweek Magazine and former Deputy Managing Editor of Foreign
Affairs, September 14, 2009, Newsweek, September 14, 2009, Lexis Academic)
The record since then shows the same pattern repeating: nuclear-armed
enemies slide toward war, then pull back,
best recent example is India and Pakistan, which fought three bloody wars after
independence before acquiring their own nukes in 1998. Getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction didn't
do anything to lessen their animosity. But it did dramatically mellow their behavior. Since acquiring atomic
weapons, the two sides have never fought another war, despite severe provocations (like Pakistani-based
always for the same reasons. The
terrorist attacks on India in 2001 and 2008). They have skirmished once. But during that flare-up, in Kashmir in 1999, both countries were
careful to keep the fighting limited and to avoid threatening the other's vital interests. Sumit Ganguly, an Indiana University professor and
coauthor of the forthcoming India, Pakistan, and the Bomb, has found that on
both sides, officials' thinking was strikingly
similar to that of the Russians and Americans in 1962. The prospect of war brought Delhi and Islamabad face to face with a
nuclear holocaust, and leaders in each country did what they had to do to avoid it.
Neither will strike first
Eric Vas (retired Lieutenant general) 2007 “Can India Avoid a Military conflict with Pakistan?”
http://inpad.org/res45.html
Many urge India to stand down in order to decrease the tension between the two countries. As long as freedom remains a distant dream in
Pakistan and its official media continues to preach hatred against India, our security forces must continue to remain alert. India's responses to
India has declared that it will not be the first to use
nuclear weapons, but that it is prepared to give a befitting response to any Pakistani nuclear threat. India has stressed that it is
Pakistan's current moves on the five fronts are on the right lines.
prepared to discuss any issue, including J&K with Pakistan, but only when it stops its support of cross border terrorism. Meanwhile our security
forces continue to intercept intruders and deal with armed terrorists within the State, while the government attempts to improve the
administration and encourage dissidents to join the political system. J&K State elections are due in September. These will be fair and open
elections, which may be witnessed by foreign observers in their individual capacities. Dissidents have been invited to take part in the elections
to prove that they have public support. However, official Pakistani media continues its barrage of virulent anti-India propaganda. There are no
visible signs that steps are being taken to stop and undo the damage being done by these tactics. Thus, to answer the question posed at the
while the Indo-Pak cold war continues, the military front is unlikely to escalate into a
nuclear exchange or a full-fledged military conflict. It would be imprudent for Pakistan to do this,
and it would not be cost effective for India to initiate an all out war. If cross border infiltration and terrorist attacks against
head of this article,
innocent citizens continue the Government may order the armed forces to take appropriate action against terrorist bases within POK. The
danger of an Indian raid across the LOC against a terrorist camp escalating into a major battle cannot be overruled.
Interdependence
Mamoon and Murshed 2010 (Dawood Mamoon, and Mansoob Murshed, Economics of
Governance, 2010, Vol. 11 Issue 2, p145-167, 23p, Political Science Complete)
Conflict between India and Pakistan, which spans over most of last 60 years since their independence from British rule, has significantly
hampered bilateral trade between the two nations. However, we also find that the converse is also true; more
trade between India
and Pakistan decreases conflict and any measures to improve the bilateral trade share is a
considerable confidence building measure. A regional trade agreement along the lines of a South Asian Free Trade
Agreement (SAFTA) has a high potential for the improvement of relations between India and Pakistan on a long-term basis. Pakistan and India’s
general degree of openness to world (and not bilateral) trade is, however, the dominant economic factor in conflict resolution. It would be
interesting to see whether India and Pakistan will be able sustain their recent impressive growth, and consequently continue with peace talks
confirming the liberal peace arguments. In an ideal world increased dyadic democracy between pairs of nation should reduce inter-state
hostility according to the democratic peace hypothesis; this relationship in our case is present but weak. Peace initiatives, it should be
remembered, are not the sole prerogative of democracies; they can also be made by countries which are less than perfectly democratic out of
economic self- interest. Pakistan, at present, is making unilateral concessions on many disputed issues with India. Our findings, however, veer
towards the liberal peace hypothesis. Economic
progress and poverty reduction combined with greater
openness to international trade in general are more significant drivers of peace between nations like
India and Pakistan, rather than the independent contribution of a common democratic polity. So it is more economic interdependence
48
MSDI 2013
#debatelikeabear
Starter Pack
rather than politics which is likely to contribute towards peaceful relations between India and Pakistan in the near future. In many ways, our
results for an individual dyad echo Polcahek’s (1997) work across several dyads, where it is argued that democracies cooperate not because
they have common political systems, but because their economies are intricately and intensively interdependent. As pointed by Hegre (2000),
it is at these higher stages of economic development that the contribution of common democratic
values to peace becomes more salient. Meaningful democracy cannot truly function where poverty is acute and endemic, even
in ostensible democracies such as India. In the final analysis, it may be that democracy itself is an endogenous by-product of increased general
prosperity, as suggested nearly half a century ago by Lipset (1960). Then and only then, will nations be able to fully appreciate Angell-Lanes’
(1910) arguments regarding the futility of inter-state conflict.
49