US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
On-Case Debate
NSS Lab
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
Case Frontlines
NSS Lab
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Air Pollution F/L
1. No air pollution impact
Schwartz 6 Joel Schwartz is a visiting fellow at AEI and a Professor of Environmental Epidemiology at
Harvard. "Getting Real on Air Pollution and Health," June 14, AEI, http://www.aei.org/article/energy-andthe-environment/contaminants/air/getting-real-on-air-pollution-and-health/
The EPA attributes well over 90 percent of the benefits of its clean air programs to improvements in human health. Thus, a key
policy question is whether EPA's health-benefit claims are credible. Even
as public health authorities and
environmental activists become more strident in raising health alarms, evidence continues
to mount that air pollution at contemporary low levels is causing little or no harm, even in
the most polluted areas of the country.¶ More sober estimates in the EPA's own technical analyses belie the
scary claims it puts out for public consumption. Writing in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, EPA scientists
estimated that going from 2002 ozone levels, which were by far the highest of the past several years, to nationwide compliance
with the stringent new federal eight-hour ozone standard would reduce respiratory-related hospital admissions and emergency
room visits by no more than a few tenths of a percent.¶ Claims
of an air pollution-asthma link by health
experts have also been undermined by recent research. While the prevalence of asthma has nearly
doubled in America during the past 25 years, air pollution of all kinds has sharply declined around the
nation at the same time, making air pollution an implausible culprit.¶ Government-funded research
by scientists from the University of Southern California supports this finding. The authors of the Children's Health Study
reported that children
who grew up in areas with higher air pollution, including areas with the
worst air pollution in the nation by far, had a lower risk of developing asthma. The researchers
also found that ozone had no effect on lung development, even though the study included areas that exceeded the federal
ozone standard more than 100 days per year. And even in a community with uniquely high soot levels--more than twice the
current federal health standard--soot was associated with only a 1 percent to 2 percent decline in lung capacity.¶ The
most
serious claim about air pollution is that it prematurely kills tens of thousands of Americans
each year. This claim is based on small statistical correlations between pollution levels and
risk of death. But correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, as demonstrated recently by a
number of embarrassing reversals of conventional medical wisdom.¶ The air pollution-mortality claim deserves
even greater skepticism. First, it is based on the same unreliable correlation methods that have led medical authorities
astray in other areas. Second, even though pollution is weakly correlated with higher premature mortality on average, it
seems to protect against death in about one-third of cities. How could pollution kill people
in some cities and save them in others? More likely, both results are chance correlations rather than real effects.
Third, in laboratory experiments, researchers have been unable to kill animals by exposing
them to air pollution at levels many times greater than ever occur in the United States.
2. Lots of alt causes
Rani et al, 11 (Bina, Department of Engineering Chemistry and Environmental Engineering,
Poornima College of Engineering, *AND Upma Singh, School of Applied Science, Gautam Buddha
University, *AND Raaz Maheshwari, Department of Chemistry, University of Rajasthan, June
2011, “Menace of Air Pollution Worldwide,” Advances in Bioresearch, Vol. 2 [1],
http://www.soeagra.com/abr_vol22011/1.pdf, Hensel)
Natural sources Dust from natural sources
Methane,
emitted by the digestion of food by animals
Radon gas from radioactive decay
within the Earth's crust. Radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring, radioactive noble gas that is formed from the
decay of radium. It is considered to be a health hazard. Radon gas from natural sources can
accumulate in buildings, especially in confined areas such as the basement and it is the second most frequent
cause of lung cancer
Smoke and carbon monoxide from wildfires
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Vegetation , in some regions, emits environmentally significant amounts of VOCs on warmer days.
These VOCs react with primary anthropogenic pollutants—specifically, NOx, SO2, and anthropogenic organic
carbon compounds—to produce a seasonal haze of secondary pollutants
Volcanic activity, which
produce sulfur, chlorine, and ash particulates
3. Experts grossly exaggerate health threats from air pollution - 98.5% of the
claimed health benefits are not real – give them 1.5% risk of their impact
Cordato 8 (Dr. Roy June 09, 2008, “State’s experts exaggerate health effects of emissions reductions Mandatory TVA power
plant changes would create more costs than benefits” Dr. Roy Cordato is a Policy Advisor to The Heartland Institute and a policy
analyst for the John Locke Foundation and the Vice President for Research and resident scholar at the John Locke Foundation.
Cordato holds an M.A. in urban and regional economics from the University of Hartford and a Ph.D. in economics from George
Mason University. He also holds a Bachelors of Music Education from the Hartt School of Music.
http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/20080609389.html)
Forcing the Tennessee Valley Authority to reduce emissions from its coal-fired power
plants would create far more costs than benefits, according to a new John Locke Foundation Policy Report. Click here to
RALEIGH –
view and here to listen to Dr. Roy Cordato discussing this Policy Report. That finding directly contradicts “expert” opinions N.C. Attorney General Roy
“The attorney general’s experts grossly exaggerate
potential benefits from power plant emissions reductions, ignore evidence that contradicts their
assumptions, and misinterpret study results to make their case,” said report author Joel Schwartz, visiting fellow
Cooper cited when filing a lawsuit against the TVA in 2006.
at the American Enterprise Institute and JLF adjunct scholar. “This new analysis should shed some light on the true costs of forcing power plant
emissions reductions for little or no apparent benefit,” said Dr. Roy Cordato, JLF Vice President for Research and Resident Scholar. TVA operates 11
coal-fired power plants in the southeastern United States. The plants emit nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) that contribute to particulate
matter and ozone in North Carolina and other eastern states. Cooper’s January 2006 lawsuit aimed to force TVA to reduce its contribution to air
pollution in the Tar Heel state. Cooper
tried to bolster his case by commissioning four “expert reports,”
according to the JLF Policy Report. Cooper’s expert reports estimated that a 65 percent reduction in NOx and SO2
emissions from TVA power plants would create $10.9 billion in total health benefits, including
fewer hospital visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths. Cooper’s experts estimated the
health benefits to be 18 times greater than the annual costs of emission reductions. “In reality, the
actual benefits of TVA power plant emission reductions would at best amount to only a tiny
fraction of the totals claimed by the attorney general’s experts,” Schwartz said. “A close examination
of these expert claims shows that most of them are not real.” About 98.5 percent of the claimed
health benefits from emission reductions come from reduced output of a substance called
particulate matter, Schwartz said. “The problem with the experts’ assessment is that the particulate matter targeted by
forced emissions reductions is not harmful,” he said. “Particulate matter from power plants is
mostly ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate. Neither is harmful, even at levels tens of
times greater than levels ever found in the air Americans breathe.” “In other words, 98.5 percent of
the benefits claimed for power plant emission reductions depend on the false assumption that
ammonium sulfate and nitrate are toxic,” Schwartz added. “They’re not toxic, so 98.5 percent of the
claimed benefits are not real.” Schwartz also found problems with the other 1.5 percent of
claimed health benefits. “These benefits come from proposed reduction of ozone pollution,” he
said. “But the attorney general’s expert reports exaggerate the benefits of ozone reductions. The
experts assume that ozone causes premature death, even at the relatively low levels encountered in
the air today. Decades of studies show this is not true.” The expert reports contend that 96
percent of projected ozone reduction benefits come from the reduced chance of premature
death, Schwartz said. “Since ozone doesn’t cause premature death, this is another case of the attorney general’s
experts citing benefits that are not real.” Cooper’s experts might have offered a more realistic assessment if they had done a
better job examining studies tied to particulate matter and ozone, Schwartz said. “These experts make error after error in
evaluating the evidence from studies of infant mortality, school absences, and asthma-related
emergency room visits,” he said. “It is their selective omission and mischaracterization of evidence
that ultimately resulted in the vast exaggeration of the health benefits of TVA power plant
emissions reductions.” Using false assumptions and omitting contrary evidence, Cooper’s
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
experts paint an inaccurate picture, Schwartz said. “These errors make the benefits of emissions
reductions appear to be at least 100 times greater than they actually are,” he said. “Correcting
these false assumptions eliminates 99.9 percent of the air pollution reduction benefits claimed
by the attorney general’s experts. Compare the real benefits to the costs, and you’ll find that the
cost of TVA emissions reductions would be more than 50 times greater than the benefits.”
4. Pollution doesn't increase morbidity - at worse it shortens lives by days
Schwartz 3 Adjunct Scholar @ Competitive Enterprise Institute [Joel Schwartz, “Particulate Air
Pollution: weighing the risks” April 2003, http://cei.org/pdf/3452.pdf/]
Studies that have attempted to estimate directly when death occurs in relation to increases in
pollution by estimating the size of this frail population have concluded that acute changes in pollution levels
shorten life expectancy by a matter of days at most.113 The putative effects of PM based on epidemiologic results are
consistent with the harvesting hypothesis. For example, if daily variations in pollution mainly affect an alreadyfrail population, it may be that it’s not so much the type of external stress that is important, but
that any modest external stress would be enough to cause death. This is consistent with the
finding that many different types of pollution—e.g., fine and coarse PM, various gases—appear to have effects on mortality of
similar magnitude, as do changes in temperature, atmospheric pressure and other weather variables.114 If PM and other pollutants were shortening
healthy people’s lives by months or years, it would be an odd coincidence if several different pollutants, each with a different intrinsic toxicity and each
present at different levels in different cities, all happened to exert roughly the same effects, regardless of the pollutant or its ambient concentration.
On the other hand, if PM is actually shortening life by months or years in otherwise healthy people, biological plausibility is still an issue. Various
pollutants are always present at some level in ambient air, and pollution levels vary from day to
day. It is not clear why apparently healthy people would be suddenly killed on a given day by
relatively low PM levels that they have experienced many times in the past.115 The frailpopulation
hypothesis would explain the possible lack of a threshold for the effect of PM on mortality, since changes in pollution, even at low levels, might be
enough to cause death in very frail people.116
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Economy F/L
1. Economic decline doesn’t cause war
Jervis,’11 (Robert, Professor PolSci Columbia, December, “Force in Our Times” Survival, Vol 25 No 4, p 403-425)
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more
peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of
status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening
of the current
economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back oldfashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the
conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate
fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be
reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather
it is that even
if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become
discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political
conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by
impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will
entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as
outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the
very fact that we
have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is
the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not
make war thinkable.
2. Multipolarity makes your arguments untrue—economic decline doesn’t
cause war
Thirlwell ’10—MPhil in economics from Oxford U, postgraduate qualifications in applied finance from Macquarie U, program director in International Economy for
the Lowy Institute for International Policy (Mark, September 2010, “The Return of Geo-economics: Globalisation and National Security”, Lowy Institute for International Policy,
google scholar,)
Summing up the evidence, then, I would judge that while empirical support for the Pax Mercatoria is not conclusive,
nevertheless it’s still strongly supportive of the general idea that international integration is good for peace, all else equal. Since
there is also even stronger evidence that peace is good for trade, this raises
the possibility of a nice virtuous circle:
globalisation (trade) promotes peace, which in turn promotes more globalisation. In this kind of world,
we should not worry too much about the big power shifts described in the previous section, since they are taking
place against a backdrop of greater economic integration which should help smooth the whole process. ¶ Instead of ending this
section on that optimistic note, however, it’s worth thinking about some reasons why the
Pax Mercatoria might
nevertheless turn out to be a poor, or at least overly optimistic, guide to our future.¶ The first is captured by that all
important get-out-of-gaol-free card, ‘all else equal’. It’s quite possible that the peace-promoting effects of international commerce
will end up being swamped by other factors, just as they were in 1914.¶ Second, perhaps the theory itself is wrong. Certainly, a
realist like John Mearsheimer would seem to have little time for the optimistic consequences of the rise of new powers implied by
the theory. Here’s Mearsheimer on how the US should view China’s economic progress, for example:¶ ‘ . . . the United States has a
profound interest in seeing Chinese economic growth slow considerably in the years ahead . . . A wealthy China would not be a
status quo power but an aggressive state determined to achieve regional hegemony.’ 62¶ Such pessimistic (or are they tragic?) views
of the world would also seem to run the risk of being self-fulfilling prophecies if they end up guiding actual policy. ¶ Finally, there is
the risk that the
shift to a multipolar world might indirectly undermine some of the supports needed to
deliver globalisation. Here I am thinking about some simple variant on the idea of hegemonic stability theory (HST) – the
proposition that the global economy needs a leader (or ‘hegemon’) that is both able and willing to provide
the sorts of international public goods that are required for its smooth functioning: open markets (liberal or
‘free’ trade), a smoothly functioning monetary regime, liberal capital flows, and a lender of last resort
function. 63 Charles Kindleberger argued that ‘the 1929 depression was so wide, so deep, and so long because the
international economic system was rendered unstable by British inability and US unwillingness to
assume responsibility for stabilizing it’, drawing on the failures of the Great Depression to make the original case for HST:¶ ‘
. . . the international economic and monetary system needs leadership, a country that is prepared . .
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
. to set standards of conduct for other countries and to seek to get others to follow them, to take on an
undue share of the burdens of the system, and in particular to take on its support in adversity...’ 64¶ Kindleberger’s assessment
appears to capture a rough empirical regularity: As Findlay and O’Rourke remind us, ‘periods
of sustained expansion in
world trade have tended to coincided with the infrastructure of law and order necessary to keep trade routes open being
provided by a
dominant “hegemon” or imperial power’. 65 Thus periods of globalisation have typically been
associated with periods of hegemonic or imperial power, such as the Pax Mongolica, the Pax Britannica and, most
recently, the Pax Americana (Figure 9).¶ The risk, then, is that by reducing the economic clout of the United States, it
is possible that the shift to a multipolar world economy might undermine either the willingness or the
ability (or both) of Washington to continue to supply the international public goods needed to sustain
a (relatively) smoothly functioning world economy. 66 That in turn could undermine the potential
virtuous circle identified above.
3. Econ resilient
E.I.U. ’11 (Economist Intelligence Unit – Global Forecasting Service, 11/16/’11
(http://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gef&articleId=668596451&secID=7)
The US economy, by any standard, remains weak, and consumer and business sentiment are close to 2009 lows. That said, the
resilient in the face of so many shocks. US real GDP expanded by a relatively
robust 2.5% in the third quarter of 2011, twice the rate of the previous quarter. Consumer spending rose by 2.4%,
which is impressive given that real incomes dropped during the quarter (the savings rate fell, which helps to
explain the anomaly.) Historically, US consumers have been willing to spend even in difficult times.
economy has been surprisingly
Before the 2008-09 slump, personal spending rose in every quarter between 1992 and 2007. That resilience is again in evidence:
retail sales in September were at a seven-month high, and sales at chain stores have been strong. Business
investment has been even more buoyant: it expanded in the third quarter by an impressive 16.3% at an annual rate, and
spending by companies in September on conventional capital goods (that is, excluding defence and aircraft) grew
by the most since March. This has been made possible, in part, by strong corporate profits.
According to data compiled by Bloomberg, earnings for US companies in the S&P 500 rose by 24% year on year in the third quarter.
All of this has occurred despite a debilitating fiscal debate in Washington, a sovereign debt downgrade by a
major ratings agency and exceptional volatility in capital markets. This reinforces our view that the
US economy,
although weak, is not in danger of falling into a recession (absent a shock from the euro zone). US growth will, however,
continue to be held back by a weak labour market—the unemployment rate has been at or above 9% for 28 of the last 30 months—
and by a moribund housing market.
4. US isn’t key to the global economy – decoupling proves
Bloomberg ‘10 [“Wall Street Sees World Economy Decoupling From U.S.”, October 4th, 2010,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-03/world-economy-decoupling-from-u-s-in-slowdown-returns-as-wall-street-view.html]
The main reason for the divergence: “Direct transmission from a
U.S. slowdown to other economies through exports is just
not large enough to spread a U.S. demand problem globally,” Goldman Sachs economists Dominic Wilson and Stacy
Carlson wrote in a Sept. 22 report entitled “If the U.S. sneezes...” Limited Exposure Take the so-called BRIC countries of Brazil,
Russia, India and China. While exports account for almost 20 percent of their gross domestic product,
sales to the U.S. compose less than 5 percent of GDP, according to their estimates. That means even if U.S.
growth slowed 2 percent, the drag on these four countries would be about 0.1 percentage point, the
economists reckon. Developed economies including the U.K., Germany and Japan also have limited exposure,
they said. Economies outside the U.S. have room to grow that the U.S. doesn’t, partly because of its
outsized slump in house prices, Wilson and Carlson said. The drop of almost 35 percent is more than twice as large as the worst
declines in the rest of the Group of 10 industrial nations, they found. The risk to the decoupling wager is a repeat of 2008, when the
U.S. property bubble burst and then morphed into a global credit and banking shock that ricocheted around the world. For now,
Goldman Sachs’s index of U.S. financial conditions signals that bond and stock markets aren’t stressed by the U.S. outlook. Weaker
Dollar The break with the U.S. will be reflected in a weaker dollar, with the Chinese yuan appreciating to 6.49 per dollar in a year
from 6.685 on Oct. 1, according to Goldman Sachs forecasts. The bank is also betting that yields on U.S. 10-year debt will be lower by
June than equivalent yields for Germany, the U.K., Canada, Australia and Norway. U.S. notes will rise to 2.8 percent from 2.52
percent, Germany’s will increase to 3 percent from 2.3 percent and Canada’s will grow to 3.8 percent from 2.76 percent on Oct. 1,
Goldman Sachs projects. Goldman Sachs isn’t alone in making the case for decoupling. Harris at BofA Merrill Lynch said he didn’t buy
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
the argument prior to the financial crisis. Now he believes global growth is strong enough to offer a “handkerchief” to the U.S. as it
suffers a “growth recession” of weak expansion and rising unemployment, he said. Giving him confidence is his calculation that the
U.S. share of global GDP has shrunk to about 24 percent from 31 percent in 2000. He also notes that, unlike the U.S.,
many countries avoided asset bubbles, kept their banking systems sound and improved their trade and budget positions. Economic
Locomotives A book published last week by the World Bank backs him up. “The Day After Tomorrow” concludes that developing
nations aren’t only decoupling, they also are undergoing a “switchover” that will make them such locomotives
for the world economy, they can help rescue advanced nations. Among the reasons for the revolution are greater trade
between emerging markets, the rise of the middle class and higher commodity prices, the book said. Investors are signaling they
agree. The U.S. has fallen behind Brazil, China and India as the preferred place to invest, according to a quarterly
survey conducted last month of 1,408 investors, analysts and traders who subscribe to Bloomberg. Emerging markets also attracted
more money from share offerings than industrialized nations last quarter for the first time in at least a decade, Bloomberg data
show. Room to Ease Indonesia, India, China and Poland are the developing economies least vulnerable to a U.S. slowdown,
according to a Sept. 14 study based on trade ties by HSBC Holdings Plc economists. China,
Russia and Brazil also are
among nations with more room than industrial countries to ease policies if a U.S. slowdown does
weigh on their growth, according to a policy- flexibility index designed by the economists, who include New York-based
Pablo Goldberg. “Emerging economies kept their powder relatively dry, and are, for the most part, in a position where they could act
countercyclically if needed,” the HSBC group said. Links to developing countries are helping insulate some companies against U.S.
weakness. Swiss watch manufacturer Swatch Group AG and tire maker Nokian Renkaat of Finland are among the European
businesses that should benefit from trade with nations such as Russia and China where consumer demand is growing, according to
BlackRock Inc. portfolio manager Alister Hibbert. “There’s a lot of life in the global economy,” Hibbert, said at a Sept. 8 presentation
to reporters in London.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Economy F/L – Ext. #1
Extend Jervis 11 - economic decline doesn’t cause war
Decline doesn’t cause war
Barnett ‘ 9 (Thomas P.M Barnett, senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC, contributing editor/online columnist for
Esquire, 8/25/’9 – “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis,” Aprodex, Asset Protection Index,
http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx)
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of
scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great
Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year
and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever
on the international security landscape.¶ None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed
by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil
conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three
quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the
latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was
specifically
timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important
external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade
long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions.¶ Looking over the various databases, then, we see
a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist
movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v.
South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly
unrelated to global economic trends.¶ And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing
major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has
been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counterdrug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast).
Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing
the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything
beyond advising and training local forces.
More ev
Miller 00 (Morris, Economist, Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Administration – University of
Ottawa, Former Executive Director and Senior Economist – World Bank, “Poverty as a Cause of
Wars?”, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Winter, p. 273)
The question may be reformulated. Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that
exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some
dramatic event or sequence of such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable
denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the
political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and
setting in train the process leading to war. According
to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this
hypothesis. After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin
America and Asia in the years since the Second World War they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional
wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis – as
measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... (or, in democratic
states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence ... In the cases of dictatorships and semidemocracies, the ruling elites
responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another).
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Environment F/L
1. Squo solves Mexican biodiversity – multiple projects being funded
The World Bank Group ’11 [The World Bank Group, an environmental agency, “An Effective PublicPrivate Partnership for Mexico’s Protected Areas”, 2011,
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTBIODIVERSITY/0,,contentMDK:
23264975~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:400953,00.html?cid=3001_5]
Mexico is a 'mega-diverse' country, with the fourth-highest number of species of plants
and animals of any country on the planet. Yet this high biodiversity is constantly threatened. In response, the
World Bank, with funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), helped create and
capitalize the Fund for Protected Areas (FANP), aunique partnership that has played an
instrumental role in both protecting this biodiversity and inspiring the growth of the
protected area system which will conserve it for the future. More Results What's Happening to
Biodiversity? (Infographic) $75.89 million the total amount for FANP to support conservation efforts in 23 protected areas that
represent 30% of the total area under federal protection Challenge Mexico counts 174 protected areas covering 25 million
hectares. Protected
areas are the most advanced proven tool for conserving Mexico’s
biological treasures, but their effectiveness is only assured when well-managed. Deforestation, overexploitation,
uncontrolled tourism, accelerated economic development and arbitrary settlement policies have at times compromised protected
areas as the communities living within them continue to use their resources. With private and public interests intersecting in the
management of protected areas, tight collaboration between government and civil society is required to achieve conservation
results. Approach Starting in 1998, the World Bank provided the Mexican government with GEF funds that would eventually total
USD 47.5 million. The interest from the endowment portion (USD 40.9 million), managed by the private Mexican Fund for the
Conservation of Nature (FMCN) funds basic protected area operations and local civil society activities for innovative conservation of
priority protected areas across the country. Results Using a privately managed endowment guarantees political independence and
transparency across administrations. This enables long-term planning and systematic management; Endowment funds did not
replace but instead leveraged traditional government funds and attracted resources from outside donors: FANP thus grew to USD
75.89 million, supporting strategic conservation activities in 23 protected areas that represent 30% of total area under federal
protection; The Fund’s growth enabled the increase of annual disbursements from USD 1 million per year in 1998 to USD 4.3 million
in 2009. Between 1998 and 2008, more than USD 20 million in interest was allocated to conservation;
Land use change in
the supported protected areas is lower than in surrounding areas, and populations of
key indicator species within the protected areas remain stable. Both suggest that
biodiversity is being conserved; FANP also had an important leverage impact: In 1994,
the Mexican government dedicated a mere USD 100,000 to its protected areas, which
had no permanent staff. FANP’s results were showcased to increase CONANPs profile
within the Mexican government, with the result that its annual budget grew to more
than USD 80 million; FANP has promoted citizen participation as FMCN disburses funds
to each area through local partner NGOs and requires that CONANP establish
conservation priorities with the input of local advisory committees.
2. Species loss is exaggerated
Gray 13 [Louise, As Environment Correspondent, 24 Jan 2013]
In the past scientists have warned
that up to five per cent of species are at risk of dying-out as a
result of climate change, deforestation and development. But a new analysis by the University
of New Zealand found that this figure was five times greater than reality because the number of
animals living in the wild in the first place had been over estimated. This meant that conservationists
assumed that rates of decline were much faster, as they were starting from a higher point. In fact the rate of extinction is
much slower, with just one per cent of animals in danger of dying out globally. Writer Mark Twain
famously responded to the news that his obituary had appeared in the New York Journal by saying: "The reports of my death are
greatly exaggerated."
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
3. Extinction rates based on flawed statistics
Sethi 11 [Nitin, assistant editor of The Times of India Reporting on Development,
Agriculture, Environment and Climate Change, May 21, 2011]
NEW DELHI: After climate gate, the green brigade might be looking at another scandalous exaggeration laid bare – this time by
fellow scientists. The
rate at which species of animals and plants are getting extinct is nowhere
near what wildlife conservationists have claimed. The claims of extinction have been
exaggerated by as much as 160%, two scientists said in journal Nature. Huge amounts of funds are
moved to 'conserving' wildlife in tropical and developing countries in the name of preventing extinction of species. Prominent
studies quoted infinitely have claimed that 18-50% of species will go extinct by 2000. Some claim
by 2050. But the evidence – actual proof of what species have disappeared -- is not to be found.
Ecologists have claimed this was because there is a lag between their habitats – lands and forests getting transformed and the actual
extinction of the species. The
two scientists, Fangliang He and Stephen P Hubbell, have shown how
the extinction rates have been flawed caused by using statistics badly. The two warn that their results
doesn't imply species are going extinct at a dangerous rate but the trajectory is not as disastrous as has been claimed so far by many
green NGOs across the world. "These results might receive a mixed reaction from the conservation community. On the one hand,
the good news is that all
extinction rate estimates based on the backward SAR method (the standard
method used to project extinction rate) are overestimates," the authors note. "On the other hand, there is likely to be
concern that these results could jeopardize conservation efforts and be falsely construed in some quarters to imply that habitat loss
is not a problem. Nothing could be further from the truth," they put as a caveat. While the conservationists are bound to warn that
the threat is clear and present, the
new research is bound to catch the ears of politicians and
policymakers who have asked for evidence before they commit national and private funds to
wildlife conservation measures across the world.
4. Alt cause – lack of economic growth management and decreased
environmental inspections
Gallagher 4 [Kevin P., “Free Trade and the Environment: Mexico, NAFTA, and
Beyond”, http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/NAFTAEnviroKGAmerProgSep04.pdf]
the Mexican environment is worsening, but not because it is a pollution haven, what is driving environmental
degradation? Costly degradation is occurring because the proper mechanisms were not put in
place to help Mexico manage its economic growth in an environmentally sustainable
manner. In the lead-up to NAFTA, Mexico doubled spending on environmental protection and started a much-needed industrial environmental
inspection program. However, shortly after NAFTA was signed and fiscal and financial woes set in,
attention to the environment nose-dived. According to INEGI, since 1994 real spending on environmental protection
If
declined by the equivalent of $200 million, or 45%. Even at their highest levels, allocations for environmental protection were low in comparison to
Mexico’s counterparts in the OECD; as a percentage of GDP, they were only one-fifth that of other OECD nations.Tellingly,
the number of
industrial environmental inspections has also decreased by 45% over the same period.toward
environmental improvement, or if the turning point is so distant as to make the environmental costs of waiting unacceptable, then governments need
to put in place the institutional mechanisms that can monitor environmental impacts and prevent unacceptable levels of environmental destruction.
Without environmental laws, regulations, and the willingness and capacity to enforce
them, trade-led growth will lead to increases in environmental degradation. Second, since the
evidence from Mexico suggests that environmental regulations and enforcement are
not generally decisive in most firms’ location decisions, governments should have little
fear in strengthening such safeguards. Governments will not be jeopardizing their access to foreign direct investment by
enacting strong environmental legislation and enforcing it. In short, governments need to act to protect their environments. The costs of doing so, in
terms of lost investment, are likely to be very low. The costs of inaction are likely to be very high.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
5. Multiple alt causes – unsustainable resource exploitation, policies, poverty,
population growth, marginalization of populations, and incompatible programs
Stedman-Edwards 97 [Dr. Stedman-Edwards’ a consultant to the WWF-México Program
Office. Background reports were prepared by Gloria Tavera, Eckart Boege, and the
Bufete Jurídico Tierra y Liberdad A.C. Substantial comments and contributions were also
provided by Jenny Ericson, Julia Murphy, and members of the WWF-México Program
Office, including Dr. Guillermo Castilleja and Dr. Eduardo Iñigo. This is a summary of a
more detailed document available from the WWF-MPO Office in Washington, DC or the
WWF-México Program Office in Mexico City, Socioeconomic Root Causes of Biodiversity
Loss: The Case of Calakmul, Mexico Summary, 1997]
Mexico is an important case in the study of biodiversity loss; the country ranks fourth in
the world for biodiversity. Calakmul is representative of the conflicts and problems
surrounding many of the protected areas in Mexico, given unsustainable resource
exploitation, inappropriate policies, poverty, population growth, and marginalization of
the local population. The national policy context in Mexico, notably the liberalization of a state-managed economy,
parallels that of many other developing countries over the last decade. Mexico´s tradition of communal land tenure makes this case
of interest in other countries that are pursuing decentralization of resource management as a means to both development and
conservation. The
programs aimed at promoting conservation in the region are typical of
conservation programs in underdeveloped regions in Mexico and around the world;
programs focus on sedentarization of agriculture and improved management of natural
resources by local communities. However, conflicting pressures for development of
rural areas and for protection of biodiversity have created a mesh of incompatible
programs and policies that promote land clearing and forest degradation.
6. No impact – species redundancy prevents permanent ecological destruction
Griffen et al 10 [Blaine Griffen, Department of Biological Science, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, South Carolina, USA, “Moving species redundancy toward a more predictive
Framework”, http://aslo.org/books/ecodas8/ecodas8_030.pdf]
The needs of a growing human population are having strong impacts on ecosystems worldwide. The biological endpoints of many of these impacts are
either a local increase in species richness through species invasion, or a local (as well as global) decrease in species richness through population
extinction. Both invasion and extinction therefore represent changes in local levels of biodiversity. Changes in species abundance and/or composition
raise questions about the importance of biodiversity, both for the ability of natural systems to persist and their ability to provide important ecosystem
services that directly or indirectly benefit humans through provisioning services (e.g., hydrologic cycles, atmospheric composition, soil genesis),
regulating services (e.g., climate regulation, water and air purification), supporting services (e.g., pollination, storing and cycling of nutrients), and
The consequences of
changing biodiversity have received considerable and increasing attention over the past
couple of decades. Much of this work has alluded to, or acknowledged, that multiple
species can perform similar functions in natural systems (Walker 1992). Species that perform
similar functions are ecologically redundant. By definition then, redundant species are
similarin function so thatif one species is removed and replaced by another, no loss of
ecosystem function would be observed (Lawton and Brown 1993). This is equivalent to “functional degeneracy” as recently
described by Gonzalez and Loreau (2009). This situation does not imply that each redundant species has
redundant impacts. For example, four individuals of species B may be required to
replace the function of a single individual of species A. Thus, the provision of ecosystem
services must be considered within the context of both population dynamics and
community interactions (KreMmen and Ostfeld 2005; Griffen and Byers 2006). The level of redundancy in ecological
cultural services (e.g., ecotourism, aesthetics) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003; Hooper et al. 2005).
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
communities therefore determines whether,for example,the loss of species alters
ecosystem function(Larsen et al. 2005), and whether there is little or no change to ecosystem
function(e.g., Schindler 1990)
7. Researchers don’t know the correct number of species – leads to incorrect
predictions
Gray 13 [Louise, Environment Correspondent, “Extinction of millions of species 'greatly
exaggerated',” The Telegraph, Jan 24, 2013,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9824723/Extinction-of-millions-of-speciesgreatly-exaggerated.html]
Writing in the journal Science, the researchers calculate that there are around five million
species of plants and animals on Earth, of which 1.5 million have been named.¶ This is far
fewer than some other estimates, which put the figure as high as 100 million.¶ If a habitat is
thought to contain more animals than it does, this can easily lead to a mistaken idea of how
quickly they are disappearing.¶ Finding 500 members of a species in a population estimated to
top 1,000 would indicate a more than 50 per cent decline.¶ But if the population was actually
500 in the first place, the loss rate falls to zero.
8. Current predictions overestimate the rate at which species disappear
Gray 13 [Louise, Environment Correspondent, “Extinction of millions of species 'greatly
exaggerated',” The Telegraph, Jan 24, 2013,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9824723/Extinction-of-millions-of-speciesgreatly-exaggerated.html]
Professor Mark Costello, from the University of Auckland in New Zealand, said that globally, around one per cent of
species are likely to be vanishing per decade rather than the five per cent figure some experts have
proposed.¶ "Our findings are potentially good news for the conservation of global biodiversity," said
lead scientist¶ "Over-estimates of the number of species on Earth are self-defeating because they
can make attempts to discover and conserve biodiversity appear to be hopeless," he said.¶ "Our
work suggests that this is far from the case.¶ "We believe that with just a modest increase in effort in
taxonomy and conservation, most species could be discovered and protected from extinction."¶ Co-author
Professor Nigel Stork, from Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, said: "Surprisingly, few species have gone extinct,
to our knowledge.¶ "Of course, there will have been some species which have disappeared without being recorded, but not
many we think."¶ One of the greatest fears of conservationists has been that many species will die out before they have even been
discovered.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Environment F/L – Ext. #1
Extend The World Bank Group 11 - Squo solves Mexican biodiversity – multiple
projects being funded
And, the SQ solves – the U.S. and Mexico continue environmental cooperation
along the border
The Voice of America 12
"The Voice Of America will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively,
and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies." (from the VOA Charter, Public Law 94-350) As called for
in its charter, the Voice of America presents differing points of view on a wide variety of issues. This includes the broadcast of
editorials expressing the policies of the United States government, as well as essays on American ideals and institutions. "U.S Mexico Environmental Cooperation." Environment. The Voice of America, 22 August 2012. Web. 20 July 2013.
<http://editorials.voa.gov/info/about_us/1790.html>.
The United States and Mexico will continue environmental cooperation along the more than
3,000 kilometer U.S. - Mexico border. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Administrator Lisa Jackson and
Mexican Secretary for the Environment Juan Elvira Quesada met in Tijuana, August 8th, to sign the Border 2020 framework
agreement. They were joined by U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Anthony Wayne; Baja California Governor Jose Guadalupe Osuna
Millan; Commissioners Drusina and Salmon from the International Boundary and Water Commission; Tijuana Mayor Carlos
Bustamante Anchondo; representatives from Baja California, Nuevo Leon, California, and New Mexico; tribal officials;
representatives of EPA and Mexico’s environmental protection agency, SEMARNAT. The
Border 2020 Program is the
latest environmental initiative implemented under the 1983 La Paz Agreement. It builds on the
Border 2012 Environmental Program, emphasizing regional, bottom-up approaches for
decision making, priority setting, and project implementation to address the
environmental and public health problems in the border region. Border 2020 will seek to reduce
pollution in water, air, and on land, reduce exposure to chemicals from accidental releases, and improve
environmental stewardship. “Since the U.S. and Mexico agreed to collaborate and engage
stakeholders from various sectors to address the environmental challenges along our international
border, residents from both countries have benefited from cleaner air, water and
land,” said EPA Administrator Jackson. Environmental Secretary of Mexico Elvira
acknowledged cooperation between Mexico and the U nited S tates through the Border
2012 program and noted the accomplishments which include the removal of over 6.8 million used tires and
cleaning up the waste disposal sites in Mexicali, Baja California. He explained there were over 140 projects that reduced air, water
and soil pollutants; protected
environmental health, prepared our response to environmental emergencies, and
promoted compliance with environmental laws. Fourteen million inhabitants along the U.S. – Mexico
border benefit from these projects. Ambassador Wayne, in his discussions with U.S. and Mexican
officials, noted that pollutants are a shared challenge and responsibility and expressed confidence that Border
2020 will build on the successes of Border 2012.
Squo solves – US and Mexico collaborating now
U.S. Department of State 12 Qualifications. " Border Environment Cooperation." U.S.MEXICO AT A GLANCE. The U.S. Department of State, 2012. Web. 20 July 2013
<http://mexico.usembassy.gov/eng/eataglance_env_health.html>.
Agricultural and urban development along both sides of our southwestern border depends on water
that flows in both directions across the border. The United States and Mexico jointly manage
our shared boundary waters in the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) and Colorado River. Our countries also share sewage-treatment plants in a number
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
of communities along
NSS Lab
the border. This cooperation benefits the citizens of both countries. U.S.-Mexico
Environmental Program (Border 2012) is a collaboration between the United States and Mexico to
improve the environment and protect the health of the nearly 12 million people living along
the border. The
bi-national program focuses on cleaning the air , providing safe drinking
water, reducing the risk of exposure to hazardous waste, and ensuring emergency
preparedness along the U.S.-Mexico border . The United States and Mexico are cooperating
closely on steps to reduce carbon emissions in our countries. Mexico is a leader in the Americas in establishing an
interagency commission to develop a national climate change policy. Environment Minister Juan Elvira attended the Major Economies Meeting called
by President Bush to discuss climate change strategies multilaterally in September 2007. The
North American Development
Bank (NADBank) is a binational institution capitalized and governed equally by the U.S. and
Mexico to finance environmental infrastructure projects along the border. Through the
NADBank, more than 134 projects representing more than $2.7 billion dollars are underway.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
are providing assistance to improve the design of landfills along the border to reduce pollution and to
capture methane gas and use it for power generation .
Squo solves - U.S. and Mexico signed an agreement for environmental
cooperation along the US-Mexico border
Erickson 12 Andrew S. E. Erickson is the U.S. Consulate General in Tijuana Consul. Consulate General of the United States, Andrew S. E. Erickson oversees the
activities of the Consulate in the states of Baja California and Baja California Sur. Over the course of his career, Mr. Erickson has worked on political, economic and multilateral
affairs, as well as on refuge and migratory affairs. In addition to service in U.S. Embassies in Algeria, the Seychelles Islands, Panama, Bolivia and Colombia, Erickson has also
worked on European refugee issues at the U.S. Mission to the European Union in Brussels and with international organizations in Geneva at the U.S. Mission there. In
Washington he has served as Deputy Director for Haiti in the Office of Caribbean Affairs. Mr. Erickson’s most recent overseas assignment was as the Senior Civilian
Representative at Regional Platform South West in Afghanistan, responsible for non-military operations in South West Afghanistan. Mr. Erickson is a history graduate of Brown
University, and has a Master’s of Science in National Security Strategy from the National War College in Washington, DC. He and his wife Cyrille have two grown daughters. He
is from Oakland, California. The U.S. Consulate General in Tijuana advances the bilateral relationship in the Baja peninsula - the most populous and interconnected area along
the U.S.-Mexico border. Strong social, linguistic, historical, and business ties contribute to extensive cross-border cooperation in many areas and to a broad sentiment that
northern Baja/southern California is one integrated, dynamic region where economic well-being is interdependent. The U.S. Consulate General, through more than 125 years of
cooperation in the Baja peninsula, has become an integral part of the community and a vital actor in U.S.-Mexican bi-national relations. "US-MEXICO Continue Environmental
cooperation through Border 2020 Program." Consulate General of the United States. The United States Department of State, 8 August 2012. Web. 20 July 2013.
<http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/latest-consulate-newsa/us-mexico-continue-environmental-cooperation-through-border-2020-program-aug-8-2012.html>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson and Mexican Secretary for the
Environment Juan Elvira Quesada met in Tijuana today to sign the Border 2020 framework agreement for
continued environmental cooperation along the U.S- Mexico border. They were joined by U.S.
Ambassador to Mexico E. Anthony Wayne; Baja California Governor José Guadalupe Osuna Millán; Tijuana Mayor Carlos Bustamante
Anchondo; representatives from Baja California, Nuevo Leon, California, and New Mexico; tribal officials; and representatives of EPA
and SEMARNAT, who were attending a meeting of National Coordinators from these environmental agencies. The Border 2020
Program is the latest environmental initiative implemented under the 1983 La Paz Agreement. It builds on the Border 2012
Environmental Program, emphasizing regional, bottom-up approaches for decision making, priority setting, and project
implementation to address the environmental and public health problems in the border region .
Border 2020 will seek to reduce pollution in water, air, and on land, reduce exposure to
chemicals from accidental releases and improve environmental stewardship. "Since
the U.S. and Mexico agreed to collaborate and engage stakeholders from various sectors to
address the environmental challenges along our international border, residents in
both countries have benefitted from cleaner air, water and land," said EPA Administrator Lisa P.
Jackson. "The Border 2020 agreement ensures that we'll continue to see improvements as we
build upon and strengthen efforts that made the Border 2012 program so successful. We will keep working with all of
our partners to foster healthier, more prosperous communities on both sides of the
border." Environment Secretary of Mexico, Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada acknowledged the
cooperation between Mexico and the U.S. through the Border 2012 program, and mentioned the
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
accomplishments which include the removal of over 6.8 million used tires and cleaning up the waste disposal sites known as
Centinela and INNOR, located in Mexicali, Baja California. Secretary Elvira explained there
were over 140 projects
that reduced air, water and soil pollutants; protected environmental health, prepared our response to
environmental emergencies, and promoted compliance with environmental laws and
regulations. These projects will benefit more than 14 million inhabitants along the
Mexico/U.S. border. Ambassador Wayne, in his discussions with U.S. and Mexican officials, noted
that pollutants are a shared challenge and responsibility, and he was confident that
Border 2020 will build on the successes of Border 2012. He congratulated officials for
the gains made under Border 2012, including reduced vehicle emissions, the training of air
quality technicians, improved water quality, and enhanced capacity to jointly respond to hazardous-materials emergencies. The
Border 2020 U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program will protect the environment and
public health for 10 states and nearly 12 million people on both sides of the 2,000-mile
border, including 26 U.S. tribes and seven groups of Mexican indigenous people.
Squo solves – US and Mexico cooperating now
Salazar 11 (Ken Salazar, Elvira Underscore Commitment to Protecting and Preserving the Big
Bend/Rio Bravo Region, Big Bend National Park)
today
announced a working plan that identifies the next steps for the continued coordination
between the two countries in the protection and preservation of the transnational Big
Bend/Rio Bravo region – North America’s largest and most diverse desert ecosystem.¶ The
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Mexican Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada
Cooperative Action for Conservation in the Big Bend/Rio Bravo Region working plan was developed in close coordination with the
National Park Service, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, Mexico’s National Commission of Natural
Protected Areas (CONANP) and other partner agencies – and implementation has already begun.¶ “As neighbors and partners in
conservation, the United States and Mexico share more than just a border,” said Secretary Salazar. “We share a commitment toward
fulfilling a conservation vision President Roosevelt and President Camacho proposed over 60 years ago. With the support of
Secretary Elvira and our counterparts in Mexico, today’s announcement marks a major step in turning this vision into a reality.”¶
“Today, the Governments of Mexico and the United States write a new chapter to our strategic partnership,” said Secretary Elvira.
“We celebrate putting into actions a model of collaboration for transboundary conservation. The Big Bend-Rio Bravo Natural Area of
Binational Interest is a model envisioned by our Presidents; it is a dream shared by many past generations; and a legacy for present
and future ones. In sum, it is an example of the best our governments and people can pursue through cooperation and joint work.Ӧ
“When you come to an area as remote and as beautiful as Big Bend, it truly changes your
perception of what a border is and what a border can be,” said U.S. Ambassador to Mexico
Anthony Wayne. “There is a line - the river in this case - that politically marks the boundaries
of our two countries. But for a tourist, for a park ranger, for a conservationist, and for anyone who has visited this
spectacular place, one thing is clear: what we share here – the seamless flow of nature across both banks of the river – is far
stronger and far more enduring than what divides us.Ӧ Home to 446 species of birds, 3,600 species of insects, more than 1,500
plants, and 75 species of mammals, the Big Bend region of Texas and the Mexican states of Chihuahua and Coahuila provide a
unique opportunity for scientists, natural resource managers, and park staff to collaborate in areas that will benefit the people, the
landscapes, and the wildlife on both sides of the border.¶ Following the announcement, the Secretaries and Ambassador
participated in a wildlife release on the U.S. side of the border, demonstrating the results of successful coordination efforts in
reaching a common conservation goal. Joined by members of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Salazar, Elvira, and Wayne helped with
the transport and release of 267,000 Rio Grande Silvery Minnows as part of an ongoing recovery project for the endangered species.
Earlier this month, Mexico released fifteen bird species on the Mexican side of the border in Chihuahua. The species included: two
Red-tailed Hawks, two Roadside Hawks, two American Kestrels, one Gray Hawk, two Great Horned Owls, three Burrowing Owls, and
three Cooper’s Hawks.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Nuclear Power Plants F/L - Generic
Their impacts are hype, and nothing more than media exaggeration
Lehr 3 [Dr. Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute, “Environmental Stewardship,” November 10, 2003,
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2003/11/10/nuclear-energy-world-today-part-two]
Beyond these convoluted pieces of good news is a yet to be recognized fact that nuclear power
plants are not subject to catastrophic results from terrorist attacks as the public believes. They
do not respond as nuclear bombs, regardless of the means of attack perpetrated upon them. Surely their utmost
security is in the best interest of all citizens, and indeed they have the very best.¶ It is totally fraudulent to conjure up
in the minds of the public Hollywood movies and “China Syndrome”-like disasters. This is exactly
what was done on June 30, 2003, when an activist group named Riverkeeper ran a half page advertisement in the Wall
Street Journal calling for the closure of the Indian Point nuclear power plant 22 miles from New York City. The ad stated:
“In the event of a terrorist attack or catastrophic accident the damage to the nation’s economy
would be incalculable.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Nuclear Power Plants F/L - Meltdowns
1. Radiation is not bad for you at low levels
Schulz 7 (Matthais, Der Spiegel, “Nuclear Exaggeration”, 11-22,
http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/dokument/dokument.html?titel=Is+Atomic+Radiation+as+Dang
erous+as+We+Thought%3F&id=54059068&top=SPIEGEL&suchbegriff=Hiroshima&quellen=)
The more recent meltdown at the reactor in Chernobyl in 1986 reminded the world of the dangers of the atom. The incident
was referred to as "nuclear genocide," and the press wrote of "forests stained red" and of
deformed insects. The public was bombarded with images of Soviet cleanup crews wearing protective suits, bald-headed
children with cancer and the members of cement crews who lost their lives in an attempt to seal off the cracked reactor
with a concrete plug. Fifteen years after the reactor accident, the German newsmagazine Focus concluded that
Chernobyl was responsible for "500,000" deaths. Was all this just doomsday folklore? There is no doubt that
large sections of the countryside were contaminated by the accident in the Ukraine. In the ensuing decades, up
to 4,000 cleanup workers and residents of the more highly contaminated areas died of the long-term consequences of radiation
exposure. But
the six-figure death counts that opponents of nuclear power once cited are simply
nonsense. In most cases, they were derived from vague "extrapolations" based on the hearsay
reported by Russian dissidents. But such horror stories have remained part of the nuclear
narrative to this day. In fact, contemporaries who reported on the Chernobyl incident should have known better. Even in
the 1980s, radiobiologists and radiation physicists considered the media's doomsday reports
to be exaggerated. And their suspicions have become a virtual certainty today. Groups of
researchers have set up shop at all of the sites of nuclear accidents or major nuclear contamination. They work at Hanford (where
the United States began producing plutonium in 1944), they conduct studies in the English town of Sellafield (where a contaminated
cloud escaped from the chimney in 1957), and they study the fates of former East German uranium mineworkers in the states of
Saxony and Thuringia. New mortality rates have now been compiled for all of these groups of individuals at risk. Surprisingly, the
highest mortality rates were found among the East German mineworkers.
In Hiroshima, on the other hand, radioactivity
claimed surprisingly few human lives. Experts now know exactly what happened in the first hours, days and weeks
after the devastating atomic explosion. Almost all of Hiroshima's 140,000 victims died quickly . Either they
were crushed immediately by the shock wave, or they died within the next few days of acute
burns. But the notorious radiation sickness -- a gradual ailment that leads to certain death for anyone exposed to
radiation levels of 6 Gray or higher -- was rare. The reason is that Little Boy simply did not produce enough radioactivity. But
what about the long-term consequences? Didn't the radiation work like a time bomb in the
body? To answer these questions, the Japanese and the Americans launched a giant epidemiological
study after the war. The study included all residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had
survived the atomic explosion within a 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) radius. Investigators questioned the residents to obtain their
precise locations when the bomb exploded, and used this information to calculate a personal radiation dose for each resident. Data
was collected for 86,572 people. Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More
than 700 people eventually
died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack: 87 died of leukemia; 440 died of tumors; and
250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks. In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they
were born. Such statistics have attracted little notice so far. The numbers cited in schoolbooks are much
higher. According to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, 105,000 people died of the "long-term
consequences of radiation." "For commendable reasons, many critics have greatly exaggerated the
health risks of radioactivity," says Albrecht Kellerer, a Munich radiation biologist. "But contrary to
widespread opinion, the number of victims is by no means in the tens of thousands."
Especially surprising, though, is that the stories of birth defects in newborns are also pure
fantasy. The press has repeatedly embellished photos of a destroyed Hiroshima with those of deformed children, children
without eyes or with three arms. In reality, there hasn't been a single study that provides evidence of an
elevated rate of birth defects. A final attempt to establish a connection is currently underway in Japan. The study
includes 3,600 people who were unborn fetuses in their mothers' wombs on that horrific day in August 1945. But it too has failed to
furnish any evidence of elevated chromosomal abnormality. In Germany, where nuclear fears have coalesced with the fear of dying
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
forests and mad cow disease into a general psychosis of threat, the degree of concern over nuclear radiation remains high. To this
day, some are so fearful about the long-term effects of fallout from Chernobyl that they refuse to eat mushrooms from Bavaria.
Even 20 years ago such behavior would not have made sense.
2. No impact to meltdowns
Strupczewski 3 [1/28/03, A., Institute of Atomic Energy, Swierk, Poland, Applied Energy,
“Accident risks in nuclear-power plants,” vol. 75, ScienceDirect]
**NPP = nuclear-power plant, TMI = Three Mile Island, OECD = Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development
1. Safety goals for nuclear power The
general safety objective for nuclear-power plants (NPPs) is to
protect the individual, society and the environment by establishing and maintaining in NPPs
effective measures against radiological hazards. To reach this objective, safety goals for
nuclear power were established from the very beginning of its development, and made more
demanding as the technology matured. The initial qualitative targets were that no individual should bear a
significant additional risk due to nuclear-power plant operation and the societal risks from power-plant operation should not be a
significant addition to other societal risks [1]. They were followed by quantitative requirements, which according to US rules set the
design targets so that the calculated plant core-damage frequency (CDF) should be less than 10-4 events per reactor year (R–Y) [2],
and the calculated large release frequency (LRF) less than 10-6/R–Y for sequences resulting in a greater than 0.25 Sv whole-body
dose over 24 h at one-half mile from the reactor. These requirements for NPP design corresponded to the cancer risk to the people
in the critical population group equal to 10-10/R–Y [3]. Presently the safety objectives developed by the US and European utilities for
the new generation of NPPs include a maximum permissible CDF equal to 10-5/R–Y [4]. It must also be demonstrated that early
containment failure is avoided for all risk-significant scenarios. The cumulative LRF must be less than 10-6/R–Y. In
parallel with
the development of these targets, the nuclear industry and regulators in the countries leading
in nuclear safety have developed the contemporary nuclear safety philosophy, which resulted
in reducing risks in NPPs far below those risks typical for other power-industry branches. It
places the principle ‘safety first’ as its cornerstone and includes several principles that are today the basis of NPP design and
operation in all western countries. 2. Nuclear-power plant safety indicators The progress in the safety level of NPPs is reflected in the
probabilistic safety analyses (PSAs), initiated in the US in 1975 by the Rasmussen Study and systematically developed to become
standard tools used for safety analysis of every NPP. The importance of PSA in the evaluation of NPP safety is due to the fact that
there has been only one severe core damage accident in water-moderated reactors, namely the Three Mile Island accident in the
USA in 1978, so there are no historical statistical data as for coal-mine accidents, oil-transport accidents, gas explosions or dam
breaks. Minor
incidents that do happen in NPPs, although they are eagerly publicized by the
media, usually are far below the level at which any hazard to the plant or the public would be
involved. Moreover, in view of fast improvements of NPP technology, the analysis of the safety of the plants to be built cannot
be based on historical experience with the plants put into operation 20 or even 10 years ago, but must reflect the actual safety
features of the upgraded new designs. PSA makes it possible to study the new design features and evaluate which of the safety
improvements will bring the required safety upgrading. The
main condition for preventing massive releases of
radioactivity is to maintain the reactor containment integrity, first of all in the early stage of the accident,
then in the later stages when the releases of radioactivity would be less but still significant. In the middle of the 1990s, several
mechanisms were considered as possible contributors to an early containment failure. Over the last decade, the intensive
research and development of the technical means of coping with severe accidents have
resulted in our being able to treat these issues as resolved. The results of several reactor-safety
studies performed in Western countries show that the safety of the modern NPPs is very high. For example
the German risk-study phase B [5] indicated that the frequency of core melt in Biblis B NPP was 10-4/(R– Y) and that of large
radioactive releases 2.6x10-5/(R–Y). After taking into account operator actions preventing the reactor’s pressure-vessel melt-through
under high pressure, the frequency of the core melt frequency was reduced to 2.6x10-6/(R–Y). Subsequent analyses performed for
KONVOI plants [6] gave similar results, with absolute numbers lower due to improvements in the KONVOI type plants as compared
to the Biblis B. Core-damage frequency without bleed and feed in KONVOI plants was 1.4x10-6/R–Y, and after considering the effects
of operator actions in those plants, the CDF was reduced to 3.5x10-7/R–Y. These results can be considered as typical for modern
PWRs. The project for the European Pressurized-Water Reactor (EPR) assumes that the design will limit the maximum possible
releases so that the following safety objectives will be reached: 1. No need for short-term (about 24 h) off-site countermeasures 2.
No need for population evacuation beyond 2–3 km 3. For long-term countermeasures, limited restriction of the consumption of
agricultural products for a limited period (about 1 year) in a limited area is acceptable [7]. This is the level of safety of NPPs expected
as a reference base in the future. Specific designs, which have been already licensed for construction, include reactors with passive
safety-features AP 600 or Advanced BWR [8], for which the CDF is below 2x10-7/R–Y. The releases of radioactivity are at least ten
times smaller and the health risks are negligible. 3. Radiological effects of nuclear-power plant accidents The
level of safety
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
of modern NPPs is surprisingly far from the mass-media picture of consequences of a nuclear
accident. Actually, the only accidents with radioactive releases in NPPs were those in TMI and in Chernobyl. In TMI there was a
reactor-core melt, but the integrity of the remaining barriers (reactor pressure vessel and containment) was maintained and the
releases were so limited that the average effective dose to the public was 0.015 mSv [9]. The corresponding cancer
risk was
below
per lifetime, less than the risk due to NORMAL yearly emissions from a coal-fired power
plant at that time [10], and no health effects have ever been identified. In Chernobyl, the quantities
10-6
of released fission products were significant, from 100% of noble gases down to about 4% of solid fission-products. The doses in the
early phase after the accident were high. In the rescue team, 28 men died in consequence of exposure to radiation and several more
of those who were treated for radiation sickness died from illnesses that may have been associated with their exposure. However,
as confirmed in the UNSCEAR report of 2000, there has been no statistically significant
increase in the incidence of leukaemia or any other form of cancer among workers or the
public (except for child thyroid cancer), nor of deformities of babies born to members of the public [11].
An increase in the incidence of occult thyroid cancer was predicted to occur after 10 years, but actually it was found already in the
first year after the accident [11]. This shows that the screening effect can be largely responsible for this observed increase. Generally
the occult thyroid cancer is not fatal and can be successfully treated. Although
some 2000 cases of thyroid cancer
are attributed to the accident, less than 10 fatal cases have been observed. Much greater damage to
health has been caused by well meaning but misguided attempts to protect and help people living near Chernobyl at the time of the
accident. The evacuation of hundreds of thousands of them is now seen as an over reaction, which in many cases did more harm
than good. The first reaction was to move people out. Only later, was it realized that many of them had not needed to be moved.
The relocation of people destroyed communities, broke up families, and led to unemployment, depression, hypochondria and stressrelated illnesses. Among the relocated populations, there has been a massive increase in stress-related illnesses, such as heart
disease and obesity, unrelated to radiation. A major factor causing distress has been uncertainty about risks and in particular belief
that all radiation doses can lead to cancer, as stated in the Linear No Threshold hypothesis presently used for the purpose of
radiological protection. The
recent report of UNPD and UNICEF [12] confirms the above statements
and acknowledges that the people living in the contaminated areas receive low doses of
radiation, being less than those occurring naturally in many other parts of the world. This is
illustrated in Fig. 1 taken from [13] comparing lifetime doses to people around Chernobyl with the doses in European
countries including Finland and Sweden, in which the population enjoys very good health and
low cancer rates in spite of the high radiation background. According to Russian sources,
medical monitoring of the clean-up staff has shown no increase of cancer rate and no
relationship between the dose and the mortality. The overall mortality rate among the cleanup staff was statistically lower than the mortality rate of the control group from the public [14].
The UNSCEAR report also confirms that no radiation illnesses (with the exception of child thyroid diseases)
have been found in the exposed population [11]. Thus, although it should be acknowledged that the effects of the
Chernobyl accident are important, it should be also stressed that most of them are due to excessive fear motivated and politically
expedient decisions, not to the radiation doses themselves. The NPPs planned to be built are completely different from RBMKs.
The negative temperature reactivity coefficient ensures that, in accident conditions, their
power will decrease, not increase as in Chernobyl, the containment (which did not exist in
Chernobyl) would remain intact even after severe accidents and the accidentmanagement
procedures and safety-upgrading measures implemented in the NPPs would prevent such
large releases of radioactivity as was the case in Chernobyl. Thus, the radiological results of
Chernobyl cannot be treated as representative of nuclear accidents in NPPs. The estimates of
probable releases are made for each NPP separately within PSA studies and generally show that the hazards are much
smaller than for other energy sources. 4. Comparison of nuclear-power risks with accident risks due to other energy
sources The risks of electricity generation should be evaluated considering the whole cycle, from fuel mining to plant construction,
to waste management and site recultivation. While in the case of the nuclear-fuel cycle, the accident risks are mostly connected with
the power plant, in other fuel cycles the dominant contribution can be made by other fuel stages. For example, in
the case of
coal mining, the fatality ratio in the US is about 0.1 death/million tons or 3.5 death/GW(e).a [15]. In very
large regions of the world, the situation can be much worse. In China, the average value for the country
was about 4.6 deaths per MT in 1997 [16] and the number of mining fatalities per unit of energy produced
from coal was 17 deaths/GW(e).a. In addition to that, the accident death rate in coal-fired power
plants was about 2 deaths/GW(e).a [17] and in coal transport sector 8.5 deaths/GW(e).a [17]. These
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
numbers add up to the accidental mortality in China coal power system being equal 27.5 deaths/GW(e).a. The number of
fatalities due to severe accidents (involving more than 5 fatalities each) for the coal chain in OECD countries is 0.13 per GW(e) [19].
In non-OECD Fig countries, it is much higher. The
everyday occupational hazards for the coal chain will be
taken as 1.27 fatalities/GW(e).a according to [18], that is for European countries. It is seen, that the small
accidents involve more fatalities than the large ones, so both numbers must be taken into account. The differences of the
safety of hydropower in OECD and non-OECD countries are most pronounced. While the
fatality ratio for OECD countries is only 0.004, it is 2.187 for non-OECD countries [15]. The data
on dam safety show that differences in technology and safety practices influence very much
the risk of power generation from a given facility. These differences are taken into account while discussing risks
of the conventional power industry and nobody discussing the safety of a dam to be erected in the twenty-first century would base
its safety indicators on accidents of dams built in say 1920. In a recent ExternE report on hydropower, the authors do not include any
risk due to damfailures in the overall health risks due to hydropower [18], because they maintain that the dams built in Norway
provide ‘‘negligibly small risk’’. Similarly, the progress in coal-mining safety is taken into account while estimating the number of
fatalities per GW(e).a. Of course this is a correct approach. However, if we take into account the progress in dam construction before
and after 1930, then the differences in NPP technology existing between RBMK reactors and LWR NPPs should be also considered.
Similarly, if introducing strict regulations requiring qualified engineering supervision had a strong effect on dam safety, it is evident
that the whole concept of safety culture implemented in Western NPPs has also a significant influence on nuclear-reactor safety. As
the differences in design between modern PWRs and the Chernobyl RBMK are much more significant that any differences in dams
erected in Norway versus those built in the USA, Italy, France etc., then following the logic accepted by EC ExternE study, the
hazards due to Chernobyl should not be considered as the basis for evaluating the safety of
future NPPs.
3. Chernobyl proves meltdowns don’t cause lasting damage
Bosselman 7 (Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law. Fred, “THE NEW
POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM
ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)
C. "But What About Chernobyl?" In 1986, an explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine caused the
release of large amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. 247 Initially, the Soviet government released little
information about the explosion and tried to play down its seriousness, but this secrecy caused great nervousness throughout
Europe, and fed the public's fears of nuclear power all over the [*46] world. 248 Now a
comprehensive analysis of the
event and its aftermath has been made: In 2005, a consortium of United Nations agencies called the Chernobyl Forum
released its analysis of the long-term effects of the Chernobyl explosion. 249 The U.N. agencies' study found that the explosion
caused fewer deaths than had been expected. 250 Although the Chernobyl reactor was poorly designed and badly
operated 251 and lacked the basic safety protections found outside the Soviet Union, 252 fewer than seventy deaths so
far have been attributed to the explosion, mostly plant employees and firefighters who suffered acute radiation
sickness. 253 The Chernobyl reactor, like many Soviet reactors, was in the open rather than in an American
type of pressurizable containment structure, which would have prevented the release of
radiation to the environment if a similar accident had occurred. 254 [*47] Perhaps the most surprising finding
of the U.N. agencies' study was that "the ecosystems around the Chernobyl site are now
flourishing. The [Chernobyl exclusion zone] has become a wildlife sanctuary, and it looks like the nature park it
has become." 255 Jeffrey McNeely, the chief scientist of the World Conservation Union, has made similar observations: Chernobyl
has now become the world's first radioactive nature reserve... . 200 wolves are now living in the nature reserve, which has also
begun to support populations of reindeer, lynx and European bison, species that previously were not found in the region. While the
impact on humans was strongly negative, the
wildlife is adapting and even thriving on the site of one of the
20th century's worst environmental disasters. 256 Mary Mycio, the Kiev correspondent for the Los Angeles Times,
has written a fascinating book based on her many visits to the exclusion zone and interviews with people in the area. 257 She notes
that the
fear that radiation would produce permanent deformities in animal species has not been
borne out after twenty years; the population and diversity of animals in even some of the most heavily
radiated parts of the exclusion zone is similar to comparable places that are less radioactive.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Nuclear Power Plants F/L – Great Lakes
1. The Great Lakes is already ‘dying a death of a thousand cuts’ – plan can’t
solve – too many alt causes
Alexander ’12 Alexander, staff writer, Illinois Issues, “The Great Lakes are in peril…again”,
http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/archives/2013/07/greatlakes.html/HW
Standing on the Lake Michigan overlook at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore — a wooden deck perched 450 feet above the
lake’s steel blue water — it’s evident why the northern Michigan park was voted “the Most Beautiful Place in America” in 2011. The
panoramic view of towering sand dunes that plunge into pristine beaches, which then melt into a seemingly endless expanse of
water, is breathtaking, hypnotic. Such alluring scenes make it difficult to fathom how a place of such grandeur could be a poster
A few miles south of the park’s observation
deck, pristine beaches along Platte Bay have been coated during recent summers by a green
blanket of bacteria-laden algae. For the past seven years, autumn’s arrival has been
accompanied by waves of dead loons, gulls and other birds washing up on those same
gorgeous beaches. The culprit in both cases: foreign mussels. Zebra and quagga mussels that
entered the Great Lakes in the 1980s in the ballast water tanks of transoceanic freighters now fuel algae blooms that
plague numerous Great Lakes beaches. The dime-sized mollusks also contribute to outbreaks of Type E
botulism that have killed nearly 100,000 water birds in the lakes over the past two decades.
Those problems highlight a troubling but undeniable truth: After years of improvement, the Great Lakes are
once again in serious trouble. “The Great Lakes have been dying a death of a thousand cuts ,”
child for one of the most insidious problems haunting the Great Lakes.
says Peter McIntyre, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin who worked on a recent project that mapped 34
environmental stressors affecting the lakes. In many regards, the lakes are healthier than in 1972, when Congress passed the federal
Clean Water Act: Water quality is better in most areas; many species of fish and wildlife have rebounded; beaches once fouled by
dead fish now welcome throngs of visitors; Lake Erie has gone from near death in the 1960s to supporting one of the world’s best
walleye fisheries; and major rivers that feed into the lakes no longer catch fire — they support fish, wildlife and numerous
recreational activities. The bad news: An
army of aquatic invasive species, new pollutants, rampant
sewer overflows and climate change have tempered many of the Great Lakes improvements
achieved over the past 40 years. Consider that the 186 aquatic invasive species in the lakes
cause more than $100 million annually in environmental and economic damages, according to a
University of Notre Dame study. The worst invaders — zebra and quagga mussels — have disrupted fisheries in four of the five Great
Lakes, clogged water intakes at water and power plants and caused the most profound ecological changes in the recorded history of
Lake Michigan. Rising
surface water temperatures and a 63 percent decrease in Great Lakes ice
cover over the past four decades have increased evaporation, which drives down lake levels.
Many experts believe climate change is to blame. In January 2012, water levels in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron (which are
technically one lake) dipped to a record low. Water levels in all five Great Lakes have remained below the long-term average for
most of the past 13 years, according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data. Sewer
overflows and polluted runoff
from farms and urban areas contribute to bacterial pollution that closes hundreds of Great
Lakes beaches every summer. In 2011, Great Lakes beaches in the U.S. had 3,410 days of closings and health advisories
and were closed more often than beaches in other parts of the country, according to government data analyzed by the Natural
Resources Defense Council. Massive
toxic algae blooms, caused primarily by phosphorus draining off farm fields, have
become an annual ordeal in western Lake Erie. The sprawling blooms, which turn water the color of pea soup and
can be seen from outer space, are hurting Lake Erie’s renowned walleye fishery and the region’s tourism industry. Stronger
storms fueled by climate change could make the toxic algae blooms worse in coming years.
Concentrations of new pollutants, including pharmaceuticals and toxins from plastics and fire retardants, are on
the rise in some areas. Concentrations of historic pollutants, including mercury, have plateaued or are increasing in some
Great Lakes fish. Plastics waste has emerged as a problem recently. Tiny bits of plastic, which can be ingested by
fish and move up the food chain, have been found in all five Great Lakes — the greatest concentrations were in Lake Erie. A State
University of New York study found that Lake Erie has the world’s highest concentration of plastic pollutants. If the existing problems
weren’t bad enough, some scientists believe an Asian carp invasion of the Great Lakes is imminent .
The fish are bearing down on southern Lake Michigan via the Chicago Area Waterway System and western Lake Erie via the Wabash
River. Asian carp DNA has been found in Lake Michigan, near Chicago, and in western Lake Erie. The International Joint Commission,
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
a U.S.-Canadian panel that monitors Great Lakes water quality, issued a report in May that concluded that efforts to clean up the
lakes over the past 25 years have been marked by “a mix of achievements and challenges.” “The data show some significant
progress,” says Lana Pollack, the IJC’s U.S. chairwoman. “However, the evidence equally indicates
that more
investments are needed. Protecting and restoring the Great Lakes is a job that is never done.” The Great Lakes are one of
the world’s premier natural and economic resources. The lakes contain 20 percent of all surface freshwater on the planet, provide
drinking water for 30 million people, support a $7 billion fishery and are the backbone of the world’s fourth largest regional
economy. Despite their natural beauty and economic importance, humans have abused the lakes for the better part of two
centuries. Today,
the lakes are under enormous environmental stress, according to a recent study. Earlier
this year, the Great Lakes Environmental Assessment and Mapping Project (greatlakesmapping.org) examined how 34 lake stressors
— including coastal development, pollutants transported by rivers from agricultural and urban land, fishing pressure, climate
change, invasive species and toxic chemicals — were affecting the lakes. The results were, in a word, disturbing. “Despite clear
societal dependence on the Great Lakes, their condition continues to be degraded by
numerous environmental stressors,” says David Allan, the project’s lead researcher and a professor of aquatic sciences
at the University of Michigan. Each of the lakes is affected by 10 to 15 stressors. The most serious problems are found along Great
Lakes coasts, where humans interact most with the enormous lakes, according to the study. A team of scientists who produced the
study concluded that Lake Ontario is the most stressed of the five lakes. Lake Erie was ranked the second most stressed, followed by
Lake Michigan, Lake Huron and Lake Superior. Scientists who worked on the project said it would help government agencies to
better manage the lakes and focus efforts to restore them. Congress and President Barack Obama have provided $1 billion for the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative over the past four years. The program has brought about the removal of more than one million
cubic yards of toxic mud from Great Lakes harbors, created or restored 20,000 acres of wetlands and kept Asian carp out of the
lakes. Still, that $1 billion investment is a relative drop in the bucket. Studies have indicated that fully restoring the lakes’ ecological
health would cost at least $26 billion (in 2005 dollars). If
the Great Lakes were people, all five would be
diagnosed with serious health problems . Consider: Lake Superior has a runaway fever. The normally frigid lake, the
world’s largest by volume, is now the fastest warming lake on the planet, according to government data. Lake Superior’s average
daily surface temperature in 2010 hit a 31-year high of 68.7 degrees Fahrenheit, about 10 degrees above average. Warmer water
temperatures could threaten Superior’s cold-water fishery and make the lake more hospitable to toxic algae blooms and invasive
species. Lake Erie has COPED (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Toxic algae blooms that coated much of western Lake Erie in
recent summers sucked oxygen out of the water and created biological dead zones. Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are anemic.
Trillions of quagga and zebra mussels are literally sucking the life out of the lakes by
consuming immense quantities of plankton that fish and other aquatic life need to survive. Lake
Michigan’s baitfish population, which supports all the larger fish (think whitefish, walleye and salmon), hit a record low in 2012,
according to U.S. Geological Survey data. Lake Ontario has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The lake is suffering the lingering
effects of being used as a toxic dumping ground for close to a century. Toxic chemicals in Lake Ontario’s bottom sediments are more
widespread and more concentrated than in any of the other Great Lakes.
2. Multiple other alt causes:
A. Great Lakes wind development
GLU 9 (Great Lakes United, “Lakebeds and Offshore Wind: A New Frontier for Energy Utilities?”
http://www.glu.org/campaigns/energy/lakebeds)
Energy companies view the lakebeds of the Great Lakes as a “new frontier” for the routing
of cross-lake oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission lines. Efforts to harvest high-speed winds have also spurred
plans to anchor wind energy systems offshore or along the coasts of the Great Lakes.
Lakebeds provide critical habitat for the aquatic organisms that form the foundation
of the Great Lakes food chain. An essential element of the world’s largest freshwater
ecosystem , and the heart of an annual fishery worth more than $4 billion, protecting this habitat helps
protect the health of the entire Great Lakes ecosystem. Extensive projects have the
potential to damage these lakebeds and nearshore areas. While there are existing stretches of
pipelines and transmission lines, there are currently no structures that cross the lake bottom of an entire Great Lake and
no large-scale wind energy farms located offshore or anchored into the lake bottoms of
the Great Lakes. The next few years present a crucial opportunity to ensure a comprehensive review of emerging energy
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
proposals and the most environmentally appropriate siting for projects that move forward. Lake Erie’s Lakebed: The Biological
Engine of the Great Lakes Lake
Erie, the shallowest of the Great Lakes, is also the most biologically
productive. Its average depth is only 210 feet (19 meters). In contrast, Lake Huron is over twice as deep and Lake Superior is
over seven and half times as deep. Lake Erie’s western basin is very shallow, averaging only 24 feet (7 meters). This shallow lakebed,
with its rocky areas, reefs and shoals, and numerous islands, offers an abundant assortment and diversity of habitat. These
factors all combine to make Lake Erie’s entire lakebed vital habitat for a rich diversity
of fish, plant and animal life. It also supports a world-class fishery, featuring numerous species of sportfish, such as
walleye, yellow perch and smallmouth bass. Lake Erie is the most biologically productive of the Great Lakes, often producing more
pounds of fish than the other Great Lakes combined. According to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Lake Erie’s walleye fishery is
measured in the tens of millions of dollars annually and is important to the economy of all the lake’s surrounding jurisdictions. In
2001, the American Sportfishing Association valued the economic impact of Ohio’s Lake Erie sportfishing industry at $680 million.
Aquatic habitat in Lake Erie is fragile and under stress. Urbanization, the development of the shoreline,
loss of coastal wetlands, and sedimentation from tributaries and watersheds are damaging this valuable ecosystem. Pollution on the
bottom of Lake Erie is contributing to unhealthy conditions for life forms that inhabit the lake bottom. These tiny organisms are a
critical source of food for fish. The continued introduction of invasive species is causing unpredictable alterations to the food chain
and is implicated in the recent outbreaks of botulism, and fish and waterfowl die-offs. A “dead zone,” an area of low oxygen, has
reappeared in the bottom waters of the central basin after a period of recovery that began in the late 1970s. Lake levels in the Great
Lakes are also expected to decline due to climate change, creating a shallower Lake Erie over time, and worsening its problems. All
of these stresses mean that the
health of Lake Erie is in a fragile balance . Lakebed development
risks tipping this balance in the wrong direction if it is not done with the utmost environmental
attentiveness.
B. Pesticides
Clifford ‘12
[Libby, Author, “Health Effects of Pesticides in the Great Lakes,” Department of Earth Sciences Montana State University, 2012]
http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/pesticides_grea.html
pollution in the Great Lake is due to the use of pesticides in the
agricultural areas. A large percentage of all of pollution in the United States comes from nonpoint source pollution. The
source of pesticides in the Great Lakes is called a nonpoint sources (NPS)
pollution. Can refers to either water or air pollution. NPS source water pollution is more
common in the Great Lakes. The pollution from the pesticides are caused due to
the agricultural areas around the Great Lakes. The NSP pollution is transported
into the Great Lakes when water from rainfall, snowmelt or irrigation runs
through the ground into the soil that was exposed to pesticides. The water from the runoffs takes the excess
The primary reason for water
pollutants (pesticides such as: fertilizers; herbicides; insecticides; etc.) lead the pollutants directly into the Great Lakes. The
pollutants are very concern to the drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries,
and wildlife. "Many toxic substances tend to bioaccumulate as they pass up the food chain in the aquatic ecosystem"
(epa.gov/greatlakes).
C. Nonpoint source runoff
Allee ‘5 [Shawn, Reporter, “Ten Threats: Rethinking Urban Runoff,” The Environment Report, October 24, 2005]
http://www.environmentreport.org/story.php?story_id=2811
One of the ten threats to the Great Lakes identified by experts across the region is nonpoint
source runoff. It's a catchall category for pollution that's not being spewed from one
identifiable source. The federal government's finding that rain washing off
concrete and asphalt in cities and suburbs poses as big a threat to the Great
Lakes as waste coming out of a factory pipe. Shawn Allee has a look at the government's effort to cut water pollution by
remaking the urban landscape
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
D. Quagga mussels
Leontiou ’10 Leontious, Staff Writer, The Christian Science Moniter, “Lake Michigan's ecosystem facing collapse”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0908/Lake-Michigan-s-ecosystem-facing-collapse/HW
An invasive species of mussel called quagga has recently begun eating its way through the
phytoplankton population of Lake Michigan, which could have dire effects on the lake's
ecosystem, scientists now warn. A giant ring of phytoplankton (microscopic plants such as algae) was discovered in Lake
Michigan in 1998 by Michigan Technological University biologist W. Charles Kerfoot and his research team. The "phytoplankton
doughnut" is formed when winter storms kick up nutrient-rich sediment along the southeastern shore of the lake. The disturbed
sediments begin circulating in a slow-moving circle with the lake's currents, which provides a massive supply of food for
phytoplankton. "We saw that with each storm, you get a ring, and it can persist for weeks or even months," Kerfoot said. This
doughnut, in turn, feeds the entire lake. Zooplankton, tiny animals that feed on phytoplankton, thrive there. The seasonal bloom
helps them survive winter. The zooplankton are then eaten by small fish, which are eaten by large fish, and so on — thus the
doughnut helps maintain the entire food web. But almost as soon as it was discovered, the doughnut — recognized by the signature
of the plants' chlorophyll pigment that captures sunlight — started to disappear. "Since
2001, the chlorophyll has been
nibbled away on the edges, right where the quaggas are," Kerfoot said. The quagga is found in all of the
Great Lakes; the invasive species was introduced by ocean-going vessels dumping ballast water.
Their favorite food is phytoplankton. Hank Vanderploeg, a colleague of Kerfoot's, calculated that they consume
phytoplankton at a rate that's five to seven times greater than the plants are being produced. All
the energy in the phytoplankton, which once fed fish, is now being sucked down to the bottom of
the lake by quaggas. Their waste can stimulate the growth of Cladophora algae, which die, decompose and remove all the oxygen
from the surrounding water. Under such conditions, populations of zooplankton will decline, as will the
alewives, chubs, Atlantic salmon, muskies, smelt, walleyes, perch and the rest of the hundred or
so species of fish that inhabit Lake Michigan. "A high percent of the fish biomass could be lost in
the next couple years," Kerfoot said. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have already documented
declines in several species. "We have a system that's crashing," Kerfoot said.
E. Mercury
Latham, Wright, Tsang No Date [Amy, Eric, Amanda, “A Study of how pollution affects
wildlife in the Great Lakes,” Environment 110, Section 5,
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section5group1/introduction_and_background]
Mercury, a heavy metal that is known for its toxicity in even small amounts, has been known to affect
the lakes as well. And even substances that are not chemically toxic are contributing to the
problems of the Great Lakes as well. Tiny particles of solids of pollutants suspended in the water
may block sunlight from the water and become breeding grounds for bacteria (Liu et al 2006).
F. Sewage
Latham, Wright, Tsang No Date [Amy, Eric, Amanda, “A Study of how pollution affects
wildlife in the Great Lakes,” Environment 110, Section 5,
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section5group1/introduction_and_background]
Sewage is another common pollutant of the Great Lakes, and studies have shown that two kinds of
bacteria (enterococcus and E. coli), which are indicators of human fecal matter, were present in 20% of
the samples taken from Lake Michigan beaches in 2004 (Liu et al 2006). If ingested by humans, these bacteria
could cause such illnesses as extreme as typhoid fever (Shear 2006). Infections, gastrointestinal diseases, and parasites are other
possible risks from coming into contact with these bacteria as well (Liu et al 2006). As
a result of fecal matter pollution
that has been plaguing beaches on the Great Lakes, there was a 32% increase in the number of
Great Lakes beach closings and advisories in 2003 (Liu et al 2006).
G. Microplastics
Borre ’13 Borre, ake conservationist, freelance writer she co-founded LakeNet, she served as coordinator of the
Lake Champlain Basin Program in the 1990s. She is now an active member of the Global Lake Ecological Observatory
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Network. National Geographic, “New Concerns About Plastic Pollution in Great Lakes ‘Garbage Patch’.”
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/12/new-concerns-about-plastic-pollution-in-great-lakesgarbage-patch /HW
Until recently, my concept of a ‘garbage patch’ was of an area of ocean with large pieces of floating debris, the kind of stray fishing
gear and trash from ships and shorelines that collect where currents form eddies far from view of most people. Having seen my
share of sea trash in 20,000+ miles of lake and ocean sailing and even untangled sheets of plastic and thick ropes from the propeller
and rudder of my 37-foot sailboat, I was shocked to learn that
the kind of garbage scientists are most
concerned about is invisible to the naked eye. They’re finding tiny bits of plastic known as
“micro-plastics” floating near the surface of the water in high concentrations. The particles are
so small that a microscope is needed to even see them. The scary news this week was about a garbage patch
discovered in the Great Lakes last year. Although scientists have studied plastic pollution in the oceans since NOAA researchers
discovered the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” in 1988, a team of scientists is conducting the first-of-its-kind research on the open
water of the Great Lakes. One of the team members presented preliminary results of a study on the topic at meeting of the
American Chemical Society. I spoke with Lorena Rios-Mendoza, an environmental chemist at the University of Wisconsin-Superior,
and found that the buzz was certainly justified. Her background includes studying plastic debris and persistent organic pollutants
(POPs) in the Pacific Garbage Patch and in the Southern Ocean. Now an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Superior,
she has turned her attention to these same issues on the North American Great Lakes. “I’m interested in learning more about what
happens to persistent organic pollutants when they attach to the plastic particles,” Rios-Mendoza told me. She is now studying 110
fish samples to see if they have plastic debris in their guts and to learn more about what happens to POPs associated with the plastic
pollution. She wonders whether the
accidental consumption of tiny bits of plastic by fish might be a
new source for toxins in the food chain. Rios-Mendoza is working with a team of researchers led by Sherri “Sam”
Mason, a SUNY-Fredonia chemistry professor and researcher at the forefront of research on plastic pollution within freshwater
ecosystems, including the Great Lakes. Mason is actually an atmospheric chemist, but she also has a passion for environmental
sustainability. A few years ago, a colleague at Niagara University invited her to teach an environmental science course aboard the
Flagship Niagara, a rebuilt version of a tall ship used during the War of 1812 that is now used for on-water education programs.
Having lived near the shores of Lake Erie for over ten years, she had never been out on the lake, let alone a sailboat, before teaching
the summer course. Mason’s time on the water inspired her to take up an entirely new area of research: studying plastic pollution in
the Great Lakes. Modeling herself after scientists like Rachel Carson who are committed to sharing relevant research, Mason found
that studying and trying to raise awareness about plastic pollution in freshwater systems suited her. “This is a fantastic area for
research because the information is much needed and relevant to the scientific community and to people concerned about the
Great Lakes,” she told me. Mason and Rios-Mendoza have been working in collaboration with the 5Gyres Institute, a research and
education group studying garbage patches in five subtropical gyres in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Southern Oceans. The team of
researchers studying the Great Lakes wasn’t surprised to find plastic pollution, especially in Lake Erie, the smallest (by volume) and
shallowest of the five lakes. They did find something interesting when comparing their results to the research in oceans. The
concentration of PAHs (polyaromatic hydrocarbons) in Lake Erie is twice as high as what is found in the
world oceans. “This makes sense because the oceans are so much larger – there’s a dilution factor,” Rios-Mendoza said.
Something else the research team didn’t expect was the predominance of micro-plastic particles (less than 1 millimeter in diameter).
In the world’s oceans, scientists have found higher percentages of debris in the 1-5 millimeter diameter size range as compared to
the micro-plastics. Mason suspects that this is because of the larger ratio of shoreline to open water, creating an abrasive action to
break down the plastic. They’re finding tiny, perfectly round beads of plastic in many of the samples, and this might hold another
clue about the source of particles. “The cosmetics industry uses plastic micro-beads in soaps, toothpaste and other products.
Because the products are not designed for ingestion, they don’t have to test for this. It’s completely unregulated and may be a
significant source of micro-plastics finding their way into the environment,” she says. Finding the sources of plastic pollution and
getting a better idea of the degradation process is the subject of follow-up studies Mason and her team are working on. More
research is needed to compare the amount of plastic pollution from one lake to the next, but Rios-Mendoza explained to me that it
takes more than two hours of towing the fine-mesh sampling net in Lake Superior to recover the amount of plastic in a 30-minute
trawl from Lake Erie. The team plans to sample the St. Lawrence River and Lakes Erie, Michigan, and Ontario this summer, and as
funding allows, to carry out more systematic studies of all five lakes. How
do plastics end up in oceans and now
lakes? Well to begin with, we have become a throwaway society. We’re using and throwing away more and more
plastics, sometimes after only using them once. The plastics are designed to last a long time, more than 500
years in some cases, Mason told me. In the U.S. alone, we consume “billions” of plastic bags and bottles. According to the
5Gyres website, only five percent of the plastics produced for things like water bottles, cups,
utensils, toys and gadgets are recycled. “Roughly 50% is buried in landfills, some is remade into durable goods, and
much of it remains unaccounted for, lost in the environment where it ultimately washes out to sea,” their website states. Plastic
pollution is not only a problem in the water but along beaches and shorelines as well. Beaches in Hawaii were found to contain 50%
sand and micro-plastics, Rios-Mendoza told me. The research team has not studied the amount of micro-plastics on Great Lakes
beaches yet. The Alliance for the Great Lakes leads an Adopt-a-Beach program to address the problem of beach pollution
throughout the Great Lakes region. Mason participates in the Adopt-a-Beach program and says that her students are always
surprised by how much trash they find on a beach that doesn’t look that bad at the outset. She is also leading a one-week course this
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
summer in collaboration with Pangaea Expeditions, collecting samples for future research along the way. “People
need to be
aware that we are the source of the problem, and because of this, we need to be part of the solution,” Mason
said. “We all need to become aware of how much plastic we use in our lives and avoid using single-use products. Don’t buy water in
plastic bottles or cosmetic products with micro beads. Bring re-usable bags to the store with you. Simple things like this make a big
difference, but it’s also important to keep talking about this issue and raising awareness about how it affects the Great Lakes and the
world’s oceans.” It turns out that even this observant sailor has sailed right through garbage patches on the Atlantic Ocean and
Great Lakes without noticing anything but the deep blue water that appears infinitely transparent. Now I realize what all the fuss is
about. These new findings give me all the more reason to find ways to reduce, re-use, and recycle plastic at home and on my boat. In
short, I need to do my part to reduce plastic pollution in the world’s lakes and oceans.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Relations F/L
1. Alt cause to instability – war on drugs
The Global and Mail 12 [“The drug war spreads instability,” The Globe and Mail, September 6,
2012, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-drug-war-spreadsinstability/article4104311/]
The war on drugs doesn’t just cause human misery. It contributes to the political instability of many
parts of the world, including Mexico, Central America and now West Africa. The transnational
criminal groups in control of the drug trade have successfully destabilized transit countries
that stand between production and the market in Europe and North America. This underscores the
unintended consequences of prohibition: the growth of a huge criminal black market financed by the
profits of supplying demand for illegal drugs, and the “balloon” effect, whereby drug
production and transit corridors shift location to avoid law enforcement. The war on drugs is
inherently unwinnable, as the recent report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy concludes.
2. US Navy solves – promotes peace, stability, and prosperity
Allen 13 (Sean, Writer for the Jacksonville times, http://jacksonville.com/ns-mayport/2013-0717/story/happy-5th-anniversary-fourth-fleet, july 17 2013)
U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command and U.S. 4th Fleet (COMUSNAVSO/C4F) supports
USSOUTHCOM joint and combined full-spectrum military operations by providing
principally sea-based, forward presence to ensure freedom of maneuver in the maritime domain, to foster and
sustain cooperative relationships with international partners and to fully exploit the sea as
maneuver space in order to enhance regional security and promote peace, stability, and
prosperity in the Caribbean, Central and South American regions.
3. Central America is already unstable – the region is in a state of emergency,
and ranks amongst the world’s most violent regions. Also, they don’t solve the
root cause of the violence – gangs and organized crime.
Villalobos 12 [Joaquín Villalobos, Consultant on International Conflict Resolution, “Violence in
Central America,” 16-Apr-2012, http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/center/forms/violence-centralamerica64-72.pdf]
The most recent statistics place Central America as the world’s most violent region. In
the last decade there have been 145,000 homicides in 7 countries in the region, the vast
majority of them in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. These countries appear each year among the
top ten places for homicides in the world. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) report, in 2010 the
rate of homicides for every 100,000 inhabitants in the countries in the region were: • Honduras: 82.1 • El Salvador: 66 • Belize: 41.7
• Guatemala: 41.4 • Panama: 21.6 • Nicaragua: 13.2 • Costa Rica: 11.3 The
Honduras murder rate is the highest
in the world, El Salvador occupies second place, Belize the sixth and Guatemala the
seventh. Central America went from a rate of 27 homicides in 2000 to 43 in 2010 The above data show the magnitude of the
threat. The region is in a state of emergency, like that of the 1980s war. Two problems
generate violence: gangs and organized crime, primarily related to drug trafficking. Gangs
affect Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Organized crime affects all countries, but much more so
Guatemala and Honduras. It is common to view these two types of criminal activities as the same, when in reality we’re
dealing with two different things.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
4. No risk of escalation – there have been at least six Central American conflicts
in the last 15 years and none have even approached touching off a great power
war
Brentlinger and Hernan 7 (Paula and Miguel, PAULA BRENTLINGER has participated in humanitarian relief
efforts and research projects in Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico. Her current work involves control of infectious
diseases in postconflict settings in southern Africa. MIGUEL HERNAN has participated in research projects in
postconflict settings in Iraq, El Salvador, and Mexico. Epidemiology: “Armed Conflict and Poverty in Central America:
The Convergence of Epidemiology and Human Rights Advocacy” 2007,
http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2007/11000/Armed_Conflict_and_Poverty_in_Central_America__The.5.as
px)
During the final decades of the 20th century, armed conflicts occurred in 6 of the 8 countries
of the Central American isthmus: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and
the state of Chiapas, Mexico. These conflicts, which could be both prolonged (13 years in El Salvador) and bloody (at least
200,000 deaths and disappearances in Guatemala1), arose in settings of great poverty. The principal preconflict epidemiologic
enterprise of the region was the description of poverty-related health issues, particularly childhood malnutrition and its associations
with landlessness and infectious disease.2-10 Preconflict poverty and hunger were compounded by inequality. In the 1980s, the
ratio of per capita GDP between the extreme quintiles was estimated to be 13 in Nicaragua and 30 in Guatemala.11 The postwar
Guatemalan Truth Commission specifically cited inequities in land distribution as a cause of war.1 With the exception of
the still-unresolved situation in Chiapas, the various conflicts have ended either militarily or
diplomatically. Yet poverty, inequality, and violence continue to plague Central America. The Pan American Health
Organization currently identifies improvement in health equity as a main objective; a consortium of Central American human rights
organizations has once again identified worsening inequality and violence as threats to realization of economic and social rights
5. No solvency – multiple alt causes to Mexico and Central American insecurity
- citizens break the law, democratic transition, drugs, and gang repression
Villalobos 12 [Joaquín Villalobos, Consultant on International Conflict Resolution, “Violence in
Central America,” 16-Apr-2012, http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/center/forms/violence-centralamerica64-72.pdf]
The current security crisis in Central America and Mexico is directly related to the
weakness of the security institutions and the proclivity of many of its citizens to break
the law. The new threat to security is not only a matter of drugs or gang repression. We
are facing a complex situation that is part of the democratic transition. Felipe González, former
President of Spain, during a Conference on the new National Civil Police which was founded in El Salvador in 1993, said:
“Democracy needs a police force stronger than a dictatorship.” The challenge to
improved safety can be summarized, then, as the urgency to build the state, community
and citizenship. There is no easy way out.
6. Snowden is a devastating alt cause to already thorny relations with Latin
America and Mexico
AP 7/13 (“Snowden affair chills US-Latin American ties”¶ Updated: Saturday, 13 Jul 2013
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/national/Snowden-affair-dampens-USLatin-American-ties_61508565)
WASHINGTON (AP) — America
is pivoting to Asia, focused on the Mideast, yet the "backyard,"
as Secretary of State John Kerry once referred to Latin America, is sprouting angry weeds
as the scandal involving intelligence leaker Edward Snowden lays bare already thorny U.S.
relations with Latin America. Taking the opportunity to snub their noses at the U.S.,
Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua have already said they'd be willing to grant asylum for
Snowden, who is wanted on espionage charges in the United States for revealing the scope of National Security Agency
surveillance programs that spy on Americans and foreigners. Ecuador has said it would consider any request from Snowden.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Relations between the U.S. and these countries were already testy, but the Snowden
affair also impacted the Obama administration's effort to improve ties with friendlier
nations in the region like Mexico and Brazil. Snowden hasn't been the only recent
setback. Leaders in the region harshly criticized the U.S. earlier this week when a
newspaper in Brazil, which was privy to some documents released by Snowden,
reported that a U.S. spy program was widely targeting data in emails and telephone calls
across Latin America. That revelation came just days after an uproar in Latin America
over the rerouting of Bolivian President Evo Morales' plane over Europe amid suspicions,
later proven untrue, that Snowden was aboard. And all this comes right after President Barack Obama, Vice President
Joe Biden and Kerry have all made recent treks to the region to bolster U.S. engagement in Latin America.
7. US military presence in the region solves escalation
Newman 13 (Alex, Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, grew up in
Latin America and is currently based in Europe. The New American: “Obama Expands U.S.
Military Role in Latin America, Again” 2/12/13
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/14492-obama-expands-usmilitary-role-in-latin-america-again)
Under the guise of fighting a more vigorous “war on drugs,” the Obama administration will
continue adding to the exploding government deficit by expanding the already widespread
and extremely costly U.S. military presence throughout Latin America. Critics in the United States and all
across the Western hemisphere, however, have slammed the controversial scheme’s growth from all angles. According to an
investigative report published February 3 by the Associated Press, the federal government’s controversial “war” in Latin America is
ballooning at unprecedented rates. Consider,
for example, the record $3 billion in military equipment
transfers to governments in the region authorized by Obama in 2011 — a quadrupling of the
figures from just a decade ago. Almost 90 percent of the nearly $1 billion in aid for military and law enforcement in Latin
America was spent on the “drug war,” the AP reported. Several thousand U.S. troops are deployed in the
region at any given time, and as The New American reported last year, Obama just sent
hundreds of Marines to Guatemala to fight the “drug war” after the anti-communist president there called for total
legalization. According to the AP, U.S. government pilots flying drug missions for at least 10 separate
federal law-enforcement agencies clocked almost 50,000 hours on drug missions in Latin
America. Meanwhile, American troops are training dubious military forces all over the region
— all over the world, actually — to help wage the controversial war. The U.S. government also uses its
own resources, such as satellites and “intelligence” capabilities, to help questionable Latin
American regimes crack down on certain drug cartels even as others receive official assistance in the form of protection and
arms. Obama administration officials cited by the AP, however, defended the strategy and
vowed to expand it. "It is unfortunate that militaries have to be involved in what are essentially law enforcement
engagements," noted outgoing Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs Frank Mora. "We are not
going to turn our backs on these governments or these institutions because they've found
themselves in such a situation that they have to use their militaries in this way."¶ Despite the
fact that the U.S. government is no closer to “winning” its UN-mandated unconstitutional
“war” on drugs than it was when the scheme began about a trillion dollars ago, the AP noted that there are
no plans to reconsider the failed strategy. In fact, it will only expand, officials explained, with
American taxpayers apparently expected to believe that more of the same will somehow bring about different results. ¶ "It's not for
me to say if it's the correct strategy. It's
the strategy we are using," said the Defense Department’s Latin
America narcotics boss Brick Scoggins, adding that the U.S. government’s expensive war is
expected to keep growing in the region over the next five years — especially in Central
America. "I don't know what the alternative is."
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Terrorism F/L - Generic
1. There are no known terrorist organization operating out of Mexico
Arizona Daily Star 11 [“Border seen as unlikely terrorist crossing point,” June 07, 2011,
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/border-seen-as-unlikely-terrorist-crossingpoint/article_ed932aa2-9d2a-54f1-b930-85f5d4cce9a8.html]
The State Department's 2009 "Country Reports on Terrorism" found that "no known
international terrorist organizations had an operational presence in Mexico and no
terrorist incidents targeting U.S. interests and personnel occurred on or originated from
Mexican territory."¶
2. No impact - claims of US-Mexico border terrorism are exaggerated and
politically motivated
Arizona Daily Star 11 [“Border seen as unlikely terrorist crossing point,” June 07, 2011,
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/border-seen-as-unlikely-terrorist-crossingpoint/article_ed932aa2-9d2a-54f1-b930-85f5d4cce9a8.html]
"There is no serious evidence that the U.S.-Mexico border is a significant threat from
terrorism," said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan
think tank based in New York.¶ Claims of terrorist threats on the Southwest border distract
legislators and policymakers from addressing long-term solutions to drug smuggling and
illegal immigration, said Tom Barry, senior analyst at the Center for International Policy in
Washington.¶ "It's politically motivated," Barry said, "playing on that sense of fear that certain people are
susceptible to."¶
3. Terrorists don’t come form Mexico - multiple alt causes
Arizona Daily Star 11 [“Border seen as unlikely terrorist crossing point,” June 07, 2011,
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/border-seen-as-unlikely-terrorist-crossingpoint/article_ed932aa2-9d2a-54f1-b930-85f5d4cce9a8.html]
None of the 2,039 people arrested at the U.S.-Mexico border in that span presented a
credible terrorist threat, Homeland Security officials say. Homeland Security monitors, analyzes and
gathers intelligence about potential threats but at this time "does not have any credible
information on terrorist groups operating along the Southwest border," said department
spokesman Matt Chandler. Among the 36 people convicted by the U.S. Justice Department of
charges relating to international terrorism last year, none came into the United States from
Mexico. Half were U.S. citizens, most of them naturalized from countries such as Sudan or Somalia. Seven were
extradited from other countries, while three were captured abroad by American forces. The others came to the United
States on visas, or, in one case, were arrested while trying to come into the United States legally at a
port of entry on the Canadian border.
4. Squo solves - current cooperation and future growth
Walser and Zuckerman 13 [Ray, PhD, Senior Policy Analyst, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for
Foreign Policy Studies, and Jessica, Policy Analyst, Western Hemisphere, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center
for Foreign Policy Studies, “U.S.–Mexico Border: Tighter Border Security Requires Mexico’s Cooperation,”
Feb 20, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/us-mexico-border-tighter-bordersecurity-requires-mexico-s-cooperation]
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the U.S. has already developed a
considerable range of policy tools for working with Mexico. These range from the Merida
Initiative and a 21st-century border management plan to the establishment of Border
Enforcement Security Task Force teams, all of which work closely with Mexican
counterparts.¶ The U.S. also shares highly sensitive intelligence with Mexican authorities,
who are just as concerned as their American counterparts about terrorism and
transnational criminal organizations. Further, the U.S. has improved military-to-military
cooperation without trying to “militarize” the fight against transnational crime. U.S. Northern Command has assumed an active role in
aggressively seeking to partner with Mexico’s armed forces. A deepening of cooperation could put additional U.S.
trainers in Mexico and deliver more cooperation in intelligence and operations planning
but without any military “boots on the ground.” In short, the current level of cooperation
between the two parties is unprecedented and will likely continue to grow.
5. No solvency – 100% border security is impractical
Walser and Zuckerman 13 [Ray, PhD, Senior Policy Analyst, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for
Foreign Policy Studies, and Jessica, Policy Analyst, Western Hemisphere, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center
for Foreign Policy Studies, “U.S.–Mexico Border: Tighter Border Security Requires Mexico’s Cooperation,”
Feb 20, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/us-mexico-border-tighter-bordersecurity-requires-mexico-s-cooperation]
As the debate over immigration reform heats up, the topic of border security—especially on the southwest
border with Mexico—looms larger. Washington policymakers ask: How many miles of fence, how
many Border Patrol agents, how many billions of tax dollars will be enough to finally
“secure” the border? There is no easy answer. Airtight border security is more an
abstract concept than a practical goal. It is difficult to envision a system of airport-like
security or 100 percent “operational control” of 2,000 miles of often rugged and
inhospitable terrain.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Terrorism F/L – Ext. #1
Extend Arizona Daily Star 11 - there are no known terrorist organization
operating out of Mexico
No international terrorist organizations in Mexico
Judicial Watch ’12 [Judicial Watch, “State Dept: “No Middle Eastern Terrorists in Latin
America,”http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/08/state-dept-no-middle-eastern-terroristsin-latin-america/MK]
Months after the world’s largest Spanish news network revealed that Middle Eastern terrorists infiltrated Latin America to plan an
attack against the United States, the Obama
Administration has determined that the groups don’t
seem to have a presence in the region though there is growing concern. The assessment, made public
recently via a lengthy State Department report on terrorism, contradicts an alarming exposé
broadcast last December in a Univision documentary titled “La Amenaza Irani” (Iranian Threat). Using
undercover, never-before-seen video footage, the documentary illustrates how Middle Eastern terrorists have infiltrated Latin
American countries—especially Mexico—to plan an attack against the U.S. The videos were part of a seven-month investigation in
which college-aged Mexicans infiltrated diplomatic circles in Mexico to obtain recordings that prove diplomats from Iran, Venezuela
and Cuba planned a cybernetic attack against the White House, FBI, Pentagon and U.S. nuclear plants. The Univision documentary
also features secret video taken by extremists linked to Iran and footage from an undercover journalist who infiltrated Venezuelan
military camps where terrorists trained. The news network’s investigative team also tracked the expansion of Iranian interests in the
hemisphere, including money-laundering and drug-trafficking activities by terrorist groups supported by Iran. A segment is dedicated
to the connection between Mexican drug cartels and the foiled plot to murder the Saudi ambassador in Washington D.C. last year.
One of the Iranians charged had been ordered by that country’s Special Forces to travel to Mexico to recruit members of the
notorious drug cartel “Los Zetas” to carry out the plot. The massive scheme against U.S. government information and computer
systems had been in the works years earlier, the documentary reveals. Around the same time the Congressional Research Service
(CRS), which examines issues for federal lawmakers, published a report on Latin American terrorist concerns to the United States. It
points out that, while Latin America has not been the focal point of the U.S. war on terrorism, the region has struggled with
domestic terrorism for decades and international terrorist groups have used it as a battle ground to advance their causes. In fact, it
reveals that sympathizers of Hezbollah and the Sunni Muslim Palestinian group Hamas are raising money among the sizable Middle
Eastern communities in the tri-border area of Argentina. This makes the new State Department assessment appear less than
credible. It claims that the majority of terrorist attacks within the Western Hemisphere in 2011 were committed by enterprises such
as the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces and other “radical leftist Andean groups elsewhere.” There were no “known
operational cells” of either Hezbollah or al-Qaeda, according to the report. The
State Department also claims that
“no known international terrorist organization had an operational presence in Mexico ,”
the focus of the worrisome Univision exposé. It further assures that “no terrorist group targeted U.S. citizens in or from Mexican
territory” and that there is “no evidence of ties between Mexican criminal organizations and terrorist groups.”
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Terrorism F/L – Generic - Ext #3
Extend Arizona Daily Star 11 - terrorists don’t come form Mexico - multiple alt
causes – visas and Canadian POE
More ev - visas
Arizona Daily Star 11 [“Border seen as unlikely terrorist crossing point,” June 07, 2011,
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/border-seen-as-unlikely-terrorist-crossingpoint/article_ed932aa2-9d2a-54f1-b930-85f5d4cce9a8.html]
Over the last two decades, almost all of the known international terrorists arrested in the U nited
States have come on legal visas or were allowed to come in without a visa, said Alden, of the
Council on Foreign Relations.¶ "These are people that come on airplanes," said Alden, author of "The Closing of
the American Border," which explains how the U.S. revised visa and border policies in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.¶
The 19 people involved in the Sept. 11 attacks entered the country on legal visas .¶ And
over the last four to five years, the terrorist plots have increasingly involved people
already in the United States - citizens and legal residents, he said.
More ev - Canada
Arizona Daily Star 11 [“Border seen as unlikely terrorist crossing point,” June 07, 2011,
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/border-seen-as-unlikely-terrorist-crossingpoint/article_ed932aa2-9d2a-54f1-b930-85f5d4cce9a8.html]
Canada is a more likely crossing point because that country allows in more people as
refugees and asylum seekers, said Henry Willis, a senior policy researcher on homeland
security at the Rand Corp.¶ "To regard the Southwestern border as the 'frontline against
terrorism,' as the Border Patrol does, is folly," wrote Barry, of the Center for International Policy, in a recent report.
Terrorists will use other borders - US-Mexico border not key
McCombs and Steller ’11 [Brady, staff writer, Arizona Daily Star, Tim, staff writer,
Arizona Daily Star, “Border seen as unlikely terrorist crossing point,” 6/7/11,
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/border-seen-as-unlikely-terroristcrossing-point/article_ed932aa2-9d2a-54f1-b930-85f5d4cce9a8.html/ MK]
A turning political tide has renewed fears that raged after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - that terrorists will sneak into the country across the
U.S.-Mexico border. Nobody disputes that's possible, but analysts
and government officials say terrorists plotting to
kill Americans are more likely to use other routes into the country, if they're not here already. It's much more
common for people convicted in the U.S. of crimes connected to international terrorism to have been U.S. citizens or legal residents, or come into the
country on visas. "There
is no serious evidence that the U.S.-Mexico border is a significant threat
from terrorism," said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank based
in New York. Claims of terrorist threats on the Southwest border distract legislators and
policymakers from addressing long-term solutions to drug smuggling and illegal immigration,
said Tom Barry, senior analyst at the Center for International Policy in Washington. "It's politically motivated," Barry said, "playing on that sense
of fear that certain people are susceptible to."
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Multiple alt causes, and drug-smuggling organizations have no interest in
letting their routes be used by terrorists
McCombs and Steller ’11 [Writers at the Arizona Daily Star, “Border seen as unlikely terrorist
crossing point” June 07, 2011 2:00 pm,http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/border-seen-asunlikely-terrorist-crossing-point/article_ed932aa2-9d2a-54f1-b930-85f5d4cce9a8.html]
Over the last two decades, almost all of the known international terrorists arrested in the United
States have come on legal visas or were allowed to come in without a visa, said Alden, of the
Council on Foreign Relations. "These are people that come on airplanes," said Alden, author of
"The Closing of the American Border," which explains how the U.S. revised visa and border
policies in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The 19 people involved in the Sept.
11 attacks entered the country on legal visas. And over the last four to five years, the terrorist
plots have increasingly involved people already in the United States - citizens and legal residents,
he said. "The notion of the (Southwest) border as the line that protects us from terrorism has really gone out of the window in the
last several years," Alden said. Not only is the U.S. side of the border heavily guarded, but the Mexican government makes an
extraordinary effort to prevent terrorists from coming through its country. For instance, Mexico shares real-time information with
the U.S. about airline passengers arriving in Mexico to make sure they don't include potential terrorists, Alden said. The
Mexican drug-smuggling organizations have no interest in allowing smuggling routes to be used
by terrorist organizations either, he said. "If it is discovered that a terrorist that carried out an
attack in the United States came across the Mexican border, then the response would be further
fortification of that border that shuts down smuggling routes and cuts into the profits," he said.
Being associated with terrorist groups would be very bad for business for drug-smuggling
organizations, said Sylvia Longmire, a drug-war analyst and author. Proof of a terrorist coming through Mexico would have dire
consequences for the Mexican government, too, she said. But that point of view ignores the fact that terrorist groups and Latin
American drug smugglers sometimes do business with each other and therefore have connections, said Braun, the former DEA
operations chief, who now runs a security-consulting firm, Spectre Group International.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Terrorism F/L – Generic - Ext #4
Extend Walser and Zuckerman 13 – the squo solves – Bush and Obama has already
developed a range of policy tools for working with Mexico, and the current
level of cooperation is likely to grow in the coming years
More ev – coop solves
Arizona Daily Star 11 [“Border seen as unlikely terrorist crossing point,” June 07, 2011,
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/border-seen-as-unlikely-terrorist-crossingpoint/article_ed932aa2-9d2a-54f1-b930-85f5d4cce9a8.html]
"The notion of the (Southwest) border as the line that protects us from terrorism has
really gone out of the window in the last several years," Alden said.¶ Not only is the U.S. side
of the border heavily guarded, but the Mexican government makes an extraordinary
effort to prevent terrorists from coming through its country. For instance, Mexico shares
real-time information with the U.S. about airline passengers arriving in Mexico to make
sure they don't include potential terrorists, Alden said.¶ The Mexican drug-smuggling
organizations have no interest in allowing smuggling routes to be used by terrorist
organizations either, he said. "If it is discovered that a terrorist that carried out an attack in
the United States came across the Mexican border, then the response would be further
fortification of that border that shuts down smuggling routes and cuts into the profits," he said.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Terrorism/Texas F/L – Bioterrorism
1. Current bio-defense sufficient
Orent 9 (Wendy, Ph.D. in anthropology from the … the World's Most Dangerous
Disease 7/1“The bioterror bugaboo.” Los Angeles
Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/17/opinion/oe-orent17)
After the anthrax letter attacks of October 2001, the Bush administration pledged $57 billion to keep the nation safe
from bioterror. Since then, the government has created a vast network of laboratories and institutions
to track down and block every remotely conceivable form of bioterror threat. The Obama
administration seems committed to continuing the biodefense push, having just appointed a zealous
bioterror researcher as undersecretary of science and technology in the Department of Homeland Security. But is the threat really
as great as we've been led to believe? Last summer, the FBI concluded that the anthrax letters that killed five Americans came not
from abroad but from an American laboratory, the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.
Meanwhile, the
Russian bioweapons program was officially shut down in 1992, and it's unlikely that
anything remaining of it could pose much of a threat. Iraq, it has turned out, had no active program.
And Al Qaeda's rudimentary explorations were interrupted, according to an Army War College report, by the
U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
2. No risk of a bioterror attack
Matishak 10 (Martin, Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Unlikely to Respond to Biological Threat
With Nuclear Strike, Experts Say,” 4-29,
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100429_7133.php, EMM)
The United States is not likely to use nuclear force to respond to a biological weapons threat, even
though the Obama administration left open that option in its recent update to the nation's nuclear weapons policy, experts say (See
GSN, April 22). (Apr. 29) - Police officers are sealed into protective suits during a 2005 bioterrorism drill in New Jersey. The United
States is unlikely to use nuclear weapons against a biological-weapon threat, even though a recent nuclear policy review left that
option available, according to analysts (Stan Honda/Getty Images). "The notion
that we are in imminent danger of
confronting a scenario in which hundreds of thousands of people are dying in the streets of
New York as a consequence of a biological weapons attack is fanciful," said Michael Moodie, a
consultant who served as assistant director for multilateral affairs in the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the
George H.W. Bush administration. Scenarios
in which the United States suffers mass casualties as a result of
such an event seem "to be taking the discussion out of the realm of reality and into one that is
hypothetical and that has no meaning in the real world where this kind of exchange is just not
going to happen," Moodie said this week in a telephone interview. "There are a lot of threat mongers who
talk about devastating biological attacks that could kill tens of thousands, if not millions of
Americans," according to Jonathan Tucker, a senior fellow with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "But in
fact, no country out there today has anything close to what the Soviet Union had in terms of
mass-casualty biological warfare capability. Advances in biotechnology are unlikely to change
that situation, at least for the foreseeable future." No terrorist group would be capable of
pulling off a massive biological attack, nor would it be deterred by the threat of nuclear
retaliation, he added.
3. Large-scale bioterrorism impossible – can’t manufacture
HSC 5 (Henry Stimson Center, 2005, “Frequently Asked Questions: Likelihood of Terrorists Acquiring
and Using Chemical or Biological Weapons”, ACCEM, http://www.accem.org/pdf/terrorfaq.pdf) aw
However, two factors stand in the way of manufacturing chemical agents for the purpose of mass casualty. First, the
chemical reactions involved with the production of agents are dangerous: precursor
chemicals can be volatile and corrosive, and minor misjudgments or mistakes in
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
processing could easily result in the deaths of would-be weaponeers. Second, this danger
grows when the amount of agent that would be needed to successfully mount a mass
casualty attack is considered. Attempting to make sufficient quantities would require either a
large, well-financed operation that would increase the likelihood of discovery or, alternatively, a long, drawnout process of making small amounts incrementally. These small quantities would then need to be stored safely in a manner that
would not weaken the agent’s toxicity before being released.
It would take 18 years for a basement-sized
operation
to produce the more than two tons of sarin gas that the Pentagon estimates would be necessary to kill 10,000
people, assuming the sarin was manufactured correctly at its top lethality.
4. Bioweapons impossible – even renowned scientists cannot isolate bioterror
strains
HSC 5 (Henry Stimson Center, 2005, “Frequently Asked Questions: Likelihood of Terrorists Acquiring
and Using Chemical or Biological Weapons”, ACCEM, http://www.accem.org/pdf/terrorfaq.pdf) aw
The experience of
the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo proves that this is not the case. Isolating a particularly
virulent strain in nature---out of, for example, the roughly 675 strains of botulinum toxin that have been identified---is
no easy task. Despite having skilled scientists among its members, Aum was unable to
do so. Terrorists could also approach one of the five hundred culture collections worldwide, some of which carry lethal strains.
Within the United States, however, much tighter controls have been placed on the shipment of
dangerous pathogens from these collections in recent years.
Oftentimes, obtaining biological agents is portrayed as being as easy as taking a trip to the country.
5. Bioterror dispersal cannot be achieved
HSC 5 (Henry Stimson Center, 2005, “Frequently Asked Questions: Likelihood of
Terrorists Acquiring and Using Chemical or Biological Weapons”, ACCEM,
http://www.accem.org/pdf/terrorfaq.pdf) aw
The options for delivering poison gas range from high to low tech. Theoretically, super toxic chemicals could be employed to foul
food or water supplies, put into munitions, or distributed by an aerosol or spray method.
Because of safeguards on
both our food and water supplies as well as the difficulty of covertly disbursing sufficient
quantities of agent, this method is unlikely to be an effective means to achieving terrorist aims.
Chemical agents could also be the payload of any number of specially designed or modified conventional munitions, from bombs
designing munitions that reliably produce vapor and
liquid droplets requires a certain amount of engineering skill. Finally, commercial sprayers could be
mounted on planes or other vehicles. In an outdoor attack such as this, however, 90 percent of the agent is
likely to dissipate before ever reaching its target. Effective delivery, which entails getting the
right concentration of agent and maintaining it long enough for inhalation to occur, is quite difficult to achieve
because chemical agents are highly susceptible to weather conditions.
and grenades to artillery shells and mines. However
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Terrorism/Texas F/L – Nuclear Terrorism
1. Zero risk of nuclear terrorism – they are wrong about everything
- desire
- no theft
- no transport
- can’t build it
- too expensive
- 1/3 billion chance
- can’t buy it
- no loose nukes
Mueller 10 – [John, professor of political science at Ohio State University and author of Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism
from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda, “Calming Our Nuclear Jitters”, Winter 2010, http://www.issues.org/26.2/mueller.html]
Politicians of all stripes preach to an anxious, appreciative, and very numerous choir when they,
like President Obama, proclaim atomic terrorism to be “the most immediate and extreme threat to
global security.” It is the problem that, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, currently keeps every senior leader
awake at night. This is hardly a new anxiety. In 1946, atomic bomb maker J. Robert Oppenheimer ominously warned that if
three or four men could smuggle in units for an atomic bomb, they could blow up New York. This was an early expression of a
pattern of dramatic risk inflation that has persisted throughout the nuclear age. In fact, although
expanding fires and
fallout might increase the effective destructive radius, the blast of a Hiroshima-size device
would “blow up” about 1% of the city’s area—a tragedy, of course, but not the same as one 100 times greater. In
the early 1970s, nuclear physicist Theodore Taylor proclaimed the atomic terrorist problem to be
“immediate,” explaining at length “how comparatively easy it would be to steal nuclear material
and step by step make it into a bomb.” At the time he thought it was already too late to
“prevent the making of a few bombs, here and there, now and then,” or “in another ten or fifteen years, it will be too
late.” Three decades after Taylor, we continue to wait for terrorists to carry out their “easy” task .
In contrast to these predictions, terrorist groups seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less
progress in going atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they,
unlike generations of alarmists, have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely
likely to be successful. The most plausible route for terrorists, according to most experts, would be to manufacture
an atomic device themselves from purloined fissile material (plutonium or, more likely, highly enriched uranium). This
task, however, remains a daunting one, requiring that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be
conquered and in sequence. Outright armed theft of fissile material is exceedingly unlikely not only
because of the resistance of guards, but because chase would be immediate. A more promising
approach would be to corrupt insiders to smuggle out the required substances. However, this requires
the terrorists to pay off a host of greedy confederates, including brokers and moneytransmitters, any one of whom could turn on them or, either out of guile or incompetence, furnish them
with stuff that is useless. Insiders might also consider the possibility that once the heist was
accomplished, the terrorists would, as analyst Brian Jenkins none too delicately puts it, “have every incentive
to cover their trail, beginning with eliminating their confederates.” If terrorists were somehow
successful at obtaining a sufficient mass of relevant material, they would then probably have to
transport it a long distance over unfamiliar terrain and probably while being pursued by security
forces. Crossing international borders would be facilitated by following established smuggling
routes, but these are not as chaotic as they appear and are often under the watch of suspicious
and careful criminal regulators. If border personnel became suspicious of the commodity being smuggled, some of them
might find it in their interest to disrupt passage, perhaps to collect the bounteous reward money that would probably be offered by
alarmed governments once the uranium theft had been discovered. Once
outside the country with their precious
booty, terrorists would need to set up a large and well-equipped machine shop to manufacture
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
a bomb and then to populate it with a very select team of highly skilled scientists, technicians,
machinists, and administrators. The group would have to be assembled and retained for the
monumental task while no consequential suspicions were generated among friends, family, and
police about their curious and sudden absence from normal pursuits back home. Members of the
bomb-building team would also have to be utterly devoted to the cause, of course, and they would have to be willing to put their
lives and certainly their careers at high risk, because after their bomb was discovered or exploded they would probably become the
targets of an intense worldwide dragnet operation. Some
observers have insisted that it would be easy for
terrorists to assemble a crude bomb if they could get enough fissile material. But Christoph Wirz and
Emmanuel Egger, two senior physicists in charge of nuclear issues at Switzerland‘s Spiez Laboratory,
bluntly conclude that the task “could hardly be accomplished by a subnational group.” They point
out that precise blueprints are required, not just sketches and general ideas, and that even with a
good blueprint the terrorist group would most certainly be forced to redesign. They also stress that the
work is difficult, dangerous, and extremely exacting, and that the technical requirements in
several fields verge on the unfeasible. Stephen Younger, former director of nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos
Laboratories, has made a similar argument, pointing out that uranium is “exceptionally difficult to machine”
whereas “plutonium is one of the most complex metals ever discovered, a material whose basic properties
are sensitive to exactly how it is processed.“ Stressing the “daunting problems associated with material
purity, machining, and a host of other issues,” Younger concludes, “to think that a terrorist group,
working in isolation with an unreliable supply of electricity and little access to tools and
supplies” could fabricate a bomb “is farfetched at best.” Under the best circumstances, the process of
making a bomb could take months or even a year or more, which would, of course, have to be
carried out in utter secrecy. In addition, people in the area, including criminals, may observe with increasing curiosity and
puzzlement the constant coming and going of technicians unlikely to be locals. If the effort to build a bomb was
successful, the finished product, weighing a ton or more, would then have to be transported to
and smuggled into the relevant target country where it would have to be received by
collaborators who are at once totally dedicated and technically proficient at handling,
maintaining, detonating, and perhaps assembling the weapon after it arrives. The financial costs
of this extensive and extended operation could easily become monumental. There would be
expensive equipment to buy, smuggle, and set up and people to pay or pay off. Some operatives might
work for free out of utter dedication to the cause, but the vast conspiracy also requires the subversion of a considerable array of
criminals and opportunists, each of whom has every incentive to push the price for cooperation as high as possible. Any
criminals competent and capable enough to be effective allies are also likely to be both smart
enough to see boundless opportunities for extortion and psychologically equipped by their
profession to be willing to exploit them. Those who warn about the likelihood of a terrorist bomb contend that a
terrorist group could, if with great difficulty, overcome each obstacle and that doing so in each case is “not impossible.” But
although it may not be impossible to surmount each individual step, the
likelihood that a group could surmount a
series of them quickly becomes vanishingly small. Table 1 attempts to catalogue the barriers that must be
overcome under the scenario considered most likely to be successful. In contemplating the task before them, would-be atomic
terrorists would effectively be required to go though an exercise that looks much like this. If and when they do, they will
undoubtedly conclude that their prospects are daunting and accordingly uninspiring or even terminally dispiriting. It is possible to
calculate the chances for success. Adopting probability estimates that purposely and heavily bias the case in the terrorists’ favor—
for example, assuming
the terrorists have a 50% chance of overcoming each of the 20 obstacles—
the chances that a concerted effort would be successful comes out to be less than one in a
million. If one assumes, somewhat more realistically, that their chances at each barrier are one in three,
the cumulative odds that they will be able to pull off the deed drop to one in well over three
billion. Other routes would-be terrorists might take to acquire a bomb are even more problematic. They are unlikely to be
given or sold a bomb by a generous like-minded nuclear state for delivery abroad because the
risk would be high, even for a country led by extremists, that the bomb (and its source) would
be discovered even before delivery or that it would be exploded in a manner and on a target the
donor would not approve, including on the donor itself. Another concern would be that the terrorist group
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
might be infiltrated by foreign intelligence. The
terrorist group might also seek to steal or illicitly purchase a
“loose nuke“ somewhere. However, it seems probable that none exist. All governments have an
intense interest in controlling any weapons on their territory because of fears that they might
become the primary target. Moreover, as technology has developed, finished bombs have been out-fitted with devices
that trigger a non-nuclear explosion that destroys the bomb if it is tampered with. And there are other security techniques: Bombs
can be kept disassembled with the component parts stored in separate high-security vaults, and a process can be set up in which
two people and multiple codes are required not only to use the bomb but to store, maintain, and deploy it. As Younger points out,
“only a few people in the world have the knowledge to cause an unauthorized detonation of a
nuclear weapon.” There could be dangers in the chaos that would emerge if a nuclear state
were to utterly collapse; Pakistan is frequently cited in this context and sometimes North Korea as
well. However, even under such conditions, nuclear weapons would probably remain under
heavy guard by people who know that a purloined bomb might be used in their own territory.
They would still have locks and, in the case of Pakistan, the weapons would be disassembled.
2. Terrorism won’t go nuclear and they won’t be able to attack the US - several
warrants
Mearsheimer 11, January, John J., Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political
Science at the University of Chicago. He is on the Advisory Council of The National Interest,
“Imperial by Design,” http://nationalinterest.org/article/imperial-by-design-4576?page=3, EMM
The fact is that states have strong incentives to distrust terrorist groups, in part because they
might turn on them someday, but also because countries cannot control what terrorist
organizations do, and they may do something that gets their patrons into serious trouble. This is
why there is hardly any chance that a rogue state will give a nuclear weapon to terrorists. That
regime’s leaders could never be sure that they would not be blamed and punished for a terrorist
group’s actions. Nor could they be certain that the United States or Israel would not incinerate
them if either country merely suspected that they had provided terrorists with the ability to
carry out a WMD attack. A nuclear handoff, therefore, is not a serious threat. When you get down to it, there is only a
remote possibility that terrorists will get hold of an atomic bomb. The most likely way it would
happen is if there were political chaos in a nuclear-armed state, and terrorists or their friends
were able to take advantage of the ensuing confusion to snatch a loose nuclear weapon. But even
then, there are additional obstacles to overcome: some countries keep their weapons
disassembled, detonating one is not easy and it would be difficult to transport the device
without being detected. Moreover, other countries would have powerful incentives to work with
Washington to find the weapon before it could be used. The obvious implication is that we should work with
other states to improve nuclear security, so as to make this slim possibility even more unlikely. Finally, the ability of
terrorists to strike the American homeland has been blown out of all proportion. In the nine years
since 9/11, government officials and terrorist experts have issued countless warnings that another major attack on American soil is
probable—even imminent. But this is simply not the case.3 The only attempts we have seen are a few failed solo attacks by
individuals with links to al-Qaeda like the “shoe bomber,” who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami
in December 2001, and the “underwear bomber,” who tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in
December 2009. So, we do have a terrorism problem, but it is
hardly an existential threat. In fact, it is a minor
threat. Perhaps the scope of the challenge is best captured by Ohio State political scientist John
Mueller’s telling comment that “the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since
the late 1960s . . . is about the same as the number killed over the same period by lightning, or
by accident-causing deer, or by severe allergic reactions to peanuts.”
3. Even if Terrorists have nuclear weapons, nuclear terrorism is still unlikely
CISAC 04 (CISAC in its early years brought together scholars focused on U.S.-Soviet-China relations, arms
control and nonproliferation, and the scientific and technical aspects of international security issues.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Today we are building on our historic strengths to seek solutions to the many longstanding and emerging
challenges associated with an increasingly complex world.)
No one can say for sure, but it is generally believed to be unlikely. This is mainly because both the
materials needed and the weapons themselves are very difficult to make. Even if terrorists are
able to steal enough nuclear material, they still need time to put the material into an effective
explosive. They must either design the explosive themselves or have a design that will work with
the material they have. They will need specialized tools and facilities, and at least a few
experienced technicians, engineers and scientists. Moreover, some of the materials needed are
lethal if handled improperly. Nevertheless, it is not impossible for a small group to make a nuclear explosive if it
has enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium. Stealing an actual nuclear weapon would be a difficult
enterprise in any of the eight or so countries that have these weapons. Without cooperation
from some part of the government concerned, it may be impossible.
4. No terror impact
Mueller and Stewart 12, [John, Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon Center for International Security
Studies and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Political Science, both at Ohio State University, and Senior Fellow
at the Cato Institute AND Mark G, Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow and Professor and Director at the
Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability at the University of Newcastle, "The Terrorism Delusion,"
Summer, International Security, Vol. 37, No. 1, politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller//absisfin.pdf
In 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a lengthy report on protecting the homeland. Key to achieving such
an objective should be a careful assessment of the character, capacities, and desires of potential terrorists targeting that homeland.
Although the report contains a section dealing with what its authors call “the nature of the terrorist adversary,” the section devotes
only two sentences to assessing that nature: “The number and high profile of international and domestic terrorist attacks and
disrupted plots during the last two decades underscore the determination and persistence of terrorist organizations. Terrorists
have proven to be relentless, patient, opportunistic, and flexible, learning from experience
and modifying tactics and targets to exploit perceived vulnerabilities and avoid observed
strengths.”8¶ This description may apply to some terrorists somewhere, including at least a few of those involved in the
September 11 attacks. Yet, it scarcely describes the vast majority of those individuals picked up on
terrorism charges in the United States since those attacks. The inability of the DHS to consider this fact
even parenthetically in its fleeting discussion is not only amazing but perhaps delusional in its
single-minded preoccupation with the extreme.¶ In sharp contrast, the authors of the case studies, with
remarkably few exceptions, describe their subjects with such words as incompetent, ineffective, unintelligent, idiotic, ignorant,
inadequate, unorganized, misguided, muddled, amateurish, dopey, unrealistic, moronic, irrational, and foolish.9 And in nearly all of
the cases where an operative from the police or from the Federal Bureau of Investigation was at work (almost half of the total), the
most appropriate descriptor would be “gullible.”¶ In all, as Shikha Dalmia has put it, would-be
terrorists need to be
“radicalized enough to die for their cause; Westernized enough to move around without
raising red flags; ingenious enough to exploit loopholes in the security apparatus; meticulous
enough to attend to the myriad logistical details that could torpedo the operation; selfsufficient enough to make all the preparations without enlisting outsiders who might give
them away; disciplined enough to maintain complete secrecy; and—above all—
psychologically tough enough to keep functioning at a high level without cracking in the face
of their own impending death.”10 The case studies examined in this article certainly do not abound
with people with such characteristics. ¶ In the eleven years since the September 11 attacks, no
terrorist has been able to detonate even a primitive bomb in the United States, and except for the
four explosions in the London transportation system in 2005, neither has any in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the only method
by which Islamist terrorists have managed to kill anyone in the United States since September
11 has been with gunfire—inflicting a total of perhaps sixteen deaths over the period (cases 4, 26, 32).11 This limited
capacity is impressive because, at one time, small-scale terrorists in the United States were quite successful in setting off bombs.
Noting that the scale of the September 11 attacks has “tended to obliterate America’s memory of pre-9/11 terrorism,” Brian Jenkins
reminds us (and we clearly do need reminding) that the 1970s witnessed sixty to seventy terrorist incidents, mostly bombings, on
U.S. soil every year.12¶ The situation seems scarcely different in Europe and other Western locales.
Michael Kenney, who has interviewed dozens of government officials and intelligence agents and analyzed court documents, has
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
found that, in sharp contrast with the boilerplate characterizations favored by the DHS and with the imperatives listed by Dalmia,
Islamist militants in those locations are operationally unsophisticated, short on know-how, prone
to making mistakes, poor at planning, and limited in their capacity to learn .13 Another study
documents the difficulties of network coordination that continually threaten the terrorists’
operational unity, trust, cohesion, and ability to act collectively.14¶ In addition, although some of the
plotters in the cases targeting the United States harbored visions of toppling large buildings, destroying airports,
setting off dirty bombs, or bringing down the Brooklyn Bridge (cases 2, 8, 12, 19, 23, 30, 42), all were nothing more than
wild fantasies , far beyond the plotters’ capacities however much they may have been
encouraged in some instances by FBI operatives. Indeed, in many of the cases, target selection is
effectively a random process, lacking guile and careful planning. Often, it seems, targets have
been chosen almost capriciously and simply for their convenience. For example, a would-be bomber
targeted a mall in Rockford, Illinois, because it was nearby (case 21). Terrorist plotters in Los Angeles in 2005 drew up a list of targets
that were all within a 20-mile radius of their shared apartment, some of which did not even exist (case 15). In Norway, a neo-Nazi
terrorist on his way to bomb a synagogue took a tram going the wrong way and dynamited a mosque instead.15
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Terrorism F/L – Nuclear Terrorism - Ext #2
Extend Mearsheimer 11 - Terrorism won’t go nuclear and they won’t be able to
attack the US
-
States distrust terrorist groups – they can’t control what the terrorist organizations do
Hardly any chance a rogue state would give nukes to terrorists
Very low risk that terrorists will get an atomic bomb
It is not an existential risk
The number of people killed since the 60s is about the same as the number killed over the same period by lightning, or by
accident-causing deer, or by severe allergic reactions to peanuts.”
And, there’s no impact - super unlikely
Schneidmiller 9 (Chris, Experts Debate Threat of Nuclear, Biological Terrorism, 13 January 2009,
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090113_7105.php)
There is an "almost vanishingly small" likelihood that terrorists would ever be able to acquire
and detonate a nuclear weapon, one expert said here yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 2, 2008). In even the most likely scenario
of nuclear terrorism, there are 20 barriers between extremists and a successful nuclear strike on a
major city, said John Mueller, a political science professor at Ohio State University. The process itself is
seemingly straightforward but exceedingly difficult -- buy or steal highly enriched uranium, manufacture a
weapon, take the bomb to the target site and blow it up. Meanwhile, variables strewn across the path to an
attack would increase the complexity of the effort, Mueller argued. Terrorists would have to bribe officials in a
state nuclear program to acquire the material, while avoiding a sting by authorities or a scam by the sellers. The
material itself could also turn out to be bad. "Once the purloined material is purloined, [police are] going to be chasing after
you. They are also going to put on a high reward, extremely high reward, on getting the weapon back or getting the fissile
material back," Mueller said during a panel discussion at a two-day Cato Institute conference on counterterrorism issues facing
the incoming Obama administration. Smuggling the material out of a country would mean relying on criminals who "are very
good at extortion" and might have to be killed to avoid a double-cross, Mueller said. The terrorists
would then have to
find scientists and engineers willing to give up their normal lives to manufacture a bomb, which would
require an expensive and sophisticated machine shop. Finally, further technological expertise would be needed to sneak the
weapon across national borders to its destination point and conduct a successful detonation, Mueller said. Every obstacle is
"difficult but not impossible" to overcome, Mueller said, putting the chance of success at no less than one in three for each. The
likelihood of successfully passing through each obstacle, in sequence, would be roughly
one in 3 1/2 billion, he said, but for argument's sake dropped it to 3 1/2 million. "It's a total gamble. This is a very
expensive and difficult thing to do," said Mueller, who addresses the issue at greater length in an upcoming book, Atomic
Obsession. "So unlike buying a ticket to the lottery ... you're basically putting everything, including your life, at stake for a
gamble that's maybe one in 3 1/2 million or 3 1/2 billion." Other
scenarios are even less probable, Mueller
said. A nuclear-armed state is "exceedingly unlikely" to hand a weapon to a terrorist group,
he argued: "States just simply won't give it to somebody they can't control." Terrorists are also
not likely to be able to steal a whole weapon, Mueller asserted, dismissing the idea of "loose
nukes." Even Pakistan, which today is perhaps the nation of greatest concern regarding nuclear security, keeps its bombs in
two segments that are stored at different locations, he said (see GSN, Jan. 12). Fear of an "extremely improbable event" such as
nuclear terrorism produces support for a wide range of homeland security activities, Mueller said. He argued that there has
been a major and costly overreaction to the terrorism threat -- noting that the Sept. 11 attacks helped to precipitate the
invasion of Iraq, which has led to far more deaths than the original event. Panel moderator Benjamin Friedman, a research
fellow at the Cato Institute, said academic
and governmental discussions of acts of nuclear or biological
terrorism have tended to focus on "worst-case assumptions about terrorists' ability to use these
weapons to kill us." There is need for consideration for what is probable rather than simply what is possible, he said.
Friedman took issue with the finding late last year of an experts' report that an act of WMD terrorism
would "more likely than not" occur in the next half decade unless the international community takes greater
action. "I would say that the report, if you read it, actually offers no analysis to justify that claim, which
seems to have been made to change policy by generating alarm in headlines." One panel
speaker offered a partial rebuttal to Mueller's presentation. Jim Walsh, principal research scientist for the Security
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said
he agreed that nations would almost
give a nuclear weapon to a nonstate group, that most terrorist organizations have no
interest in seeking out the bomb, and that it would be difficult to build a weapon or use one
that has been stolen.
certainly not
NSS Lab
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Texas F/L
1. Rick Perry is wrong – the Texas-Mexico border is safer than ever
Aguilar 11 [Julián Aguilar covered the 81st legislative session for the Rio Grande Guardian. Previously, he reported from the
border for the Laredo Morning Times. A native of El Paso, he has a bachelor's degree in English from the University of Texas and a
master's degree in journalism from the Frank W. Mayborn Graduate Institute of Journalism at the University of North Texas. "The
Border is Safe, Federal Officials Say." The Texas Tribune. Publisher of Website, 17 August 2011. Web. 22 July 2013.
<http://www.texastribune.org/2011/08/17/cbp-commissioner-border-safe/ >.]
EL PASO — The
federal government’s top border official , U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Commissioner Alan Bersin, fought back this week against heightened criticism of President Obama’s border security policy,
saying the present-day border is more secure than ever.
At the same conference, U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes,
D-El Paso, responded to Gov. Rick Perry's bid for the White House by telling a reporter, “I have to go to the bathroom and throw up.” The congressman
has long been a critic of what he says is Perry's misrepresentation of the border as a lawless territory. Bersin, a keynote speaker at the Eighth Annual
Border Security Conference at the University of Texas at El Paso, said Tuesday that the first line of defense against the political rhetoric painting the
Texas borderlands as war zones is border residents themselves. “It is incumbent to those of us who live and work on the border to dispel this myth that
the border is out of control, that the border is unsafe,” he said. Bersin, appointed by the president in March 2010, said the increase in illegal
immigration on the Arizona border in recent years — and the political firestorm it has created — is the result of successful operations in Texas and
California, which have driven illegal activity to the Sonoran desert. The illegal crossings in Arizona have prompted state leaders there to propose their
own version of controversial anti-immigration legislation, leading several states — including Texas — to follow suit. Bersin’s unorthodox
counteroffensive signals that members of the president’s homeland security team are ratcheting up their defense as Republicans, including Perry, the
newly minted presidential candidate, call Obama’s tenure an abysmal failure for border security. Bersin did not mention Perry or other candidates in
the narrowing field of GOP hopefuls by name but cited apprehension statistics as proof that current policies are having the desired effect. In fact, Bersin
Lets go back to 1993, when
the border truly was out of control, when, in fact, 1.8 million people were just walking across
the border,” he said. “In 1993, 286,000 Mexicans were arrested crossing in to the
country illegally [from Chihuahua into Texas]. Fast-forward to last year and the
number is down to 12,000, under 12,000. And, in fact, that accounts for 80 or 90
acknowledged, the border was in disarray under the country's last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. “
percent of the people trying to cross here illegally.” The same thing is true on the Tijuana-San Diego
border, he said, where apprehensions fell to 68,000 in 2010, compared to 565,000 in 1994. The commissioner predicted Arizona
would soon see the same success. And he credited the improvements in Texas to an effort initiated in the 1990s by Reyes, a former
El Paso Border Patrol Sector chief, who Bersin said acted without guidance from Washington to enact Operation Hold the Line. The
operation ordered U.S. Border Patrol agents to patrol areas directly across the Rio Grande instead of searching for illegal immigrants
who had already entered the country. “The lesson is that when
you look at “la línea” [the line], the border is
more secure than ever,” Bersin said. “Violent crime is down since 2000 by 17 percent in San Diego, 11 percent in Brownsville, 36
percent in El Paso.” But the statistics are overshadowed by the ever-present vitriol injected into the debates over immigration and the border, Bersin
said. While he conceded that the dynamics of the area and the proximity to Mexico present a unique challenge to U.S. border communities, he said the
same standards they are judged by should be applied elsewhere. That "does not mean we do not have incidents of violence connected to organized
criminal activity based in Mexico or in the United States; we do,” he said. “But if the standard that is to be applied to any particular incident, one
incident, two incidents or 10 murders that happened in El Paso make this an unsafe place, that’s a standard that Los Angeles would fail, that Boston
would fail and Detroit would fail.” Even recent instances where bullets fired from guns in Mexico landed in El Paso — at the City Hall offices and the
UT-El Paso campus — should not taint the image of the border, he added.“Yes, it does present certain circumstances when Paisano Drive [in south El
Paso] can be affected by shootings taking place in Juárez, but that would be the same as saying if there is a shot fired across the Hudson River from
Jersey City and it comes into Manhattan, that Manhattan is totally out of control," he said. "So we need to put this in perspective. We need to speak
up.”Reyes, whose office co-hosted the conference, has rebuked Perry on several occasions for painting El Paso as a dangerous city. After Perry
appeared on Fox News in May and said the government’s border security effort was a “disgrace,” Reyes issued a statement saying Perry should stop
Perry’s misstep on the campaign trail in 2010, when Perry
said a car bomb exploded in Texas — it had actually exploded across the border in Ciudad Juárez — as proof that the
governor is out of touch with border communities. “I think Rick Perry’s worst enemy is
himself. When he talks about bombs going off in downtown El Paso … I think it underscores a very shoot-from-the-hip
pandering to the media and tarnishing the image of the border. He then used
mentality,” he said. “It won’t play well with middle-of-the-road people and certainly those of us who live on the border don’t
appreciate our own governor throwing us under the bus like that.”
2. [Insert Terrorism F/L]
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Trade F/L
1. No impact – Mexico’s economy was already devestated by the global
financial crisis – that should have collapsed the U.S. econ, as well
Yale MacMillan Center 10 (“US-Mexican Relations, Migration, and the Drug
War” Spring 2010
http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/newsletter_spr10/usmexican.html)
Brooks argued that Mexico
was more severely affected by the global financial crisis than other
Latin American nations because its economy is so closely linked to the United States. The
stock market crash of 2008 exacerbated pre-existing political and economic problems. In
Mexico, “a whole generation has been born and raised on one single word: la crisis.” Provocatively, Brooks characterized
the illicit drug trade and the export of human beings as “the best businesses [in Mexico]
right now” and “the two most effective … results of NAFTA and neoliberal policies.” Thanks to remittances, undocumented
migrants have become “the only export that keeps on giving.” ¶ Since Mexican President Felipe Calderón took office in 2006 and
initiated a nationwide campaign against the drug cartels, an estimated 22,700 people have been murdered in drug-related crimes.
Thirty percent more people were killed by drug-related violence in 2009 than in 2008. The drug war has become the major story in
Mexico, but journalists put their lives at risk when they report on violent crimes, and “editors end up having to self-censor almost
everything.” Even official statistics are difficult to assess or understand. When someone is murdered in Mexico, Brooks asked,
“how do you know it’s a narco and not a neighbor?” ¶ A recent poll in the Mexican newspaper Milenio found that 59% of
respondents believed the cartels were winning the war. “I can’t stand opening the paper, and neither can most people in Mexico
sometimes,” Brooks admitted, because the daily death tolls have become too difficult to stomach. He expressed frustration that
the debates about immigration and drug policy in the United States rarely linked those
issues to Mexico’s economic crisis. Experts had yet to devise “a development model that
goes to the root causes.” Brooks’ lecture was supported by Yale’s Poynter Fellowship in Journalism and the MacMillan
Center’s Council on Latin American and Iberian Studies, in conjunction with Professor Gil Joseph’s course on “Modern Mexican
History.”
2. Economic decline doesn’t cause war
Jervis,’11 (Robert, Professor PolSci Columbia, December, “Force in Our Times” Survival, Vol 25 No 4, p 403-425)
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more
peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of
status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening
of the current
economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back oldfashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the
conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate
fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be
reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather
it is that even
if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become
discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political
conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by
impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will
entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as
outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the
very fact that we
have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is
the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not
make war thinkable.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
3. Multipolarity makes your arguments untrue—economic decline doesn’t
cause war
Thirlwell ’10—MPhil in economics from Oxford U, postgraduate qualifications in applied finance from Macquarie U, program director in International Economy for
the Lowy Institute for International Policy (Mark, September 2010, “The Return of Geo-economics: Globalisation and National Security”, Lowy Institute for International Policy,
google scholar,)
Summing up the evidence, then, I would judge that while empirical support for the Pax Mercatoria is not conclusive,
nevertheless it’s still strongly supportive of the general idea that international integration is good for peace, all else equal. Since
there is also even stronger evidence that peace is good for trade, this raises
the possibility of a nice virtuous circle:
globalisation (trade) promotes peace, which in turn promotes more globalisation. In this kind of world,
we should not worry too much about the big power shifts described in the previous section, since they are taking
place against a backdrop of greater economic integration which should help smooth the whole process. ¶ Instead of ending this
section on that optimistic note, however, it’s worth thinking about some reasons why the
Pax Mercatoria might
nevertheless turn out to be a poor, or at least overly optimistic, guide to our future.¶ The first is captured by that all
important get-out-of-gaol-free card, ‘all else equal’. It’s quite possible that the peace-promoting effects of international commerce
will end up being swamped by other factors, just as they were in 1914.¶ Second, perhaps the theory itself is wrong. Certainly, a
realist like John Mearsheimer would seem to have little time for the optimistic consequences of the rise of new powers implied by
the theory. Here’s Mearsheimer on how the US should view China’s economic progress, for example:¶ ‘ . . . the United States has a
profound interest in seeing Chinese economic growth slow considerably in the years ahead . . . A wealthy China would not be a
status quo power but an aggressive state determined to achieve regional hegemony.’ 62¶ Such pessimistic (or are they tragic?) views
of the world would also seem to run the risk of being self-fulfilling prophecies if they end up guiding actual policy. ¶ Finally, there is
the risk that the
shift to a multipolar world might indirectly undermine some of the supports needed to
deliver globalisation. Here I am thinking about some simple variant on the idea of hegemonic stability theory (HST) – the
proposition that the global economy needs a leader (or ‘hegemon’) that is both able and willing to provide
the sorts of international public goods that are required for its smooth functioning: open markets (liberal or
‘free’ trade), a smoothly functioning monetary regime, liberal capital flows, and a lender of last resort
function. 63 Charles Kindleberger argued that ‘the 1929 depression was so wide, so deep, and so long because the
international economic system was rendered unstable by British inability and US unwillingness to
assume responsibility for stabilizing it’, drawing on the failures of the Great Depression to make the original case for HST:¶ ‘
. . . the international economic and monetary system needs leadership, a country that is prepared . .
. to set standards of conduct for other countries and to seek to get others to follow them, to take on an
undue share of the burdens of the system, and in particular to take on its support in adversity...’ 64¶ Kindleberger’s assessment
appears to capture a rough empirical regularity: As Findlay and O’Rourke remind us, ‘periods
of sustained expansion in
world trade have tended to coincided with the infrastructure of law and order necessary to keep trade routes open being
provided by a
dominant “hegemon” or imperial power’. 65 Thus periods of globalisation have typically been
associated with periods of hegemonic or imperial power, such as the Pax Mongolica, the Pax Britannica and, most
recently, the Pax Americana (Figure 9).¶ The risk, then, is that by reducing the economic clout of the United States, it
is possible that the shift to a multipolar world economy might undermine either the willingness or the
ability (or both) of Washington to continue to supply the international public goods needed to sustain
a (relatively) smoothly functioning world economy. 66 That in turn could undermine the potential
virtuous circle identified above.
4. Econ resilient
E.I.U. ’11 (Economist Intelligence Unit – Global Forecasting Service, 11/16/’11
(http://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gef&articleId=668596451&secID=7)
The US economy, by any standard, remains weak, and consumer and business sentiment are close to 2009 lows. That said, the
resilient in the face of so many shocks. US real GDP expanded by a relatively
robust 2.5% in the third quarter of 2011, twice the rate of the previous quarter. Consumer spending rose by 2.4%,
which is impressive given that real incomes dropped during the quarter (the savings rate fell, which helps to
explain the anomaly.) Historically, US consumers have been willing to spend even in difficult times.
economy has been surprisingly
Before the 2008-09 slump, personal spending rose in every quarter between 1992 and 2007. That resilience is again in evidence:
retail sales in September were at a seven-month high, and sales at chain stores have been strong. Business
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
investment has been even more buoyant: it expanded in the third quarter by an impressive 16.3% at an annual rate, and
spending by companies in September on conventional capital goods (that is, excluding defence and aircraft) grew
by the most since March. This has been made possible, in part, by strong corporate profits.
According to data compiled by Bloomberg, earnings for US companies in the S&P 500 rose by 24% year on year in the third quarter.
All of this has occurred despite a debilitating fiscal debate in Washington, a sovereign debt downgrade by a
major ratings agency and exceptional volatility in capital markets. This reinforces our view that the
US economy,
although weak, is not in danger of falling into a recession (absent a shock from the euro zone). US growth will, however,
continue to be held back by a weak labour market—the unemployment rate has been at or above 9% for 28 of the last 30 months—
and by a moribund housing market.
5. US isn’t key to the global economy – decoupling proves
Bloomberg ‘10 [“Wall Street Sees World Economy Decoupling From U.S.”, October 4th, 2010,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-03/world-economy-decoupling-from-u-s-in-slowdown-returns-as-wall-street-view.html]
The main reason for the divergence: “Direct transmission from a
U.S. slowdown to other economies through exports is just
not large enough to spread a U.S. demand problem globally,” Goldman Sachs economists Dominic Wilson and Stacy
Carlson wrote in a Sept. 22 report entitled “If the U.S. sneezes...” Limited Exposure Take the so-called BRIC countries of Brazil,
Russia, India and China. While exports account for almost 20 percent of their gross domestic product,
sales to the U.S. compose less than 5 percent of GDP, according to their estimates. That means even if U.S.
growth slowed 2 percent, the drag on these four countries would be about 0.1 percentage point, the
economists reckon. Developed economies including the U.K., Germany and Japan also have limited exposure,
they said. Economies outside the U.S. have room to grow that the U.S. doesn’t, partly because of its
outsized slump in house prices, Wilson and Carlson said. The drop of almost 35 percent is more than twice as large as the worst
declines in the rest of the Group of 10 industrial nations, they found. The risk to the decoupling wager is a repeat of 2008, when the
U.S. property bubble burst and then morphed into a global credit and banking shock that ricocheted around the world. For now,
Goldman Sachs’s index of U.S. financial conditions signals that bond and stock markets aren’t stressed by the U.S. outlook. Weaker
Dollar The break with the U.S. will be reflected in a weaker dollar, with the Chinese yuan appreciating to 6.49 per dollar in a year
from 6.685 on Oct. 1, according to Goldman Sachs forecasts. The bank is also betting that yields on U.S. 10-year debt will be lower by
June than equivalent yields for Germany, the U.K., Canada, Australia and Norway. U.S. notes will rise to 2.8 percent from 2.52
percent, Germany’s will increase to 3 percent from 2.3 percent and Canada’s will grow to 3.8 percent from 2.76 percent on Oct. 1,
Goldman Sachs projects. Goldman Sachs isn’t alone in making the case for decoupling. Harris at BofA Merrill Lynch said he didn’t buy
the argument prior to the financial crisis. Now he believes global growth is strong enough to offer a “handkerchief” to the U.S. as it
suffers a “growth recession” of weak expansion and rising unemployment, he said. Giving him confidence is his calculation that the
U.S. share of global GDP has shrunk to about 24 percent from 31 percent in 2000. He also notes that, unlike the U.S.,
many countries avoided asset bubbles, kept their banking systems sound and improved their trade and budget positions. Economic
Locomotives A book published last week by the World Bank backs him up. “The Day After Tomorrow” concludes that developing
nations aren’t only decoupling, they also are undergoing a “switchover” that will make them such locomotives
for the world economy, they can help rescue advanced nations. Among the reasons for the revolution are greater trade
between emerging markets, the rise of the middle class and higher commodity prices, the book said. Investors are signaling they
agree. The U.S. has fallen behind Brazil, China and India as the preferred place to invest, according to a quarterly
survey conducted last month of 1,408 investors, analysts and traders who subscribe to Bloomberg. Emerging markets also attracted
more money from share offerings than industrialized nations last quarter for the first time in at least a decade, Bloomberg data
show. Room to Ease Indonesia, India, China and Poland are the developing economies least vulnerable to a U.S. slowdown,
according to a Sept. 14 study based on trade ties by HSBC Holdings Plc economists. China,
Russia and Brazil also are
among nations with more room than industrial countries to ease policies if a U.S. slowdown does
weigh on their growth, according to a policy- flexibility index designed by the economists, who include New York-based
Pablo Goldberg. “Emerging economies kept their powder relatively dry, and are, for the most part, in a position where they could act
countercyclically if needed,” the HSBC group said. Links to developing countries are helping insulate some companies against U.S.
weakness. Swiss watch manufacturer Swatch Group AG and tire maker Nokian Renkaat of Finland are among the European
businesses that should benefit from trade with nations such as Russia and China where consumer demand is growing, according to
BlackRock Inc. portfolio manager Alister Hibbert. “There’s a lot of life in the global economy,” Hibbert, said at a Sept. 8 presentation
to reporters in London.
6. No impact to heg
Goldstein 11, Professor IR at American University [Joshua S. Goldstein, Professor emeritus of
international relations at American University, “Thing Again: War,” Sept/Oct 2011,
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war?print=yes&hidecomments
=yes&page=full]
Nor do shifts in the global balance of power doom us to a future of perpetual war. While some
political scientists argue that an increasingly multipolar world is an increasingly volatile one -- that peace is
best assured by the predominance of a single hegemonic power, namely the United States -- recent geopolitical history
suggests otherwise. Relative U.S. power and worldwide conflict have waned in tandem over the past
decade. The exceptions to the trend, Iraq and Afghanistan, have been lopsided wars waged by the
hegemon, not challenges by up-and-coming new powers. The best precedent for today's emerging world order
may be the 19th-century Concert of Europe, a collaboration of great powers that largely maintained the peace for a century until its
breakdown and the bloodbath of World War I.
7. Heg doesn’t solve war
Montiero 12 - Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University (Nuno, “Unrest Assured:
Why Unipolarity is Not Peaceful” International Security, Winter,
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00064)
In contrast, the question of unipolar peacefulness has received virtually no attention. Although the past decade has
witnessed a resurgence of security studies, with much scholarship on such conflict-generating issues as terrorism, preventive war,
military occupation, insurgency, and nuclear proliferation, no
one has systematically connected any of them to
unipolarity. This silence is unjustified. The first two decades of the unipolar era have been anything but peaceful. U.S. forces
have been deployed in four interstate wars: Kuwait in 1991, Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan from 2001 to the present, and
Iraq between 2003 and 2010. 22 In all, the United States has been at war for thirteen of the twenty-two years since the end of the
Cold War. 23 Put another way, the
first two decades of unipolarity, which make up less than 10 percent of U.S. history,
account for more than 25 percent of the nation’s total time at war. 24 And yet, the theoretical consensus
continues to be that unipolarity encourages peace. Why? To date, scholars do not have a theory of how unipolar systems operate.
25 The debate on whether, when, and how unipolarity will end (i.e., the debate on durability) has all but monopolized our attention.
8. Heg fails
Mastanduno 9 (Michael, Professor of Government at Dartmouth, World Politics 61, No. 1,
Ebsco)
During the cold war the United States dictated the terms of adjustment. It derived the necessary
leverage because it provided for the security of its economic partners and because there were
no viable alter natives to an economic order centered on the United States. After the cold war the outcome of
adjustment struggles is less certain because the United States is no longer in a position to dictate the terms. The United States,
notwithstanding its preponderant power, no longer enjoys the same type of security leverage it
once possessed, and the very success of the U.S.-centered world economy has afforded
America’s supporters a greater range of international and domestic economic options. The claim that
the United States is unipolar is a statement about its cumulative economic, military, and other capabilities.1 But preponderant capabilities across the
board do not guarantee effective influence in any given arena. U.S.
dominance in the international security arena no
longer translates into effective leverage in the international economic arena. And although the United
States remains a dominant international economic player in absolute terms, after the cold war it has found itself more vulnerable
and constrained than it was during the golden economic era after World War II. It faces rising
economic challengers with their own agendas and with greater discretion in international
economic policy than America’s cold war allies had enjoyed. The United States may continue to
act its own way, but it can no longer count on getting its own way.
9. Heg is wrong- there is no liberal order - this card assumes all their args
Etzioni 12
(Amitai Etzioni served as a senior advisor to the Carter White House; taught at Columbia University, Harvard, and The
University of California at Berkeley; and is a university professor and professor of international relations at The George Washington
University. “The World America Didn't Make,” 3-21-2012, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/world-america-didn%27t-make6668)
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Robert Kagan’s
book, The World America Made, is refocusing the debate on whether the United States is
declining as a global power—and speculation about whether other powers will step in to assume the responsibility for sustaining a
liberal, rule-based international order. Kagan is known as a brilliant conservative observer, and even President Obama is reported to be reading this
tour de force of U.S. foreign policy. Most
of the debate about the book is centered on the question of whether the
United States is indeed declining and if China is ready to buy into the liberal order. But more
attention should be dedicated to the question of whether there is such an order in the first
place. Much of the discussion simply assumes that there is a liberal order and that the United
States formed it and is nurturing it. Actually, this view reflects a rather romantic, selfcongratulatory perception of our foreign policy and global role. It is one more sign of what
might be called a Multiple Realism Deficiency Disorder (MRDD), which reflects a mixture of
idealism and hubris. The disorder makes us think that we know what is good for the world and
can remake it in our image. But a simple reality check shows that we live in a much darker
world—a world we have never been able to align with our designs. One of the major elements of
the liberal order is said to be the spread of democracy and human rights. Indeed, after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, it did seem—for a few years—as if all nations were rushing to embrace our kind of government. Recently, the Arab Spring seemed to
provide new evidence that this was truly where the world is heading. The reality is not as bright. China has become more authoritarian, when one
compares the last five years to the previous five. Russia’s regime is definitely sliding back. The record in Latin
America is rather mixed.
Most Arab states remain authoritarian. And for every Burma, an authoritarian regime giving way
to more open government, there is a Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Even the
democratic ideal itself is tarnished; the governments of Europe and the United States are seen
by many in the Third World as gridlocked while China is heralded as a new model for strong
economic growth, effective political management and stability. Free trade is another key
element of the liberal order. I leave it for another day to ask whether less managed trade (nobody ever had or came close to having free
trade) has all the virtues claimed for it by those who write economics textbooks. It suffices to note that in the world in which we live, China is
manipulating its currency, is still allowing many violations of intellectual property and imposing
numerous limits on those who seek to do business in China. The United States used public funds
to bail out the car industry and banks, subsidizes the exporting farm sector and provides tax
incentives to corporations that bring jobs home from overseas. All the other governments are
engaged in one form or another (actually, in multiple forms) of trade management. A realistic narrative
would ask under what conditions these trade limitations could be curtailed rather than
pretending treaties such as those Washington just formed with South Korea, Colombia and
Panama create “free-trade” zones. Even such a simple matter as free passage on the high seas,
which is a particular matter of pride to the United States, is not as simple as is often assumed.
Most seas are wide open—because few nations see any benefit or reason to close their shipping
lanes or confront other nations’ vessels. In March 2010, however, North Korea sank a South Korean ship, killing forty-six crew members. Later that
same year, North Korea fired on South Korea’s Yeonpyeong Island. In the wake of this attack, which hit both military and civilian targets and killed four
South Koreans, Admiral Michael Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs, counseled
moderation. This was wise counsel but
one that hardly bespoke of a global power, let alone a hegemony of the seas. Indeed, when
confronted with a bunch of barefooted youth—traveling in primitive skiffs and armed with a few guns and grenade
launchers—who terrorize the ships of many nations, kidnap scores upon scores of travelers and hold them for ransom for years, our navy has
been unable to stop the marauders. Our warships are said to be ready for attacks by swarms of speed boats belonging to Iran’s
Revolutionary Guards, as well as Iranian anti-ship missiles (which disabled a major Israeli ship during Israel’s last incursion into Lebanon), but this
bravado remains to be tested. Before
thinkers like Kagan can ask who the custodian for the global liberal
order is, who is challenging it and who may next be ready to shore it up, they must develop a much more realistic
perception of what the world is really like—and accept our limited ability to order it. Without
this realism, the United States will continue to squander the limited capital for change that it
does command.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
10. Trade doesn’t solve war. General openness increases the risk of war
because the bilateral costs to a conflict are low.
Martin et al ‘8 – Philippe, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Thierry, Centre for Economic Policy Research,
Mathias, University of Geneva and Paris School of Economics, “Make Trade Not War?” The Review of Economic
Studies, http://team.univ-paris1.fr/teamperso/mayer/MMT.pdf, RG)
This paper analyses theoretically and empirically the relationship between military conflicts and trade. We show that the
conventional wisdom that trade promotes peace is only partially true even in a model where
trade is economically beneficial, military conflicts reduce trade, and leaders are rational. When war can occur because
of the presence of asymmetric information, the probability of escalation is lower for countries that trade
more bilaterally because of the opportunity cost associated with the loss of trade
gains. However, countries more open to global trade have a higher probability of war because
multilateral trade openness decreases bilateral dependence to any given country and the cost
of a bilateral conflict. We test our predictions on a large data set of military conflicts on the 1950-2000 period. Using
different strategies to solve the endogeneity issues, including instrumental variables, we find robust evidence for the
contrasting effects of bilateral and multilateral trade openness. For proximate countries, we find that
trade has had a surprisingly large effect on their probability of military conflict.
11. They’re confusing causality – free trade doesn’t cause peace, peace allows
free trade
Layne ‘98 – Associate Prof. @ Naval Postgraduate School (Christopher, Summer, World Policy
Journal, p. 8-28, L/N, RG)
These arguments notwithstanding, international economic interdependence does not cause peace. In fact, it has very
serious adverse security consequences that its proponents either do not understand or will not acknowledge. Economic relations (whether domestic or
international) never take place in a vacuum; on the contrary, they occur within a politically defined
framework. International economic interdependence requires certain conditions in order to
flourish, including a maximum degree of political order and stability. Just as the market cannot function within a
state unless the state creates a stable "security" environment in which economic exchange can occur (by protecting property rights and enforcing contracts), the same is true in
Because there is no world government, it falls to the dominant state to create the
conditions under which economic interdependence can take hold (by providing security, rules of the game, and a
reserve currency, and by acting as the global economy's banker and lender of last resort). Without a dominant power to perform these
tasks, economic interdependence does not happen. Indeed, free trade and interdependence have occurred in the modern
international system only during the hegemonies of Victorian Britain and postwar America. International economic interdependence
generally occurs when states feel secure, when they do not have to worry that others will
transform their economic gains from trade into military advantages. Conversely, when states are concerned about
their security, they are less likely to engage in free trade. When security is at issue, states are always measuring
themselves in comparison with their actual, or potential, rivals. When states feel secure, they focus on the overall gains
international relations.
to global wealth that flow from trade. Under peaceful international conditions, the distribution of this increased wealth is not a matter of high politics: so long as all states are
When security is an issue, however, states become intensely
concerned about how the gains from trade are being distributed. When security concerns are paramount, the key
question no longer is whether everyone is gaining something but rather who is gaining the most. Because economic power is the
cornerstone of military strength, when security is an issue states want their economies to be
more vigorous and to grow faster than those of their rivals. Also, when war is regarded as a real
possibility, states deliberately attempt to reduce their dependence on imported products and
raw materials in order to minimize their vulnerability to economic coercion by others. This also
getting wealthier, trade is looked upon as a good thing.
impairs economic interdependence. The bottom line here is this: When security in the international system is plentiful, trade flourishes and, so long as they are getting richer
When security in the international system is
scarce, however, trade diminishes; states seek to maximize their power(economic and military) over their
rivals, and hence attempt to ensure they become richer than their rivals.
themselves, states are untroubled by the fact that others also are getting wealthier.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Trade F/L – Ext. #2
Extend Jervis 11 - economic decline doesn’t cause war
Decline doesn’t cause war
Barnett ‘ 9 (Thomas P.M Barnett, senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC, contributing editor/online columnist for
Esquire, 8/25/’9 – “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis,” Aprodex, Asset Protection Index,
http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx)
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of
scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great
Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year
and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever
on the international security landscape.¶ None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed
by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil
conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three
quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the
latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was
specifically
timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important
external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade
long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions.¶ Looking over the various databases, then, we see
a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist
movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v.
South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly
unrelated to global economic trends.¶ And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing
major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has
been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counterdrug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast).
Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing
the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything
beyond advising and training local forces.
More ev
Miller 00 (Morris, Economist, Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Administration – University of
Ottawa, Former Executive Director and Senior Economist – World Bank, “Poverty as a Cause of
Wars?”, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Winter, p. 273)
The question may be reformulated. Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that
exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some
dramatic event or sequence of such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable
denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the
political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and
setting in train the process leading to war. According
to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this
hypothesis. After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin
America and Asia in the years since the Second World War they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional
wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis – as
measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... (or, in democratic
states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence ... In the cases of dictatorships and semidemocracies, the ruling elites
responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another).
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Trade F/L – Ext. #9
Extend Etzioni 12 - heg is wrong - there is no liberal order
And, Kagan confuses causality - U.S. power didn’t create the liberal order and
isn’t key to support it
The Economist 12 [http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/worldorder, “The world order, the stakes of American Hegemony,” February 2nd 2012]
IN THE latest edition of the New Republic, Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at Brookings and noted
Kagan, serves up a ponderous rebuttal to the proposition that America is in decline. I don't disagree with
Mr Kagan that America remains, for the foreseeable future, securely hegemonic, which is the thesis he is most anxious to establish.
But I am sceptical of Mr Kagan's assumptions about why American unipolarity must be so jealously
protected, which he announces at the outset of his essay: The present world order—characterized by an unprecedented
number of democratic nations; a greater global prosperity, even with the current crisis, than the world has ever known; and a long peace among great
powers—reflects American principles and preferences, and was built and preserved by American power in all its political, economic, and military
dimensions. If American power declines, this world order will decline with it. It will be replaced by some other kind of order, reflecting the desires and
the qualities of other world powers. Or perhaps it will simply collapse, as the European world order collapsed in the first half of the twentieth century.
The belief, held by many, that even with diminished American power “the underlying foundations of the liberal international order will survive and
thrive,” as the political scientist G. John Ikenberry has argued, is a pleasant illusion. There
is much to quibble with here. It may be
that the current global dispensation to some extent "reflects American principles and preferences".
If it does, however, it's not because it "was built and preserved by American power", except in a
rather trivial sense. The American model of political economy has proved in many ways to be the
world's most successful. As the 20th century's main rivals to capitalist liberal democracy failed,
polities worldwide looked to the example of Western Europe and North America, and this led to a
glad flowering of democracy and prosperity. But America didn't cause the world's numerous socialist
and/or authoritarian experiments to fail. Those regimes faltered first and foremost because socialism
and authoritarianism tend not to work out in the long run. And America didn't compel aspiring firstworlders to try market economies and democratic governance. The nations of the world could see
for themselves what was working and, in their own ways, have mostly followed suit. If American
power does wither, it will be due to America's failure to maintain really first-rate institutions. The
ensuing world order would indeed become, as Mr Kagan has it, one "reflecting the desires and the
qualities of other world powers". But that's simply because the capitals of the world aren't full of
blithering dopes who wouldn't know what to do if Brookings senior fellows didn't tell them. Smart
countries will want to emulate those that remain or have become first-rate. And, as far as I can tell,
people who become accustomed to wealth and freedom don't have to be bullied and cajoled into
wanting to keep it. Because they have grown rich, they'll have the means to keep it. Which is why it's
absurd to think that if America loses its lustre, the peoples of the world will inevitably suffer under
the dark reign of Russian or Chinese bad guys. Other wealthy, liberal democracies can have huge
navies, too, if we'd let them. Mr Ikenberry's alleged "pleasant illusion" looks pleasantly solid to me.
Mr Kagan gives it his all arguing that the "rise of the rest" does not mean America's not still undisputed king of the hill. But Rosa
Brooks, a Georgetown law professor, is right that the skyward trajectory of the BRICs does mean America's relative influence has waned, and
that that's a happy development: [A]s Reagan recognized, a decline in relative American power is a good thing, not a bad thing — if we can turn rising
states into solid allies. Remember "Gulliver's Travels"? True, it wasn't much fun for Gulliver to be the little guy in the land of Brobdingnagian giants, but
it was even less fun to be a giant among the Lilliputians. Like Gulliver, America will prosper most if we can surround ourselves with friendly peer and
near-peer states. They give us larger markets and improve burden-sharing; none of the global problems that bedevil us can be solved by the United
States alone. The
global public goods Mr Kagan rightly prizes—peace, stability, unimpeded trade
routes—will be more, not less secure if the burden of their provision is more broadly
distributed. And America is more likely to remain worth emulating were it to redirect some
significant portion of the trillions spent maintaining its hegemony into more productive uses.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Solvency F/L
1. No solvency – plan’s insufficient – multiple other efforts are needed
Selee and Wilson 12 (Andrew, Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute at the Wilson
Center, Christopher, associate with the Mexico Institute, “A New Agenda with Mexico,” Wilson Center, November 2012,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf)
Moderate investments to update infrastructure and to fully staff the ports of entry are certainly
needed, as long lines and overworked staff promote neither efficiency nor security. But in a time
of tight federal budgets, asking for more resources cannot be the only answer. Strategic efforts
that do more with less, improving efficiency and reducing congestion, are also needed. Trusted traveler and shipper
programs (SENTRI, FAST, C-TPAT) allow vetted, low-risk individuals and shipments expedited passage across the border.
Improving these programs and significantly expanding enrollment could increase throughput with
minimal investments in infrastructure and staffing—all while strengthening security by giving
border officials more time to focus on unknown and potentially dangerous individuals and
shipments.56
2. The NADBank uses a minimalist approach, and doesn’t help the communities
that need it most
Leising No Date [Matt Leising “EL PASO: NADBANK,”
http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/border/elpasonadbank.html]
This, Hinojosa said, marked the beginning of the problems with the NADBank. "Frankly, from my point of view, as an advocate, that
type of a political approach in the US and Mexico could very easily lead to exactly what happened, which is a
relatively minimalist approach," an approach he says does not "address the policy issue." As such, Hinojosa
feels that NADBank is not serving communities like Anapra that truly need help getting clean, safe
water. "I think that those types of people [in Anapra] absolutely need NADBank support. These are the people that
could be most helped by NADBank - real working-class people along the border."
3. NADBank officials admit they have a very poor lending record – plan doesn’t
solve the interest rate situation
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal 1 [“NADBank admits poor lending record,” August 14, 2001,
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/081401/upd_075-5743.shtml]
Officials the North American Development Bank, a U.S.-Mexico development bank set up under the North
American Free Trade Agreement, admit they have failed to met their goal of funding key environmental
projects near the border. "We are the first to admit our lending record is very, very, poor. Yes, in a
sense we have failed miserably but that's because of the interest-rate situation. It has been that way
since we were set up," Jorge Garcs, deputy-managing director at the San Antonio-based NADBank, told the Brownsville Herald in
Tuesday's editions.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
Off-Case Debate
NSS Lab
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Topicality
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
T – Economic Engagement (Effects Violation)
A. Even if “engagement” doesn’t require contact, “economic engagement” does
- independent violation
Kahler 4 (Miles Kahler, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University
of California, San Diego, and Scott L. Kastner Department of Government and Politics University of
Maryland, “Strategic Uses of Economic Interdependence: Engagement Policies in South Korea, Singapore,
and Taiwan”, November, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/kastner/KahlerKastner.doc)
Economic engagement—a policy of deliberately expanding economic ties with an
adversary in order to change the behavior of the target state and effect an
improvement in bilateral political relations—is the subject of growing, but still limited,
interest in the international relations literature. The bulk of the work on economic statecraft
continues to focus on coercive policies such as economic sanctions. The emphasis on negative forms of
economic statecraft is not without justification: the use of economic sanctions is widespread and well-documented, and several
quantitative studies have shown that adversarial relations between countries tend to correspond to reduced, rather than enhanced,
levels of trade (Gowa 1994; Pollins 1989). At the same time, however, relatively little is known about how widespread strategies of
economic engagement actually are: scholars disagree on this point, in part because no database cataloging instances of positive
economic statecraft exists (Mastanduno 2003). Furthermore, beginning with the classic work of Hirschman (1945), most studies in
this regard have focused on policies adopted by great powers. But engagement policies adopted by South Korea and the other two
states examined in this study, Singapore and Taiwan, demonstrate that engagement is not a strategy limited to the domain of great
power politics; instead, it may be more widespread than previously recognized.
B. Violation - The affirmative is not deliberately expand economic ties, but
rather, fund a bank, which can be used to increase economic engagement.
C. Topicality is a voting issue:
Ground - the affirmative is not an on face increase in economic engagement;
thereby, allowing them to spike out of the best disads and cps, merely by
arguing that the plan wouldn’t be perceived immediately.
Unfair limits – allowing the affirmative to take multiple steps explodes the topic
by allowing any number of affs, which remove a barrier or establish a new
agency to carry out the plan.
Predictability – makes the affirmative unpredictable, because we can’t predict
which barriers they might remove, or what agencies they might create – creates
an unfair research burden and leads to shallow debates, destroying education.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
Counterplans
NSS Lab
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
CBP CP Shell
Text: The United States federal government should provide all necessary
funding for the expansion of the Customs and Border Patrol.
CBP solves – has multiple programs key to prevent terrorism and border threats
CBP 13 [Department of Homeland Security, “Protecting Our Borders – This is CBP,” 3-112013, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/mission/cbp.xml]
CBP assess all people and cargo entering the U.S. from abroad for terrorist risk. We are
able to better identify people who may pose a risk through initiatives such as: the
Advance Passenger Information System, United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indication Technology
(known as US-VISIT), and the Student and Exchange Visitor System. CBP regularly refuses
entry to people who may pose a threat to U.S. security.¶ In addition, CBP uses advance
information from the Automated Targeting System, Automated Export System, and the
Trade Act of 2002 Advance Electronic Information Regulations to identify cargo that may
pose a threat. CBP’s Office of Intelligence and Operations Coordination’s National Targeting Centers enhance these initiatives
by synthesizing information to provide tactical targeting. Using risk management techniques, the centers
identify suspicious individuals or containers before arrival.¶ The Automated Commercial
Environment has made electronic risk management far more effective. The ACE Secure
Data Portal provides a single, centralized on-line access point to connect CBP and the
trade community. CBP's modernization efforts enhance border security while optimizing the ever-increasing flow of
legitimate trade. ( ACE: Modernization Information Systems )¶ CBP also screens high-risk imported food
shipments in order to prevent bio-terrorism/agro-terrorism. For the first time, U.S. Food and
Drug Administration and CBP personnel are working side by side at the NTC to protect
the U.S. food supply by taking action, implementing provisions of the Bioterrorism Act of
2002. CBP and FDA are able to react quickly to threats of bio-terrorist attacks on the U.S.
food supply or to other food related emergencies.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
CBP CP – Solvency – Agro/Bioterrorism
CBP Solves – prevents agro- and bioterrorism
CBP 13 [Department of Homeland Security, “Protecting Our Borders – This is CBP,” 3-112013, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/mission/cbp.xml]
To secure this vast terrain, CBP’s U.S. Border Patrol agents, Air and Marine agents, and
CBP officers and agriculture specialists, together with the nation’s largest law
enforcement canine program, stand guard along America’s front line. ( We are CBP! )¶ CBP
officers protect America’s borders at official ports of entry, while Border Patrol agents
prevent illegal entry into the United States of people and contraband between the ports of
entry.¶ CBP’s Office of Air and Marine, which manages the largest law enforcement air force in the world, patrols the nation’s land
and sea borders to stop terrorists and drug smugglers before they enter the United States.¶ CBP agriculture specialists
prevent the entry of harmful plant pests and exotic foreign animal diseases and confront
emerging threats in agro- and bioterrorism.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
CBP CP – Solvency - Cooperation
CBP Solves coop – has joint initiatives with bordering countries
CBP 13 [Department of Homeland Security, “Protecting Our Borders – This is CBP,” 3-112013, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/mission/cbp.xml]
CBP has implemented joint initiatives with our bordering countries, Canada and Mexico: The
Smart Border Declaration and associated 30-Point Action Plan with Canada and The
Smart Border Accord with Mexico. The Secure Electronic Network for Travelers' Rapid Inspection (SENTRI)
allows pre-screened, low-risk travelers from Mexico to be processed in an expeditious
manner through dedicated lanes. Similarly, on our northern border with Canada, we are
engaging in NEXUS to identify and facilitate low-risk travelers. Along both borders, CBP has
implemented the Free and Secure Trade program. The FAST program utilizes transponder
technology and pre-arrival shipment information to process participating trucks as they
arrive at the border, expediting trade while better securing our borders.
CBP solves – searches inbound and outbound shipments and works with other
agencies
CBP 13 [Department of Homeland Security, “Protecting Our Borders – This is CBP,” 3-112013, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/mission/cbp.xml]
CBP has the authority to search outbound, as well as in-bound shipments, and uses
targeting to carry out its mission in this area. Targeting of outbound shipments and people is a multidimensional effort that is enhanced by inter-agency cooperation.¶ CBP in conjunction with the Department of State and the
Bureau of the Census has put in place regulations that require submission of electronic export
information on U.S. Munitions List and for technology for the Commerce Control List.
This information flows via the Automated Export System. CBP is also working with the
Departments of State and Defense to improve procedures on exported shipments of
foreign military sales commodities. CBP also works with Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to seize
outbound illicit cash/monetary instruments and illegal exports of firearms/ammunition.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
CBP CP – Solvency – P3s
CBP solves via P3s
CBP 13 [Department of Homeland Security, “Protecting Our Borders – This is CBP,” 3-112013, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/mission/cbp.xml]
Processing the sheer volume of trade entering the U.S. each year requires help from the private sector. The Customs-Trade
Partnership Against Terrorism is a joint government-business initiative designed to strengthen overall supply chain and border
security while facilitating legitimate, compliant trade. To
date, more than 9,800 companies are partnering
with CBP. C-TPAT is the largest, most successful government-private sector partnership to arise out of 9/11. ( C-TPAT: CustomsTrade Partnership Against Terrorism )¶ In addition CBP is piloting the Advanced Trade Data Initiative. This
program works with the trade community to obtain information on U.S. bound goods at
the earliest possible point in the supply chain. Partnering with carriers, importers,
shippers and terminal operators, we are gathering supply chain data and feeding it into
our systems to validate container shipments during the supply process. This information
increases CBP’s existing ability to zero in on suspect movements and perform any
necessary security inspections at the earliest point possible in the supply chain.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Environmental Coop CP Shell
Text: The United States federal government should establish a comprehensive natural
resource management and conservation program with the federal government of
Mexico.
Environmental coop key to solve
Selee and Wilson 12 (Andrew, Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute at the Wilson
Center, Christopher, associate with the Mexico Institute, “A New Agenda with Mexico,” Wilson Center, November 2012,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf)
The glaring weakness in the U.S.-Mexico environmental cooperation framework has
been the absence of a comprehensive natural resource management The glaring
weakness in the U.S.-Mexico environmental cooperation framework has been the
absence of a comprehensive natural resource management and conservation program .
A Comprehensive Analysis of the U.S.-Mexico Border 130 and conservation program. Since the La Paz Agreement, issues related to
urban growth and cross-border pollution were given a unified formal outlet, while matters of conservation and natural resource
management continue to be addressed through agency-to-agency dialogue. While there is no inherent reason to consider the
interagency dialogue as deficient, having a bilateral program as a framework does provide a consensus mechanism for critical
stakeholders to assess the state of the border on a given problem, and agree on the goals and the overall plan to accomplish
objectives. 65
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Mexico CP Shell
Text: The federal government of Mexico should provide all necessary funding
for the expansion of the North American Development Bank.
Mexico can invest in infrastructure
Bain 7/15 (Ben, Staff Writer, Bloomberg News, “Mexican Peso Rallies on
Infrastructure Plan, Eased Fed Concern”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-15/mexican-peso-rallies-oninfrastructure-plan-eased-fed-concern.html/BB)
Mexico’s peso climbed to a one-month high as a U.S. retail slowdown eased concern
that the Federal Reserve will curtail stimulus and President Enrique Pena Nieto
announced a $315 billion infrastructure plan. The currency appreciated 1.2 percent to 12.6672 per U.S.
dollar at 4 p.m. in Mexico City, the strongest closing level since June 13. The peso extended its advance this year to 1.5 percent, the
only gain among 16 major dollar counterparts tracked by Bloomberg. Yields on benchmark peso bonds due in 2024 rose one basis
point, or 0.01 percentage point, to 5.77 percent. “The
more weak data that comes out, the market is
going to speculate that the stimulus will last a little longer ,” Ramon Cordova, a trader at Banco Base
SA in San Pedro Garza Garcia, Mexico, said in a telephone interview. “It helps high-yielding currencies like the peso.” The peso has
gained 1.8 percent since July 10, when Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the U.S. needs “highly accommodative monetary policy
for the foreseeable future.” Mexico’s currency tumbled 2.6 percent on June 19, when Bernanke said the U.S. central bank may begin
to slow its $85 billion in monthly bond purchases this year and end them in 2014 if economic growth meets policy makers’ goals.
The peso also advanced today as Pena Nieto said in Mexico City that the infrastructure
plan includes investment by the government and private companies in energy and
about $100 billion in communications and transportation projects such as new ports
and rail lines.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Mexico CP – Solvency Ext.
Mexico is able to solve infrastructure
McCormick 6/18 (Brian, Staff Writer, ICA, “Mexico's Massive Investment Will Send This
Beaten-Down Stock Back To The Stars” http://seekingalpha.com/article/1507982-ica-mexico-smassive-investment-will-send-this-beaten-down-stock-back-to-thestars?source=google_news/BB)
For those that follow emerging markets, it's no secret that Mexico is beginning to
move into premier position as one of the world's greatest potential investments. With
new political leadership, developing regulatory policy & guidance and an increasingly competitive manufacturing base as a result of
China's labor issues, Mexico is poised for expansive growth and prosperity. These factors, along
with the country's naturally occurring competitive advantages such as its geographical proximity to the United States and its
abundant metals and fossil fuel reserves have
convinced many experts that Mexico will eventually
rise to operate as the 5th largest economy in the world, from its current spot at number 14.
Of course given its potential, the next logical question becomes how do you invest in and profit from Mexico's continued
development and increasing success? Mexican construction leader Empresas ICA (ICA) is a $1 billion small-cap company that
operates in the areas of engineering, procurement, and construction and is the largest provider of construction services in the
country. The holding company provides services to public and private-sector clients through its main lines of business: construction
of infrastructure facilities, industrial and civil construction, and housing development. ICA has expertise in the construction,
maintenance and operation of highways, rail, ports, airports, bridges, tunnels, refineries and hospitals, as well as the management
and operation of water supply and solid waste disposal systems. The firm, which began operations in 1947, currently has operations
in Mexico and selected Latin American countries. Mexico's Infrastructure Investment President
Peña Nieto will
unveil Mexico's New Infrastructure Program in mid-2013 which will be the country's greatest investment in
25 years in the national infrastructure. Under the program, Mexico is taking on close to 500 projects that
potentially represent $415 billion over the next six years. The largest investment will
be in oil and gas production, as estimates there are over $76 billion. The plan will contain projects
that will detail the building of new and improving current roads, rails, bridges, ports,
airports, water infrastructure, sanitation and urban transport - all businesses of ICA. More specific
targets include the construction and improvement of close to 12,000 miles of roads, the extension of the rail system by nearly 1,000
miles, the construction of at least 3 new airports and the expansion of ports on both coasts. Thus far, highways have been the most
successful aspect of recent infrastructure development in terms of volume although there has been significant focus on ports,
airports, public transportation and water. Rail is also expected to move into the spotlight as it has been somewhat overlooked
historically. Mexico and its President expect that the infrastructure investment program will highlight the country's potential as a
global business hub, tourist destination and a major center for economic development. Mexico's goal for 2030 is to be ranked at the
top 20 percent of the World Economic Forum's Infrastructure Competitiveness Index.
Mexico solving infrastructure now
SRE 12 (“Infrastructure will be a key component of the economic policy” 12/7/12
http://embamex.sre.gob.mx/malasia/index.php/mexico-today/269infrastructure-will-be-a-key-component-of-the-economic-policy)
During his Inauguration Message, President Peña
Nieto informed that the National Program of
Infrastructure and Transport 2012-2018 will decisively promote the development of highway,
rail and port infrastructure in order to close the gap between various regions of the country
and to ensure economic growth and competition. The budget allocation to boost infrastructure was included in
the bill that the Finance Ministry introduced to the lower house of Congress on December 7. Projects include expansion of Guaymas
port in Sonora State, as the current port is saturated and requires additional space to meet growing demand, particularly in the
exportation of bulk minerals, the Mexico-Querétaro high-speed rail link, the Yucatán-Quintana Roo trans-peninsular train and the
Mexico City-Toluca train.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Privates CP Shell
Text: The United States federal government should initiate privatization of its USMexico border infrastructure by selling all relevant publicly owned border
infrastructure to private sector entities.
Privates solve – federal funds have dried up
Reilly 13 (Sean, Federal Times, “Private Investors Sought for Border Infrastructure” 2013,
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130306/DEPARTMENTS03/303060009/Private-investors-soughtborder-infrastructure)
Cross-border trade is booming, but federal building money to expand and enhance
border crossings has dried up. In response, a spate of proposals aim to leverage private
funding to make up the difference, particularly along the U.S.-Mexico border. The
Department of Homeland Security has created a task force to look at ways to encourage
private investment in roads and other infrastructure at border crossings. In a recently proposed
overhaul of the immigration system, the Obama administration also suggested allowing DHS to
accept donations from citizens, businesses, and state and local governments to enhance
border crossings, officially known as land ports of entry, according to a copy of the package obtained by USA Today, a sister
paper of Federal Times.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Privates CP – Solvency Ext.
Extend Reily 13 - Privates solve – they are key to enpand and enhance border
crossings, invest in roads, and fund other infrastructure - federal funds have dried up
And, private sector investment in border infrastructure solves best
McNeill 9 (Jenna, Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation, “15 Steps to Border
Security: Reducing America's Southern Exposure”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/03/15-steps-to-better-bordersecurity-reducing-americas-southern-exposure )
Encourage private-sector investment in border infrastructure. The best means by which to
tackle border infrastructure problems is through investment by the private sector. Not only
would this save government resources, it would allow the private sector to use its knowledge
and creativity to design border infrastructure that is commerce-friendly without jeopardizing
security or sovereignty.[72] The government can encourage the private sector to take these steps in a number of ways, for
1.
example, by expanding the protections of the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act which includes
liability protection for private-sector entities investing in and marketing new technologies that increase Americans' safety.[73]
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
States CP Shell
Text: The fifty states and all relevant territories should provide all necessary
funding for the construction of infrastructure across the US-Mexico border.
States key to solve – can’t wait for the federal government – AZ and TX prove
Uribe 12 (Monica, Reporter for Fronteras, “NAFTA's promise slowed by lack of border infrastructure,”
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/naftas-promise-slowed-lack-border-infrastructure)
There has been some progress. There’s a new commercial port of entry in Arizona and
another under construction in west Texas. Other ports have added additional lanes and
trusted traveler programs have helped speed up inspection times. But it’s not enough. In the past
two years binational trade has grown by a record 23 percent. Without the infrastructure to support that amount of trade both
countries lose out. “It cuts into the competitiveness of manufacturing in North America," Wilson says. "It means that we have less
jobs, less trade, less exports and those are things that are really important right now to our economy.” In an effort to speed things
along, some binational business leaders have begun to invest in infrastructure themselves. "The
truth of the matter is
we cannot afford to wait for the federal government to allocate federal dollars for these
important projects,” says Ruben Barrales, president of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. One example
of such a project is a privately funded non-commercial border crossing outside San
Diego that's currently under construction. Once completed it will link travelers directly to the Tijuana airport. It’s
success may help determine the future of other privately funded commercial projects currently in the works.
States solve – more efficient than the federal government, and their budgets
can afford it
Johnson 12 (Fawn, Communications Director for Heritage Action for America, Found in
Paying For It, Transportations Experts Blog, Fawn Johnson, April 4th
http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/paying-for-it.php#2190872)
When it comes to the problem of how to pay for our nation’s transportation needs, the
temptation in Washington is to view Washington as the solution. After tens of billions in Highway
Trust Fund bailouts and nine short-term extensions, it is clear Washington does not hold the answer. The real answer is
outside the beltway. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell recently scoffed at the
idea of looking beyond Washington for transportation funding solutions, saying
proponents of such a move “haven’t looked at any of the state budgets recently.” But
the Governor misses the point. It is not that states are awash in cash (the federal
government isn’t either), but rather that states are much more efficient. Last year, Indiana
Governor Mitch Daniels explained his state “can build in 1/2 the time at 2/3 the cost when we use our own money only and are free
from the federal rulebook.” Literally just outside the Washington Beltway, a private company is adding four high-occupancy toll lanes
for half the cost the government projected, and the lanes are better designed, too. Instead
of looking for an
innovative solution, too many in Congress prefer to debate various funding mechanisms
for months on end knowing they will settle for a gimmick that ensures insolvency. There
is a better way; lawmakers just need to know where to look.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
States CP – Solvency Ext.
States solve best – federal infrastructure spending is ineffective and has a
negative effect on cities and local communities
Note that the level of federal infrastructure spending¶ tells us nothing about the quality
of the spending. Large¶ federal spending on urban redevelopment schemes in the¶ mid20th century, for example, often had very negative¶ effects on cities and local communities.
Indeed, federally¶ funded high-rise public housing projects were a disaster.¶ Similarly, federal spending on dams and
other water¶ infrastructure—which peaked in the mid-20thcentury—¶ was often misallocated to projects that
had low economic¶ returns and damaging environmental effects.¶ Thus, believing that
simply jacking up the level of¶ federal infrastructure spending will boost growth is¶
wishful thinking. Economic growth won’t be spurred if¶ ending goes toward low-value
projects, which has often¶ been the case with federal efforts. And that is not¶ surprising
given that federal decisions are far removed¶ from local demands and market price
signals.¶ Aside from defense, much of federal infrastructure¶ spending is state, local, and
private in nature. In 2012¶ federal non defense infrastructure investment totaled $52¶ billion in direct spending and $96
billion in state grants.7¶ The direct spending portion included $20 billion for water¶ and power projects, which should be privatized
or¶ transferred to the states. The state grant portion included¶ $42.0 billion for highways, $13.8 billion for urban transit,¶ $11.5
billion for community development, $6.3 billion for¶ housing, and $3.8 billion for airports. Again, these are all¶ properly state, local,
and private activities. Airports, for¶ example, should be privatized, as they have been in many¶ other countries. There
are few,
if any, advantages of¶ funding these activities at the federal level, but there are¶ many
disadvantages.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
States/Municipalities CP Shell
Text: The fifty states and all relevant territories and municipalities should
implement a regional water management strategy as per our Selee and Wilson
12 evidence.
States and municipalities key to water management and conservation strategy
Selee and Wilson 12 (Andrew, Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute at the Wilson
Center, Christopher, associate with the Mexico Institute, “A New Agenda with Mexico,” Wilson Center, November 2012,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf)
Water conservation must be implemented as part of a regional water management strategy to
reduce dependency and the energy needed to import water from outside natural water basins
and to provide for environmental flows for ecosystem enhancement. States and municipalities
must engage in fulfilling the region’s enormous potential for generating renewable energy, its
“natural mandate” given its geographical, socioeconomic and geopolitical conditions, and live up
to its potential for competitive and sustainable development.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
World Bank CP Shell
Text: All relevant countries should make a request, and send that request to the
president of the World Bank, to establish a fund to fund large infrastructure
projects across the US-Mexico border.
World Bank solves better – our ev is comparative
PASTOR ‘7 [Robert - professor of international relations and director of the Center for North American Studies and the Center
for Democracy and Election Management and was Vice President of International Affairs at AU - redalyc.org – “The Solution to North
America’s
Triple Problem: The Case for A North American Investment Fund” - http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1937/193715174009.pdf - KB
Some have proposed using the North American Development Bank (NAD
Bank), but that institution’s mission is to invest in
not have the capability for the large
infrastructure projects needed to close the development gap Rather than provide funds and personnel
to give the bank such a capability, it would make more sense to use. an existing institution
with proven capability. To establish such a fund, the leaders of the three countries would
need to make such a request of the president of the World Bank.
environmental and small infrastructure projects near the border, and it does
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
Oil DA Links
NSS Lab
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Oil DA Link
Plan increases oil trade with Mexico
Murtaugh & Caroom 13 (Dan & Elliot – Staff Writers – Bloomberg – “U.S. May Swap Light
Oil for Mexican Crude, Sieminski Says” - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01/u-smay-swap-light-oil-for-heavy-mexican-crude-sieminski-says.html - KB)
The U.S. might consider exporting light, sweet crude to Mexico in a swap for heavy crude, Adam
Sieminski, administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, said today at a conference in Houston. Mexico produces
mostly heavy crude while its refineries are set up to run light, sweet oil, Sieminski said. Many
U.S. Gulf Coast refiners
are configured to run heavy crude while the U.S. is boosting production of light, sweet oil. “Some things the executive
branch can do, other things would require legislative action,” Sieminski said in an later interview. “The president has some flexibility,
the Commerce Department has some flexibility. But it’s a sensitive issue, and Congress is obviously going to have an opinion.”
Light, sweet crude from the Gulf Coast is already being exported to Canada, Sieminski said at the Platts
North American Crude Marketing Conference. Swapping grades with Mexico “certainly makes sense, given
the amount of light sweet crude oil being produced in the United States,” Stephen Schork, the
president of Schork Group Inc. in Villanova, Pennsylvania, said by phone. “We have too much of it. We need more
of the heavier, sour Mexican crudes to blend to get to that optimal medium-sour blend U.S. Gulf Coast refiners are geared
for.” Federal law requires companies to obtain licenses from the Commerce Department to export crude oil. The department’s
policy is “to approve applications for exports of crude oil to Canada for consumption or use therein,” according to Commerce’s
Export Administration Regulations. Limited amounts of crude oil have been exported to Mexico and Costa
Rica, according to the EIA’s website. In 1996, 267,000 barrels of crude were sent to Mexico in August and September, EIA data show.
Crude was exported as late as May 2012, when 5,000 barrels went to Mexico. The total shipped to Mexico is 384,000 barrels.
Currently, most of the crude exported goes from the Midwest to Canada, according to the EIA’s website. Other exports to Canada
have been from New York, and before 2007, export licenses were granted to send Alaskan North Slope crude to countries in Asia
including South Korea.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
Politics Links
NSS Lab
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Politics Link – Plan Popular
Plan popular – policymakers support NADBank expansion
Clare Ribando Seelke 13 (Clare Ribando Seelke, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, “Mexico
and the 112th Congress, January 29, 2013, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf)
Several NAFTA institutions mandated by the agreements have been functioning since 1994. The ¶ tripartite Commission on
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was established in Montreal, ¶ Canada; and the Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC) was
established in Dallas, TX. In ¶ addition, the bilateral Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), located in Ciudad ¶ Juárez,
Mexico, and the North American Development Bank (NADBank), headquartered in San ¶ Antonio, TX, were created to promote and
finance environment projects along the U.S.-Mexico ¶ border. The NAFTA
institutions have operated to encourage
cooperation on trade, environmental and labor issues, and to consider nongovernmental
petitions under the labor and environmental ¶ side agreements. Following up on a March 2002 agreement by
Presidents Bush and Fox in ¶ Monterrey, Mexico, to broaden the mandate of the NADBank, Congress agreed in March
2004 to ¶ permit the NADBank to make grants and nonmarket rate loans for environmental
infrastructure ¶ along the border. In the fall of 2011, the NADBank’s mandate was broadened to
include projects ¶ aimed at developing clean energy. Some U.S. and Mexican policymakers have
supported ¶ broadening the functions of NADBank further to include other types of
infrastructure ¶ development; this would likely require approval by both Congresses
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Politics Link – Plan Popular – Bipart
NADBank has bipart support
The Brownsville Herald 11(Brownsville Daily Newspaper at The Brownsville Herald, “Bill
would give boost to NAD Bank for border development,” June 18, 2011,
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/valley /article_99fbbf75-cdb6-58f5-b20ad68ee9795314.html)
U.S. Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, D-Mercedes, whose district includes a portion of Cameron County, announced that he
introduced bipartisan legislation with 19 original co-sponsors to enhance the North Ameri-can
Development Bank (NADBank) and increase economic devel-opment in the U.S.–Mexico border areas.¶
HR 2216, the “NADBank Enhancement Act of 2011,” allows NAD-Bank to work on infrastructure projects that
in turn will increase economic development in the border areas while complying with existing
environmental laws and regulations.¶ “We must continue our efforts to improve economic development and safety in
the border areas of both the United States and Mexico,” Hinojosa said. “My legislation, co-sponsored by 19 of my
colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives, both Republicans and Demo-crats, will allow
NADBank to work on infrastructure projects that adhere to environmental law while
increasing economic develop-ment in the border areas. We should continue to build on our
record of success, bringing jobs and infrastructure improvements to border communities in
Mexico and the United States. My legislation will do just that.Ӧ
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Politics Link – Plan Unpopular – Infrastructure Spending Drains
Pol Cap
Infrastructure spending drains capital - escalates fights with GOP
Tomasky ’11 (Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky is also editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas
– Newsweek – September 19, 2011 – lexis)
Finally, Barack Obama found the passion. "Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic
superpower," he thundered in his jobs speech on the evening of Sept. 8. "And now we're going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and
faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America?" Obama's urgency was rightly
about jobs first and foremost. But he wasn't talking only about jobs when he mentioned investing in America--he was talking about our
competitiveness, and our edge in the world. And it's a point he must keep pressing. In a quickly reordering global world, infrastructure and
are key measures of a society's seriousness about its competitive drive. And we're just
not serious. The most recent infrastructure report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers gives the United States a D overall, including
innovation
bleak marks in 15 categories ranging from roads (D-minus) to schools and transit (both D's) to bridges (C). The society calls for $2.2 trillion in
infrastructure investments over the next five years. On the innovation front, the country that's home to Google and the iPhone still ranks fourth
worldwide in overall innovation, according to the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank on such questions,
which conducts a biannual ranking. But we might not be there for long. In terms of keeping pace with other nations' innovation investments--"progress
over the last decade," as ITIF labels it--we rank 43rd out of 44 countries. What's the problem? It isn't know-how; this is still America. It isn't identifying
the needs; they've been identified to death. Nor is it even really money. There are billions sitting around in pension funds, equity funds, sovereign
wealth funds, just waiting to be spent. The problem--of course--is politics. The
idea that the two parties could get
together and develop bold bipartisan plans for massive investments in our freight-rail system--on which the
pro-business multiplier effects would be obvious--or in expanding and speeding up broadband (it's eight times faster in South Korea than here, by the
way)
is a joke . Says New York University's Michael Likosky: "We're the only country in the world that is imposing austerity on itself. No one is
asking us to do it." There are some historical reasons why. Sherle Schwenninger, an infrastructure expert at the New America Foundation, a leading
Washington think tank, says that a kind of anti-bigness
mindset developed in the 1990s, that era in which the besotting buzzwords
were "Silicon Valley" and "West Coast venture capital." Wall Street began moving away from grand projects . "In that
'90s paradigm, the New Economy-Silicon Valley approach to things eschewed the public and private sectors' working together to do big things,"
Schwenninger says. "That model worked for software, social media, and some biotech. But the needs are different today." That's true, but so is the
simple point that the
Republican Party in Washington will oppose virtually all public investment. The
party believes in something like Friedrich von Hayek's "spontaneous order"--that is, get government off people's backs and they (and the
markets they create) will spontaneously address any and all problems. But looking around America today, can anyone seriously
conclude that this is working?
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Politics Link – Plan Unpopular – Costs Pol Cap
NADBank would cost a lot of political capital – empirics prove
Leising ‘7 [Matt - reporter at Bloomberg News - http://journalism.berkeley.edu/ - “EL PASO: NADBANK” http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/border/elpasonadbank.html - KB]
That bank is the North American Development Bank (NADBank). Along with its sister institution, the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC), headquartered in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, NADBank was
created under intense political pressure and
maneuvering in 1993 when the Clinton Administration was pushing through its plan for
NAFTA. To muster enough votes to pass the treaty, which was originally negotiated under the Bush Administration,
President Clinton had to not only convince Republicans to side with a president they clearly did not
trust, but also had to persuade the historically pro-labor and environmenally conscious
Democrats in Congress that the treaty wouldn't drain American manufacturing jobs and ruin
the environment in the process . In the end, Clinton succeeded, even surpassing the number of votes needed by 34, when NAFTA - along
with an environmental and labor side agreement - was passed on November 17, 1993 . To date, NADBank has loaned only $11.2
million , or not even three percent of its total, to finance water, wastewater and municipal solid waste projects along the
border. While the bank is considered by many of its creators and critics alike as a groundbreaking and important institution because of its joint
US/Mexican structure, its focus on sustainable development and its dedication to a 2,000-mile-long international border,
there are many
problems - chief among them the way its interest rates are structured - that have rendered it
functionally incapable of loaning money to help communities like Anapra. Despite its problems, bank
officials say that NADBank is doing a good job in the face of huge economic and cultural obstacles along the border. Recent actions by the bank's board
of directors to revise how some of its interest rates are managed and to expand into funding other environmental needs besides water, waste water
and solid waste have many people along the border hopeful that more loans will be allocated. Yet with
mounting problems and a
population that is expected to double within 25 years, hope might not be enough for those
currently without water and sewage. At the heart of the fight to put environmental teeth into a controversial trade agreement
was a former Congressman from California named Esteban Torres. Torres, who represented the 34th Congressional district in Los Angeles, was a
member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in 1993 when President Clinton went on a massive bi-partisan campaign to secure votes for NAFTA .
Torres, who came out of the labor movement as an international representative for the United Auto Workers, says he was "vociferously opposed to
NAFTA" based on concerns that the trade agreement would send thousands of American manufacturing jobs to Mexico's low-wage market. Yet at the
same time, Torres said, Latino politicians began to see NAFTA as a way to address the economic disparity between the US and Mexico. They particularly
wanted to help the border region, which had suffered through decades of environmental, social and economic neglect. When
Clinton came
calling for votes, Torres realized he was in a position to get official backing behind an idea that
had been circulating for five years: a development bank that would be dedicated to erasing the economic inequality between the
two nations. "The only way I was able to push that through was to get the Clinton Administration
to agree that they would take this North American Development Bank concept as a part of the
negotiation," Torres said. Clinton agreed to the idea, and incorporated NADBank into the environmental side-agreement to NAFTA.
"They saw it as a trade-off for my vote," Torres recalled. In a political portent of things to
come, the commitment of $225 million of US taxpayer money for a single Congressman's vote
on NAFTA drew a lot of criticism. In what the Washington Post called the Clinton
Administration's "orgy of deal-making" surrounding the not-very-subtle vote buying to pass
the treaty, Torres' NADBank deal was singled out in editorials and news items across the
country . Soon, cries of "nada bank" would surface as the bank got to a slow start and
disappointed many in the region that saw the institution as a panacea - or simply as a way to bring potable water and infrastructure
to places in need . The original idea for NADBank was to have it cover the entire North American continent and fund broad economic programs to help
equal the income gap between Mexican workers and their American and Canadian counterparts. But during the NAFTA negotiations, NADBank and
BECC were scaled down to deal solely with the border region, funding only environmental projects involving water, waste water or solid waste
management . The bank was financed jointly by the US and Mexico, with up to $450 million promised and another $2.55 billion available if and when
the $450 million was committed to projects . In a two-tiered structure, BECC serves to certify projects seeking NADBank assistance - it is the screening
room and the front door through which any project wanting to deal with NADBank must come. BECC provides technical assistance and design
implementation to poor communities to ensure that projects are environmentally sustainable and financially viable. As well, any community seeking
BECC approval must be able to absorb the cost of maintenance and operation of its project . Yet
the vagaries of the institutional
process were well beyond the thinking of the Clinton Administration in 1993, which was
interested in using BECC and NADBank to get the crucial support of Latino politicians and
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
environmentalists in order to pass NAFTA. This political move, many critics say, shows that the
administration was never serious about helping the border and also doomed the bank's
effectiveness from the start. "[President Clinton] really didn't care about Mexico," said Raul Hinojosa, a
Clinton advisor on NAFTA during the 1992 presidential campaign and the first person to develop and propose the idea of a North American
Development Bank in 1988. Hinojosa says that while Clinton understood the policy behind NAFTA and its environmental and labor side agreements,
and supported it, to get it past both Democrats and Republicans he had to present a very stripped down version of the environmental parts of the trade
bill.
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
Spending DA Links
NSS Lab
US-Mexico Border Infrastructure Neg
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Spending DA Link – Environmental Infrastructure
NADBank environmental infrastructure cost billions
Ganster 2 [Paul, Director of the Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias, United States-Mexico
Border environment, page 160,
http://books.google.com/books?id=B_YQMt1OFHQC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=
%22NADB%22+(AROUND)25+unpopular&source=bl&ots=yxnUA_UQjS&sig=NzpkVDkm_r3gzFETmSxl45Y6KQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8f3mUaBhq6DIAfrcgYgL&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=unpopular&f=fals
e/MK]
Rapid population growth and industrialization has severely impacted water supply, wastewater, and municipal solid waste
environmental infrastructure improvements totaled $1.7 billion
by 1999. This figure could more than double by 2009. Several state, national, and international institutions
have addressed environmental infrastructure needs, such as the EPA, the International Boundary
and Water Commission (IBWC), Housing and Urban development bank (HUD), the World Bank,
the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and so forth. NAFTA agreements have produced BECC and NADB.
Both the United States and Mexico each pledged $1.5 billion (totaling $3billion) and of this, $450
million is paid in capital (cash contribution), while the rest is callable capital. An additional $1.1
billion is needed for border environmental infrastructure construction and maintenance for the
1999-2003 period. Approximately the same amount is projected for the 2004-2009 period. (It is easier to
project for the short term [1999-2003] than for the long term [2004-2009].) Even without migration-an unlikely scenario – the
population along the border will increase by 50% over the next 20 years (five million more
people). Current immigration patterns – a more likely scenario – will cause a 100% population increase (12 million
more people). Per capita income in U.S. border countries in 1995 was 70.2% (without San Diego County it was 61.9%). Six of
the poorest U.S. counties are along the U.S.-Mexican border. NADB has required communities to increase user fees and user
infrastructure. The BECC estimates that
fee collection efficiently, a policy that is unpoar in the short term, yet essential to long-term viability, contingency, and operation
and maintenance funding. In August 1993, an analysis by Carlos Mercer and other (1993) described the $6.5 billion need for water,
sewer, and municipal solid waste ($4.3 billion for wastewater collection, $1 billion for water, $1.2 billion for waste collection). The
1993 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) estimated $7.6 billion for border environmental infrastructure needs. Estimates vary,
but billions of dollars are needed. By April 1999, NADB funding commitments for 21 projects totaled $200 million (34% of project
costs come directly from NADB; the rest is funded through other sources, usually leveraged by NADB). Sixty-three percent of this
total goes to Mexico and 37% to the United States, which usually has access to other funding sources, such as tax exempt municipal
bonds.