Reas
Expanding persons targeted by a visa = expanding eligibility
Federation for American Immigration Control 10 [“An Immigration Reform Agenda for the 110th
Congress”, page last modified August 27, 2010,
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=leg_110_reform_agenda]\
In short, while the
109th Congress did not pass a comprehensive immigration reform package, a handful of smaller immigration-related
measures passed via other bills. These measures were: FY06 appropriations increase of $1.2 billion for border security (H.R.2360): 1000 additional
border patrol agents 250 additional criminal investigators 100 additional ICE agents 1000 detention beds Requires DHS to submit a comprehensive
immigration enforcement strategy that reduces the number of undocumented aliens by 10 percent per year and a requirement that DHS and ICE develop
a national detention plan for undocumented aliens. REAL ID Act of 2005 enacted (H.R. 1268) Secure Fence Act of 2006 enacted (H.R. 6061) FY07
appropriations increase of $2.1 billion for border security and immigration (HR 5441): $1.2 billion for border fencing, vehicles, and technology 1,500
additional border patrol agents 6,700 additional detention beds Criminalizes construction of border tunnels Extension of the H-1C nurse program for
three years (H.R. 1285), authorizing the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to certain foreign nurses who agree to work in "shortage areas" of the U.S.
Extension of the J-1 doctor program for two years (H.R. 4997), authorizing the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to certain foreign doctors who agree to
work in "shortage areas" of the U.S. Passage of the Compete Act (S. 3821), expanding eligibility for P-1 visas granted to
athletes and individuals of extraordinary ability.
AT: Brain Drain/Exploitation
Everyone wins – Immigrants will benefit from the forestry industry and help develop their
countries
Brodbeck ‘9 (Beau, is a graduate from Auburn University in forestry who previously was employed as a consulting
forester, December 29, “Migrant forest workers: Opportunity or exploitation?”,
http://blog.al.com/pr-communitynews/2009/12/migrant_forest_workers_opportunity_or_exploitation.html)
The forest industry needs laborers who view bottom-level jobs as an opportunity to earn money. For most
Americans, physically demanding work with hourly wages not far above minimum wage is undesirable. In
contrast to American opinions, research has found that Latin American guest workers derive prestige and honor
as a result of working in the U.S. and sending money home. The opportunities of earning American dollars
attract laborers to the potentially lucrative guest worker visas. For many migrant guest workers, forest industry
jobs provide opportunities to improve their standards of living in their home countries. Many guest laborers will
sleep four, five or six people to a hotel room to save money to send home to their families. According to a 2004 report by
the Latin American Economic System, monetary remittances entering Latin America and the Caribbean in 2002 were an
estimated $24.4 billion. Exported labor For many smaller Latin American countries with less productive economies, the
remittance share of the Gross Domestic Product was more than 10 percent. For many of these countries remittances
surpassed the value of exported goods by more than 50 percent. In other words, for countries like Guatemala, Honduras
and El Salvador their greatest export is labor. Additionally, the internationalization of agriculture has reduced the
number of jobs available in many agriculturally based economies in Latin American. The Inter-American
Development Bank estimates that 80 percent of remittances reaching Latin America come from the U.S.
Remittances sent to family members are generally aimed at helping recipients cover basic needs such as
housing (including construction), food, health, education and a small fraction has been used to develop small
business ventures. The impacts of remittances are indisputable; these funds have improved living standards in
many Latin American countries.
Disease Frontline
1 No extinction
Posner 5 – Court of Appeals Judge; Professor, Chicago School of Law (Richard, Catastrophe, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4150331/Catastrophe-the-dozen-most-significant.html,
AG)
Homo sapiens has managed to survive every disease to assail it in the 200,000 years or so of its existence is a source of genuine
but none has come close to
destroying the entire human race. There is a biological reason. Natural selection favors germs of limited lethality; they are fitter in an
evolutionary sense because their genes are more likely to be spread if the germs do not kill their hosts too quickly. The AIDS virus is an example of
a lethal virus, wholly natural, that by lying dormant yet infectious in its host for years maximizes its spread. Yet there is no danger that AIDS will destroy the entire human race.
The likelihood of a natural pandemic that would cause the extinction of the human race is probably even less today than in the past (except in prehistoric times, when people lived in small,
Yet the fact that
comfort, at least if the focus is on extinction events. There have been enormously destructive plagues, such as the Black Death, smallpox, and now AIDS,
scattered bands, which would have limited the spread of disease), despite wider human contacts that make it more difficult to localize an infectious disease.
Bioweapons
Biological agents empirically do not cause extinction
Easterbrook 03
(Gregg Easterbrook, The New Republic Editor, 2003 [Wired, "We're All Gonna Die!" 11/7,
http://www.wired.eom/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html])
3. Germ warfare! Like chemical agents, biological Weapons have never lived up to their billing in popular Culture.
Consider the 1995 medical thriller Outbreak, in which a highly contagious virus takes out entire towns. The reality is quite
different. Weaponized smallpox escaped from a Soviet laboratory in Araisk, Kazakhstan, in 1971; three people
died, no epidemic followed, in 1979, weapons-grade anthrax got out of a Soviet facility in Sverdlovsk (now called
Ekaterinburg); 68 died, no epidemic. The loss of life was tragic, but no greater than could have been caused by a
single conventional bomb. In 1989, workers at a US government facility near Washington were accidentally
exposed to Ebola virus. They walked around the community and hung out with family and friends for several
days before the mistake was discovered. No one died. The fact is, evolution has spent millions of years
conditioning mammals to resist germs. Consider the Black Plguage. It was the worst known pathogen in
history, loose in a Middle Ages society of poor public health, awful sanitation, and no antibiotics. Yet it didn't
kill off humanity. Most people who were caught in the epidemic survived. Any superbug introduced into today's Western
world would encounter top-notch public health, excellent sanitation, and an array of medicines specifically engineered to kill
bioagents. Perhaps one day some aspiring Dr. Evil will invent a bug that bypasses the immune system. Because it is
possible some novel superdisease could be invented, or that existing pathogens like smallpox could be genetically altered
to make them more virulent (two-thirds of those who contract natural smallpox survive), biological agents are a legitimate
concern. They may turn increasingly troublesome as time passes and knowledge of biotechnology becomes harder to
control, allowing individuals or small groups to cook up nasty germs as readily as they can buy guns today. But no
superplague has ever come Close to wiping out humanity before, and it seems unlikely to happen in the future.
Radioactivity vanishes rapidly – Hiroshima and Nagasaki prove
RERF, 2007
Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Cooperative Japan-US research Organization, FAQ, http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/index.html
Q.12 Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki still radioactive?
A.12 The practical answer is, "No." People often ask, "If uranium and plutonium pose a potential hazard in nuclear waste sites and were present at
dangerous levels in the environment following the Chernobyl nuclear accident, why aren't Hiroshima and Nagasaki still uninhabitable?" There are two ways
residual radioactivity is produced from an atomic blast. The first is due to fallout of the fission products or the nuclear material itself--uranium or plutonium
(uranium was used for the Hiroshima bomb whereas plutonium was used for the Nagasaki bomb)--that contaminate the ground. Similar ground contamination
occurred as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident, but on a much larger scale (click here for more-detailed explanation). The second way residual
radioactivity is produced is by neutron irradiation of soil or buildings (neutron activation), causing non-radioactive materials to become radioactive. Fallout.
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs exploded at altitudes of 600 meters and 503 meters, respectively, then formed huge fireballs that rose with the ascending
air currents. About 10% of the nuclear material in the bombs underwent fission; the remaining 90% rose in the atmosphere with the fireball. Subsequently, the
material cooled down and some of it started to fall with rain (black rain) in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki areas, but probably most of the remaining uranium or
plutonium was dispersed widely in the atmosphere. Because of the wind, the rain did not fall directly on the hypocenters but rather in the northwest region
(Koi, Takasu area) of Hiroshima and the eastern region (Nishiyama area) of Nagasaki. The maximum estimates of dose due to fallout are 0.01-0.03 Gy in
Nowadays, the
radioactivity is so miniscule that it is difficult to distinguish from trace amounts (including plutonium) of radioactivity caused by
worldwide fallout from atmospheric (as opposed to underground) atomic-bomb tests that were conducted around the world in past decades,
Hiroshima and 0.2-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. The corresponding doses at the hypocenters are believed to be only about 1/10 of these values.
particularly in the 1950's and 1960's. Neutron activation. Neutrons comprised 10% or less of the A-bomb radiation, whereas gamma rays comprised the
majority of A-bomb radiation. Neutrons cause ordinary, non-radioactive materials to become radioactive, but gamma rays do not. The
bombs were
detonated far above ground, so neutron induction of radioactivity on the ground did not produce the degree of contamination
people associate with nuclear test sites (Nevada test site in Southwest US, Maralinga test site in South Australia, Bikini and Mururoa Atolls, etc.).
Past investigations suggested that the maximum cumulative dose at the hypocenter from immediately after the bombing until today is 0.8 Gy in Hiroshima and
0.3-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. When
the distance is [half a kilometer or a kilometer] 0.5 km or 1.0 km from the hypocenter, the estimates are
about 1/10 and 1/100 of the value at the hypocenter, respectively. The induced radioactivity decayed very quickly with time. In fact, nearly
80% of the above-mentioned doses were released within a day, about 10% between days 2 and 5, and the remaining 10% from day 6 afterward.
Considering the extensive fires near the hypocenters that prevented people from entering until the following day, it seems unlikely that any person received
over 20% of the above-mentioned dose, ie, 0.16 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.06-0.08 Gy in Nagasaki. As
for Hiroshima and Nagasaki proper, the longestlasting induced radionuclide that occurred in amounts sufficient to cause concern was cesium-134 (with a half-life of about 2 years). Most of the induced
radioactivities from various radionuclides decayed very quickly so that it now takes considerable time and effort to measure it using
highly sensitive equipment. Despite such miniscule levels, measurements of residual radioactivity using recently developed ultra-sensitive techniques
have been utilized to estimate neutron doses released from the bombs and have formed part of the basis of the latest atomic-bomb dosimetry (DS02). Although
the levels of residual radioactivity at the hypocenters in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were initially high, they declined quickly and are now far less than the dose
received from background radiation. Hence, there
is no detectable effect of present-day residual radiation on human health. In fact, today
both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities with large populations.