T
1. 1. Interpretation- DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE IS SURVEILLANCE OF US PERSONS
Small 8 MATTHEW L. SMALL. United States Air Force Academy 2008 Center for the Study of the
Presidency and Congress, Presidential Fellows Program paper "His Eyes are Watching You: Domestic
Surveillance, Civil Liberties and Executive Power during Times of National Crisis"
http://cspc.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/documents/Fellows2008/Small.pdf
Before one can make any sort of assessment of domestic surveillance policies, it is first necessary to
narrow the scope of the term “domestic surveillance.” Domestic surveillance is a subset of
intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this context, is “information that
meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been collected, processed and
narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence, domestic surveillance is a means to
an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence community best understands domestic
surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning United States persons (Executive
Order 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains an overly broad concept.
This paper’s analysis, in terms of President Bush’s policies, focuses on electronic surveillance;
specifically, wiretapping phone lines and obtaining caller information from phone companies. Section
f of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 defines electronic surveillance as:
2. 2. Violation- UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS ARE NOT US PERSONS
Jackson et al 9 Brian A. Jackson, Darcy Noricks, and Benjamin W. Goldsmith, RAND Corporation
The Challenge of Domestic Intelligence in a Free Society RAND 2009 BRIAN A. JACKSON, EDITOR
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG804.pdf
3 Federal law and executive order define a U.S. person as “a citizen of the United States, an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an unincorporated association with a substantial
number of members who are citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent
residence, or a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.” (NSA, undated). Although this definition
would therefore allow information to be gathered on U.S. persons located abroad, our objective was
to examine the creation of a domestic intelligence organization that would focus on—and whose
activities would center around—individuals and organizations located inside the United States .
Though such an agency might receive information about U.S. persons that was collected abroad by
other intelligence agencies, it would not collect that information itself.
3. C. THE AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION IS BAD FOR DEBATE
4. Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, and their interpretation
makes the topic too big. Immigration is a huge area, big enough to be a topic itself,
and all the issues are completely different.
5. D. T IS A VOTER because the opportunity to prepare promotes better debating
Terrorism DA
1. Multiple empirical examples of terrorists stopped on the border, plan will give terrorists opportunities to
attack
Wilson 15 [Reid Wilson, 2/26/15, covers national politics for the Washington Post, "Texas officials warn
of immigrants with terrorist ties crossing southern border," Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/02/26/texas-officials-warn-of-immigrantswith-terrorist-ties-crossing-southern-border/ jf]
A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of
known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to
the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it’s costing the state tens of millions of dollars. In a report to Texas
elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border
security agencies have arrested several Somali
immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that
launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once
funded by Osama bin Laden. Another
undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple
U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says. According to the report, one member of al-Shabab, apprehended in June
2014, told authorities he had been trained for an April 2014 suicide attack in Mogadishu. He said he escaped and
reported the planned attack to African Union troops, who were able to stop the attack. The FBI believed another undocumented immigrant was
an al-Shabab member who helped smuggle several potentially dangerous terrorists into the U.S. Authorities also apprehended immigrants who
said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Department of Public Safety said the report, first published
by the Houston Chronicle, was not meant for public distribution. “[T]hat report was inappropriately obtained and [the Chronicle was] not
authorized to possess or post the law enforcement sensitive document,” department press secretary Tom Vinger said in an e-mail. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection did not respond to requests for comment. The
department said it had come into contact in
recent years with “special interest aliens,” who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or
where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants
from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley. The department says there
is no known intelligence that specifically links undocumented immigrants to terrorism plots, but the authors warn it’s almost certain that
foreign terrorist organizations know of the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. “It
is important to note that an
unsecure border is a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds,” Vinger said. “And it
would be naive to rule out the possibility that any criminal organizations around the world, including
terrorists, would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our country’s
international border.”
2. ISIS has the capability to carry out foreign attacks to increase recruitment
propaganda
Rogan 15 (Tom, panelist on The McLaughlin Group and holds the Tony Blankley Chair at the
Steamboat Institute, “Why ISIS Will Attack America,” National Review, 3-24-15,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415866/why-isis-will-attack-america-tom-rogan, this evidence
gives several instances of regional expansion)//MJ
There is no good in you if they are secure and happy while you have a pulsing vein. Erupt volcanoes of
jihad everywhere. Light the earth with fire upon all the [apostate rulers], their soldiers and supporters.
— ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, November 2014. Those words weren’t idle. The Islamic State (ISIS) is
still advancing, across continents and cultures. It’s attacking Shia Muslims in Yemen, gunning down
Western tourists in Tunisia, beheading Christians in Libya, and murdering or enslaving all who do not
yield in Iraq and Syria. Its black banner seen as undaunted by the international coalition against it, new
recruits still flock to its service. The Islamic State’s rise is, in other words, not over, and it is likely to end
up involving an attack on America. Three reasons why such an attempt is inevitable: ISIS’S STRATEGY
PRACTICALLY DEMANDS IT Imbued with existential hatred against the United States, the group doesn’t
just oppose American power, it opposes America’s identity. Where the United States is a secular
democracy that binds law to individual freedom, the Islamic State is a totalitarian empire determined to
sweep freedom from the earth. As an ideological and physical necessity, ISIS must ultimately conquer
America. Incidentally, this kind of total-war strategy explains why counterterrorism experts are rightly
concerned about nuclear proliferation. The Islamic State’s strategy is also energized by its desire to
replace al-Qaeda as Salafi jihadism’s global figurehead. While al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)
and ISIS had a short flirtation last year, ISIS has now signaled its intent to usurp al-Qaeda’s power in its
home territory. Attacks by ISIS last week against Shia mosques in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a were, at
least in part, designed to suck recruits, financial donors, and prestige away from AQAP. But to truly
displace al-Qaeda, ISIS knows it must furnish a new 9/11. ITS CAPABILITIES ARE GROWING Today, ISIS
has thousands of European citizens in its ranks. Educated at the online University of Edward Snowden,
ISIS operations officers have cut back intelligence services’ ability to monitor and disrupt their
communications. With EU intelligence services stretched beyond breaking point, ISIS has the means and
confidence to attempt attacks against the West. EU passports are powerful weapons: ISIS could attack
— as al-Qaeda has repeatedly — U.S. targets around the world. AN ATTACK ON THE U.S. IS PRICELESS
PROPAGANDA For transnational Salafi jihadists like al-Qaeda and ISIS, a successful blow against the U.S.
allows them to claim the mantle of a global force and strengthens the narrative that they’re on a holy
mission. Holiness is especially important: ISIS knows that to recruit new fanatics and deter its enemies, it
must offer an abiding narrative of strength and divine purpose. With the group’s leaders styling
themselves as Mohammed’s heirs, Allah’s chosen warriors on earth, attacking the infidel United States
would reinforce ISIS’s narrative. Of course, attacking America wouldn’t actually serve the Islamic State’s
long-term objectives. Quite the opposite: Any atrocity would fuel a popular American resolve to crush
the group with expediency. (Make no mistake, it would be crushed.) The problem, however, is that, until
then, America is in the bull’s eye.
3. Bioterrorism causes extinction—They can pursue it with published knowledge and
education degrees
Myhrvold 13 (Nathan, PhD in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics from Princeton, and founded
Intellectual Ventures after retiring as Chief Strategist and Chief Technology Officer of Microsoft
Corporation, July, "Stratgic Terrorism: A Call to Action," http://www.lawfareblog.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-Terrorism-Myhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf%5D)//A.V.
A virus genetically engineered to infect its host quickly, to generate symptoms slowly say, only after
weeks or months and to spread easily through the air or by casual contact would be vastly more
devastating than HIV. It could silently penetrate the population to unleash its deadly effects suddenly.
This type of epidemic would be almost impossible to combat because most of the infections would
occur before the epidemic became obvious. A technologically sophisticated terrorist group could
develop such a virus and kill a large part of humanity with it. Indeed, terrorists may not have to develop
it themselves: some scientist may do so first and publish the details. Given the rate at which biologists
are making discoveries about viruses and the immune system, at some point in the near future,
someone may create artificial pathogens that could drive the human race to extinction. Indeed, a
detailed species-elimination plan of this nature was openly proposed in a scientific journal. The
ostensible purpose of that particular research was to suggest a way to extirpate the malaria mosquito,
but similar techniques could be directed toward humans.16 When Iâve talked to molecular biologists about this method,
they are quick to point out that it is slow and easily detectable and could be fought with biotech remedies. If you challenge them to come up
with improvements to the suggested attack plan, however, they have plenty of ideas. Modern
biotechnology will soon be
capable, if it is not already, of bringing about the demise of the human race” or at least of killing a
sufficient number of people to end high-tech civilization and set humanity back 1,000 years or more.
That terrorist groups could achieve this level of technological sophistication may seem far-fetched, but
keep in mind that it takes only a handful of individuals to accomplish these tasks. Never has lethal power
of this potency been accessible to so few, so easily. Even more dramatically than nuclear proliferation,
modern biological science has frighteningly undermined the correlation between the lethality of a
weapon and its cost, a fundamentally stabilizing mechanism throughout history. Access to extremely
lethal agents lethal enough to exterminate Homo sapiens will be available to anybody with a solid
background in biology, terrorists included. The 9/11 attacks involved at least four pilots, each of whom had sufficient education
to enroll in flight schools and complete several years of training. Bin laden had a degree in civil engineering. Mohammed
Atta attended a German university, where he earned a masters degree in urban planning not a field he
likely chose for its relevance to terrorism. A future set of terrorists could just as easily be students of
molecular biology who enter their studies innocently enough but later put their skills to homicidal use.
Hundreds of universities in Europe and Asia have curricula sufficient to train people in the skills
necessary to make a sophisticated biological weapon, and hundreds more in the United States accept
students from all over the world. Thus it seems likely that sometime in the near future a small band of
terrorists, or even a single misanthropic individual, will overcome our best defenses and do something
truly terrible, such as fashion a bioweapon that could kill millions or even billions of people. Indeed, next
20 years seems to be a virtual certainty. The repercussions of their use are hard to estimate. One
approach is to look at how the scale of destruction they may cause compares with that of other
calamities that the human race has faced.
Cap K
1. NAFTA solidifies power in the hands of neoliberal elites and is complicit in the theft
of labor.
Sparke 06—University of Washington Seattle (Matthew, 2006, Political Geography, “A neoliberal
nexus: Economy, security and the biopolitics of citizenship on the border,” rmf)
NAFTA did not suddenly integrate the political-economic space of North America through independent
and top-down legislative fiat. Not only did it build on other agreements such as the Autopact and the
1989 Canadian-US Free Trade Agreement; more significantly, it also built upon and represented a
juridical recognition of what were already increasing economic interdependencies between Canada,
Mexico and the US. That said, after it was implemented on January 1st, 1994, NAFTA did nevertheless
set the legal stage or, in the words of its political promoters, ‘level the playing field’ for much more
intensified cross-border economic integration. As I argue at length elsewhere (Sparke, 2005, chapter 3),
it did so by creating transnational state effects which, emerging out of a host of largely unseen
administrative practices, locked neoliberal policies into transnational place. In a way that was quite
unprecedented, some of these practices involved giving corporations the quasi-constitutional right to
sue national and local governments if such governments ever sought to re-nationalise or otherwise
provide as public services privatized utility, healthcare or welfare services. Less dramatically but more
importantly in practice, NAFTA’s basic codification of trade liberalization also made it possible for
businesses to move much more easily between the signatory countries and thereby abandon regions or
at least threaten to abandon any region considering a reversal of pro-business legislation. Insofar as
the resulting property and mobility rights for business were therefore predicated on the liberalized
cross-border movement of commodities, they not only depended on NAFTA’s quasiconstitutional
sanctions and secret legal tribunals but also on important innovations in the coding used by customs
officials at the border. This was because commodities previously subject to tariffs did not simply move
tariff-free and uninspected across the border after NAFTA’s implementation. Instead they became
subject to new codes and minutely calibrated tariff reduction schedules all of which involved a great
deal of new administrative work by customs officials managing cross-border flows. Calling NAFTA a free
trade agreement was therefore something of a misnomer. It might have been better termed a ‘managed
trade agreement’: managed, that is, in the interest of expanding and entrenching free market mobilities.
Moreover the management was itself transnationally entrenched by NAFTA’s market-mediated
mechanisms; thereby creating a transnational state effect predicated on the market exactly along the
lines described by Foucault in his examination of neoliberal discourse. ‘‘Unlike the state in the classical
liberal notion of rationality,’’ he argued, ‘‘for the neoliberals the state does not define and monitor
market freedom, for the market is itself the organizing and regulative principle underlying the state.’’
(paraphrased by Lemke, 2001: 200). In tandem with the border developments relating to the movement
of goods, NAFTA also had three important implications vis-a`-vis the cross-border movement of people.
Here again was the expansion and entrenchment of free market civilization’s regulative principles. Here
too were a series of emergent transnational state effects interarticulated with ongoing state practices at
national and subnational scales. But unlike the liberalized cross-border movement of goods, the effects
of NAFTA on the cross-border movement of people were far more contradictory, structured as they
were and continue to be by all the asymmetries that structure the uneven interdependencies between
the US on one side and Mexico and Canada on the other. First of all, by liberalizing the flow of highly
subsidized Canadian and American grain exports into Mexico, the agreement undercut a large part of
the Mexican farm sector’s profitability thereby precipitating a farm crisis and, in conjunction with the
peso crisis that followed in 1995, a huge exodus of rural workers off the land and, in many cases,
straight into the migration stream heading north (Purcell & Nevins, 2005). Second, while American
negotiators had repeatedly refused to countenance any legalization of such working-class Mexican
migration in NAFTA, they did nevertheless reach accord with both the Mexican and Canadian
negotiating teams on new freedoms vis-a`-vis the movement of professionals (NAFTA’s chapter 16). And
third, based in part on the specific rules that were established relating to the movement of professionals
but much more on the basic idea of leveling the playing field for business that NAFTA inspired, the
agreement’s implementation also led many regional business communities on either side of both the
Canadian-US border and the Mexican-US border to reimagine their local regions as newly ‘borderless’
business gateways and development hubs. This, after all, was the mid-1990s, and books such as
Ohmae’s (1995) The End of the Nation-State were very much in vogue in the business sections of
bookstores. In other free trade regimes around the world, both in Asia (e.g. Sparke, Sidaway, Bunnell, &
Grundy-Warr, 2004) and Europe (e.g. Sparke, 2000), business groups were touting the opportunities for
inward investment into cross-border regions. And in North America too it was the borderless
regionalism idea articulated in the subtitle of Ohmae’s book e The Rise of Regional Economies e that
came together with the transnational state effect of NAFTA’s level playing field to enable all sorts of
fanciful visions of cross-border regional development. Not surprisingly, such visions also entailed new
proposals for further expediting business travel across the borders targeted for business transcendence,
and at least in one case this led to two business boosters from the Pacific Northwest opining about the
need to ‘‘Bulldoze the checkpoints’’ (Schell & Hamer, 1995: 148)
2. Environmental destruction, warming, poverty, and economic bubbles ensure
capitalism will collapse
Wise et al. 10 (Director of Doctoral Program in Migration Studies & Prof of Development Studies;
Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Mexico)
(Raúl Delgado Wise, Humberto Márquez Covarrubias, Rubén Puentes, Reframing the debate on
migration, development and human rights: fundamental elements, October, 2010,
www.migracionydesarrollo.org)
At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, a general crisis centered in the United States affected
the global capitalist system on several levels (Márquez, 2009 and 2010). The consequences have been
varied:
Financial. The overflowing of financial capital leads to speculative bubbles that affect the socioeconomic
framework and result in global economic depressions. Speculative bubbles involve the bidding up of
market prices of such commodities as real estate or electronic innovations far beyond their real value,
leading inevitable to a subsequent slump (Foster and Magdof, 2009; Bello, 2006). Overproduction.
Overproduction crises emerge when the surplus capital in the global economy is not channeled into
production processes due to a fall in profit margins and a slump in effective demand, the latter mainly a
consequence of wage containment across all sectors of the population (Bello, 2006). Environmental.
Environmental degradation, climate change and a predatory approach to natural resources contribute to
the destruction of the latter, along with a fundamental undermining of the material bases for
production and human reproduction (Fola- dori and Pierri, 2005; Hinkelammert and Mora, 2008). Social.
Growing social inequalities, the dismantling of the welfare state and dwindling means of subsistence
accentuate problems such as poverty, unemployment, violence, insecurity and labor precariousness,
increasing the pressure to emigrate (Harvey, 2007; Schierup, Hansen and Castles, 2006).
The crisis raises questions about the prevailing model of globalization and, in a deeper sense, the
systemic global order, which currently undermines our main sources of wealth—labor and nature—and
overexploits them to the extent that civilization itself is at risk. The responses to the crisis by the
governments of developed countries and international agencies promoting globalization have been
short-sighted and exclusivist. Instead of addressing the root causes of the crisis, they have implemented
limited strategies that seek to rescue financial and manufacturing corporations facing bankruptcy. In
addition, government policies of labor flexibilization and fiscal adjustment have affected the living and
working conditions of most of the population. These measures are desperate attempts to prolong the
privileges of ruling elites at the risk of imminent and increasingly severe crises. In these conditions,
migrants have been made into scapegoats, leading to repressive anti- immigrant legislation and policies
(Massey and Sánchez, 2006). A significant number of jobs have been lost while the conditions of
remaining jobs deteriorate and deportations increase. Migrants’ living standards have drastically
deteriorated but, contrary to expectations, there have been neither massive return flows nor a collapse
in remittances, though there is evidence that migrant worker flows have indeed diminished.
3. The alternative is institutional change through the language of commons and
collective responsibility- This is critical to grassroots movements that are resist
representative democracy
Giroux 13
(Henry Giroux, currently holds the Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the
English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University,
“Hope in the Age of Looming Authoritarianism,” 02 December 2013, http://www.truthout.org/opinion/item/20307-hope-in-the-age-of-looming-authoritarianism#_edn2)
The language of the market now offers the primary index of what possibilities the future may hold, while
jingoistic nationalism and racism register its apocalyptic underbelly. As a market economy becomes
synonymous with a market society, democracy becomes both the repressed scandal of neoliberalism and
its ultimate fear.[vi] In such a society, cynicism replaces hope, public life collapses into the everencroaching domain of the private while social ills and human suffering become more difficult to identify,
understand, and engage critically. Zygmunt Bauman points out that "the exit from politics and withdrawal
behind the fortified walls of the private" means not only that society has stopped questioning itself but
also that those discourses, social relations and public spaces in which people can speak, exercise, and
develop the capacities and skills necessary for critically encountering the world atrophy and disappear.[vii]
The result is that "in our contemporary world, post 9/11, crisis and exception [have] become routine, and
war, deprivation, and [the machineries of death] intensify despite ever denser networks of humanitarian
aid and ever more rights legislation."[viii]¶ In addition, the depoliticization of politics and the increasing
transformation of the social state into the punishing state have rendered possible the emergence of a new
mode of authoritarianism in which the fusion of power and violence increasingly permeates all aspects of
government and everyday life.[ix] This mad violence creates an intensifying cycle rendering citizens' political activism dangerous, if not criminal. On the domestic and foreign fronts,
violence is the most prominent feature of dominant ideology, policies and governance. Soldiers are idealized, violence becomes an omniscient form of entertainment pumped endlessly into the
culture, wars become the primary organizing principle for shaping relations abroad, and a corrosive and deeply rooted pathology becomes not the mark of a few individuals but of a society that,
the concentrated power of the corporate,
financial, political, economic and cultural elite have created a society that has become a breeding ground
for psychic disturbances and a pathology that has become normalized. Greed, inequality and oppressive
power relations have generated the death of the collective democratic imagination.¶ Howard Zinn wrote in
the early 1970s that the "world is topsy-turvy, that things are all wrong, that the wrong people are in jail
and the wrong people are out of jail, that the wrong people are in power and the wrong people are out of
power, that the wealth is distributed in this country . . . in such a way as not simply to require small reform
but to require a drastic reallocation of wealth."[xi] Zinn's words are more prescient today than when he wrote them more than 40 years ago. As American
as Erich Fromm once pointed out, becomes entirely insane.[x] Hannah Arendt's "dark times" have arrived as
society becomes more militarized, civil liberties are under siege at all levels of government. Bush and Obama have participated in illegal legalities instituting state torture and targeted
assassinations, among other violations. At the local level, police all over the country are expanding their powers going so far as to subject people to invasive body searches, even when they had
been stopped for only minor traffic violations. One man in New Mexico was stopped for failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. On the baseless claim of harboring drugs, he was taken
to a hospital and underwent, without consent, eight anal cavity searches, including a colonoscopy.[xii] No drugs were found. When the police believe they have the right to issue warrants that
allow doctors to perform enemas and colonoscopies without consent and anyone can be seized for such barbarous practices, domestic terrorism takes on a new and perilous meaning. Similarly,
young people are being arrested in record numbers in schools that have become holding centers for low-income and minority youths.[xiii]¶ Growing inequality in wealth and income have
destroyed any vestige of democracy in America.[xiv] Twenty individuals in the United States, including the infamous Koch brothers, have a total net worth of more than half a trillion dollars,
about $26 billion each, while "4 out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives."[xv] More than 40 percent of recent college
We blame the poor, homeless,
unemployed and recent graduates suffocating under financial debt for their plight as if individual
responsibility explains the ballooning gap in wealth, income and power and the growing state violence that supports it. Poor people end up in debtor jail
graduates are living with their parents while mega corporations and wealthy farmers get huge government subsidies.
for not paying parking tickets or their bills while the corrupt heads of banks, hedge funds and other financial services who engage in all manner of corruption and crime, swindling billions from
The new global market tyranny has no language for promoting the
social good, public well-being and social responsibility over the omniscient demands of self-interest, crippling the
the public coffers, are rarely prosecuted to the full extent of the law.[xvi]¶
radical imagination with its relentless demands for instant pleasure, a compulsive pursuit of materialism and a Hobbesian belief in war-of-all-against all ethic. Increasingly, the social and cultural
landscapes of America resemble the merging of malls and prisons. American life suffers from the toxin of socially adrift possessive, individualism and a debilitating notion of freedom and
privatization. Both of which feed into the rise of the surveillance and punishing state with its paranoiac visions of absolute control of the commanding heights of power and its utter fear of those
considered disposable, excess and capable of questioning authority.¶ Authoritarianism has a long shadow and refuses simply to disappear into the pages of a fixed and often forgotten history.
We are currently observing how its long and dynamic reach extends from the dictatorships of Latin America in the 1970s to the current historical moment in the United States. We witness its
darkness in the market ideologies, modes of disappearance, state-sanctioned torture, kill lists, drone murders of innocent civilians, attacks on civil liberties, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
the rise of a mass incarceration state that now connects us to the horrors that took place in the dictatorships in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. I was reminded of this recently when I received a
passionate and insightful letter from Dr. Adriana Pesci, who offers this warning to Americans by drawing on the horrors of the killing machine that fueled the military dictatorship in Argentina.
I have also noticed the ongoing creation, by people such as you, of a new language designed to
counteract the offensive of the neoliberal system. Latin America started going through this process some 15 years ago, and is still at it, at much human
She writes:¶
cost and after a horrendous history of repression and torture that dates from some 35 or 40 years back. The centurions of the system are very unimaginative and their responses are very
predictable once you studied them for a while. This is how it was possible for many left leaning Latin Americans to know by early 2003, and before the debacle of Abu Graib was made public, that
the American forces' use of systematic torture in Iraq was sanctioned from the top down, and that there were no excesses or errors ("excess,""errors" were those same words used by the
dictatorships throughout Latin America).¶ In the past few years, and because I follow the news regularly, I have noticed a slow but steady evolution of the United States towards what I can only
call a variation on a theme. It reminds me of my past as a very young person in Argentina, the same methods, the same words, the same excuses. I wish I could warn those at risk. I wish to pass
I would like to believe that our experiences can be used by others to make
their suffering less, and I would like to believe, that the language that was created to describe, denounce
and punish what was done to us in the name of neoliberalism and development is the patrimony of
humankind and it is there to be used to defend ourselves from the attacks of a dehumanizing system that
would like to chew us, ground us to a pulp and spit us all.[xvii]¶ Historical consciousness matters because it
illuminates, if not holds up to critical scrutiny, those forms of tyranny and modes of authoritarianism that
now parade as common sense, popular wisdom or just plain certainty. In this case, the American public
will not repeat history as farce (as Marx once suggested) but as a momentous act of systemic violence,
suffering and domestic warfare. If the act of critical translation is crucial to a democratic politics, it faces a
crisis of untold proportions in the United States. In part, this is because we are witnessing the deadening
reduction of the citizen to a consumer of services and goods that empties politics of substance by stripping
citizens of their political skills, offering up only individual solutions to social problems and dissolving all
obligations and sense of responsibility for the other in an ethos of unchecked individualism and a narrowly privatized linguistic universe. The logic of the
along what I know, because I have a sense of foreboding.
commodity penetrates all aspects of life while the most important questions driving society no longer seem concerned about matters of equity, social justice and the fate of the common good.
As the
government deregulates and outsources key aspects of governance, turning over the provisions of
collective insurance, security and care to private institutions and market-based forces, it undermines the
social contract, while "the present retreat of the state from the endorsement of social rights signals the
falling apart of a community in its modern, 'imagined' yet institutionally safeguarded
incarnation."[xviii]Moreover, as social institutions give way to machines of all-embracing surveillance and
containment, social provisions disappear, the exclusionary logic of ethnic, racial and religious divisions
render more individuals and groups disposable, excluded from public life - languishing in prisons, dead-end
jobs or the deepening pockets of poverty - and effectively prevented from engaging in politics in any meaningful
The most important choice now facing most people is no longer about living a life with dignity and freedom but facing the grim choice between survival and dying.¶
capacity. The specters of human suffering, misfortune and misery caused by social problems are now replaced with the morally bankrupt neoliberal discourses of personal safety and individual
responsibility. At the same time, those who are considered "problems," excess or disposable disappear into prisons and the bowels of the correctional system. The larger implications that
gesture toward a new authoritarianism are clear. Angela Davis captures this in her comment that "according to this logic the prison becomes a way of disappearing people in the false hope of
The invisibility of power feeds ignorance, if not complicity itself. Under
such circumstances, politics seems to take place elsewhere - in globalized regimes of power that are
indifferent to traditional political geographies, such as the nation state, and hostile to any notion of
collective responsibility to address human suffering and social problems.¶
disappearing the underlying social problems they represent."[xix]
CP
1. CP Text: The United States federal government should cooperate with Mexico to
upgrade the ports of entry along the US-Mexico Border.
2. That solves trade with Mexico
Crawford 13 (Amanda Crawford, 5-15-2013, "Border Delays Cost U.S. $7.8 Billion as Fence Is Focus,"
Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-15/border-delays-cost-u-s-7-8-billionas-fence-is-focus, AZ)
May 15 (Bloomberg) -- Delays at U.S.-Mexico border crossings cost the U.S. economy $7.8 billion in
2011, as improvements have lagged behind traffic growth and the political focus has been on securing
the rest of the border. The toll could balloon to $14.7 billion annually if the value of U.S.-Mexico truck
trade reaches $463 billion by 2020 as predicted, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. As the U.S.
Senate debates an overhaul of the nation’s immigration system, the focus on fencing and securing
remote stretches of the southern border has overshadowed long-needed improvements in
technology, infrastructure and staffing at the land ports, said Matthew Hummer, a senior
transportation analyst for Bloomberg Government. “I think the most important issue here is stabilizing
the two economies, and the ports of entry do that: They facilitate trade and create job opportunities,”
said Hummer, the author of a Bloomberg Government report on the border. “If Mexicans have jobs in
Mexico they are less likely to come to the U.S.” Net Mexican migration dropped to zero from 2005 to
2010, amid strengthening economic conditions in Mexico, heightened border enforcement and other
factors, according to a Pew Research Center study last year. The Mexican economy has grown at about
twice the pace of the U.S. since the end of 2009. Remote Areas U.S. investment has remained focused
on controlling the rest of the border between the crossings, including remote areas such as the Arizona
desert. In the past decade, the number of Border Patrol agents more than doubled while the number of
Customs and Border Protection officers, who staff the ports of entry, has remained at about the same
level, according to a report by the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute and
partner institutions. Congressional funding for the areas between the ports has eclipsed that for the
authorized entry points since 2007, even though the crossings have faced enhanced security
requirements, increasing trade and evidence that drugs and dangerous individuals are more likely to
cross there, according to the Mexico Institute report. That focus continues in the current immigration
debate in the Senate. The plan crafted by the so-called Gang of Eight bipartisan senators, which is being
considered by the Judiciary Committee today, aims to secure Republican support by tying immigrants’
path to citizenship to the ability of the U.S. Border Patrol to stop 90 percent of illegal traffic across the
southern border between the official ports of entry. There is no similar metric for the efficiency or
security of the land ports. ‘Less Attention’ “The way the border is currently run is costing the U.S. a lot in
terms of jobs and the economy,” said Christopher Wilson, an associate with the Mexico Institute and coauthor of his group’s report on border trade. “In the context of the current immigration debate, we are
very focused on what is going on between the ports of entry while this major issue, which is about
security but also about jobs and the economy, is getting a lot less attention.” Focusing politically on the
rest of the border is easier than facing the challenges of running effective ports of entry, said Steven
Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based group
critical of increased immigration. While the land ports probably do need more investment in
infrastructure, there also should be much more stringent security, including entry and exit checks to
catch those who overstay legal visits, he said. “It seems to some extent we put too much emphasis on
the ease of movement across the border,” Camarota said. “The border is not simply an obstacle to be
overcome by businesses and travelers. It is the part where our country begins, and it is vitally important
for security and immigration control.” Modernizing Ports Modernizing land ports of entry, which
average more than 40 years old and were built before the increased security requirements implemented
after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, would cost $6 billion according to a 2011 Customs and
Border Protection report. About half of that cost would be for the southern border, according to the
Bloomberg Government analysis. The Senate bill includes funding for 3,500 additional Customs officers
and earmarks $6.5 billion for border security. With the bill’s metrics tied to security elsewhere on the
border, though, that’s where most of the money will probably go, Hummer said. “Achieving the
security metrics in the Gang of Eight bill will likely divert funds away from land ports of entry,”
Hummer said.
3. The CP locks in cooperation and relations with Mexico
Bonner & Rozental 2009
Robert C. Bonner Former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Former Administrator,
Drug Enforcement Administration Andrés Rozental Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico; Former
President and Founder Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI) “Managing the United StatesMexico Border: Cooperative Solutions to Common Challenges “ Report of the Binational Task Force on
the United States-Mexico Border http://www.pacificcouncil.org/document.doc?id=30
The solutions ¶ We believe that that the most effective and efficient way to enhance security along ¶ the border is
through closer binational cooperation. Achieving greater cooperation will ¶ in turn require not only the
investment of greater resources but also the creation of ¶ mirror-image law enforcement agencies on each
side of the border. Ultimately, ¶ cooperation should take the form of regular binational operations to interdict illegal ¶
flows, joint investigations, constant communication between Mexican and American ¶ authorities at and
between the ports of entry. ¶ The violence in many Mexican border towns makes the security situation particularly ¶ urgent. We
urge officials in both governments to demonstrate a “bias for action”, ¶ showing as much flexibility and
creativity as they can in order to devise new security ¶ arrangements. ¶ The following steps should be taken
immediately: ¶ • Mexico should restructure its federal law enforcement institutions along the border ¶ to
create a direct counterpart to U.S. border enforcement authorities, similar to the ¶ approach that Canada took after
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. ¶ Initially, new personnel operating between the ports of entry should be deployed ¶ along
stretches of the border where traffickers are most active. ¶ • Mexico should begin converting its Customs authority into a multi-functional
agency ¶ capable of addressing the threats posed by cross-border trafficking of all sorts. ¶ Mexican Customs and the Office of Field Operations
of U.S. Customs and Border¶ Protection (which staffs the ports of entry) should develop joint plans for securing all ¶ land ports of entry along
the border. ¶ • Mexico
and the United States should deploy new interdiction and inspection ¶ technologies at
the ports of entry. The Mexican side needs an array of new ¶ equipment, including license plate scanners and non-intrusive inspection ¶
technologies. ¶ • The United States and Mexico should expand cooperative law enforcement efforts ¶ along the
border, such as the OASISS program (through which information collected ¶ by U.S. officials is used by Mexican authorities to prosecute
smugglers apprehended ¶ in the United States). ¶ • The United States should deny members of drug trafficking organizations and their ¶
families safe haven north of the border by barring family members and known ¶ associates of Mexican criminal organizations from entry into
the country; where ¶ these individuals are already in the United States, their visas should be revoked, and ¶ they should be deported. ¶ • The
United States should intensify efforts to curtail the smuggling of firearms and ¶ ammunition into Mexico by better monitoring licensed gun
sellers, working with them ¶ identify suspicious purchases, regulating gun shows, reinstituting the Clinton-era ban ¶ on assault weapons,
conducting targeted inspections of southbound traffic, and ¶ providing leads to a more robust Mexican Customs authority. There should be at ¶
least one ATF agent in each U.S. consulate in Mexico to assist Mexican authorities ¶ with weapons traces and train Mexican law enforcement
officers. If warranted by ¶ intelligence, the U.S. should also consider using Joint Inter-Agency Task Force ( JIATF) ¶ -South resources to interdict
international arms smuggling into North America. ¶ • The United States should improve coordination between U.S. law enforcement ¶ agencies
to seize bulk cash flowing south to Mexico and conduct targeted, ¶ intelligence-driven inspections of southbound traffic. The Federal Bureau of
¶ Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs ¶ Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have key
roles in increasing ¶ the amount of southbound drug cash seized. ¶ • The
United States should dramatically expand assistance to
Mexico beyond the ¶ Mérida Initiative, in order to help Mexico build up its law enforcement capacity. The
¶ U.S.
government should be prepared to spend $300-500 million per year for at least ¶ five years. ¶ • The United States should reduce demand
for illegal drugs through enhanced ¶ prevention efforts, increased access to treatment programs, stricter street-level ¶ enforcement, expanded
drug testing of a portion of the workforce (e.g., employees ¶ of firms with government contracts), and more careful surveillance of the prison
and¶ parolee populations. Mexico should also intensify its own efforts to reduce domestic ¶ drug consumption. ¶ The following steps should be
taken within the next three years: ¶ • Mexico should complete the establishment of a federal frontier police, either as a ¶ division of an existing
entity or as a new agency dedicated to securing the areas ¶ between the ports of entry on both Mexico’s northern and southern borders. In the
¶ north,
zones of operation for the Mexican force should exactly match those of its U.S. ¶ counterpart. ¶ •
Mexico should consider bringing the federal frontier police and a transformed ¶ Customs authority together into a single, unified border
protection agency. ¶ • Mexico
and the United States should reconfigure the zones of operation of their ¶
respective border enforcement agencies so that they mirror each other. ¶ • Cross-deputized Mexican
and U.S. agents should conduct joint operations between ¶ the ports of entry. ¶ • Mexico and the United
States should reconfigure their ports of entry so that ¶ appropriate officials on both sides have access to
real-time data on vehicles and ¶ individuals crossing the border. Customs officers from both sides should
meet ¶ regularly to review operations at their ports of entry. ¶ • Professional and trusted law enforcement personnel
from both countries should be ¶ able to search for information gathered on perpetrators by officials from the other ¶ country. ¶ • Mexico and
the U.S. should build a binational prison on Mexican soil, to house ¶ Mexicans who have been apprehended by U.S. authorities for relatively
minor ¶ border-related crimes. Such a facility would allow these individuals to be closer to ¶ their families while they serve their time. ¶ • Both
countries should establish workable systems for preventing corruption, including ¶ careful background checks and vetting of applicants, as well
as a system for rapidly ¶ identifying corrupt overtures and promptly and professionally investigating all ¶ potential corruption allegations. ¶ •
Mexico should re-civilianize law enforcement. As civilian authorities become more ¶ capable and professional, it should be possible for the
Mexican government to ¶ withdraw military personnel from most places where they have had to assume ¶ police functions. On the U.S. side,
better control over the border should obviate the ¶ need for National Guard units currently deployed near the frontier to assist U.S. ¶ Customs
and Border Protection.
Relations
1. Economic relations not key – security is a pre requisite
Schaefer, 13 [Agnes Bereben is a senior political scientist at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corp.,
based in Santa Monica, Calif, If U.S.-Mexico Get Security Right, Other Good Policy Will Follow
http://www.rand.org/blog/2013/05/if-us-mexico-get-security-right-other-good-policy.html]
During their joint news conference, Obama and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto touted their work on economic cooperation and commercial integration.
Likewise, Obama's speech to the Mexican people and a joint statement from the two presidents stressed economic ties and shared opportunities while only briefly
mentioning such difficult security issues as drugs, guns and crime. Headlines
suggested that the economy will become the
driving force behind future U.S.-Mexico relations. Let's not get carried away. While security isn't the
only topic confronting Washington and Mexico City, it's still likely to consume the lion's share of
attention in this crucial relationship. After all, between Peña Nieto's inauguration in December 2012 and the end
of April 2013, 5,296 people were killed in Mexico in drug-related violence — about 35 every day. That level of
violence alone would keep security issues as a high priority for the United States and Mexico. Moreover, drug
trafficking in Mexico continues to affect the U.S. Mexico is the largest supplier of heroin, marijuana and methamphetamines to the U.S.,
and Mexico is the shipment point for 95 percent of the cocaine brought into the U.S. So over the past six years, the U.S. has embarked on a
strategic partnership with Mexico that has focused on drug-related violence. This partnership has meant
closer U.S.-Mexican cooperation on several fronts, including an unprecedented transfer of U.S. equipment, U.S. training of Mexican security forces and
U.S. access to Mexican security agencies. But while security will remain central to the U.S.-Mexico relationship, the two
sides may well change how they handle it. The new Peña Nieto administration is re-evaluating Mexico's recent close cooperation on
security. The new Mexican leader's overall security strategy is evolving, but he has embarked on some important reforms to defense institutions. Peña Nieto has
called for a more centralized approach to security issues that would eliminate inefficiencies and redundancies across government agencies. He is also pushing to
develop a new National Intelligence Agency — similar to the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence set up after the 9/11 Commission to quarterback the
U.S. intelligence community — that would streamline Mexico's intelligence collection and analysis, which is now conducted by many disparate agencies. The most
important unanswered question is how involved Peña Nieto and his Institutional Revolutionary Party want the U.S. to be in future efforts to decrease drug-related
violence. Some Mexican leaders and commentators are calling for the U.S. to back off, and some are explicitly asking to roll back the cooperative mechanisms of the
past several years. As Peña Nieto refines his national security strategy, he will need to navigate these domestic pressures — and, ultimately, decide how much U.S.
assistance he will consider, and in what form. Peña Nieto isn't the only one facing domestic pressures, of course. Obama could almost hear the heated debates in
Congress on immigration reform and border security from Mexico City. So the two leaders emphasized economic cooperation at their summit not because security
Economic
cooperation is of course also exceedingly important. The United States is still Mexico's largest trading partner. In 2011, U.S. trade with Mexico
totaled $500 billion, and Mexico was the United States' second-largest goods export market in 2012. But let's not assume that economic
issues will displace security issues at the top of the U.S-Mexico agenda. Because security issues are not
going away, the two sides need to tackle them as best they can. The Obama and Peña Nieto administrations should build on the unprecedented levels of
issues have gone away, but because the new rules of the game in this nascent relationship between Obama and Peña Nieto are evolving.
cooperation developed over the past six years — and if they get security right, they will be far better-positioned to broaden the relationship to focus on other issues
such as economics, energy and the environment. If the two sides continue to invest together in security today, they may find themselves with far more
opportunities for broader cooperation tomorrow.
2. Turn – border surveillance is key to reducing illegal flows across the border – failure
hurts relations
Walser 2013 Ray Walser, Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America at The Heritage Foundation
“Obama in Mexico: Change the Reality, Not the Conversation” 5/1/13
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/01/obama-in-mexico-change-the-reality-not-the-conversation/
Of course there is much value in an opportunities-oriented approach to U.S.–Mexico relations. The two countries have unique ties
based on patterns of trade, investment, integrated manufacturing, and the movement of peoples. Both
nations should continue to deepen this relationship by focusing on everything from trade, global competitiveness, and modernizing and
securing our shared 2,000-mile border in ways that advance economic freedom and improve educational quality and energy development. Yet
addressing hard, seemingly intractable issues related to the illicit traffic in drugs, people, guns, and money
moving with relative ease across the U.S.–Mexico border remains a major challenge for both leaders. The Obama
Administration has done little to reduce drug demand in the U.S. Consumption of marijuana is on the rise among teens. There
is legal confusion in Washington following passage of legalization measures in Colorado and Washington. Resource reductions for drug
interdiction and treatment are built into the fiscal crisis. Prior objectives for drug prevention and treatment established by the Obama
Administration have not been met, according to the Government Accountability Office. Meanwhile,
cash and guns flow south
largely unchecked into Mexico. Cooperation with Mexico may be scaled back or waning as U.S. officials
are excluded from intelligence fusion centers the U.S. helped to set up. A new emphasis on citizen security may take
the law enforcement heat of trafficking kingpins, who will likely attempt to move drugs across Mexico with less violence and greater efficiency
as Mexican law enforcement focuses on the most violent criminal elements.
3. US-Mexico partnership is inevitable – areas of cooperation will always overwhelm
differences
Rozental 2013
Andrés Rozental, former deputy foreign minister of Mexico, works primarily on global governance
issues, U.S.-Mexico relations and international migration. He served for many years in Mexico’s
diplomatic corps. February 1, 2013 “Have Prospects for U.S.-Mexican Relations Improved?” Brookings
Institute http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/02/01-us-mexico-rozental
The Mexico-U.S. relationship won't substantially change; there are too many ongoing issues to expect
any major shift in what has become a very close and cooperative bilateral partnership in economic, security
and social aspects. There will be a change of emphasis from the Mexican side as far as the security relationship
goes, with Peña Nieto's declared intention to focus much more on the economy and public safety. He has already moved
away from the constant statements made by his predecessor extolling the number of criminals apprehended and
'successes' in the fight against organized crime. The change of message comes as a relief to many Mexicans tired
of hearing about violence and crime on a daily basis.
4. Latin American instability won’t escalate – diplomacy, treaties, and no incentives
Taylor Marvin, 8-7-2014, "Why Are There No Nuclear Weapons in South America?," Political Violence
@ a Glance, http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2014/08/07/why-are-there-no-nuclear-weapons-insouth-america/)//GV
As part of its occasional ‘Would Someone Please Explain This to Me” series, Political Violence @ a Glance recently asked readers to suggest questions about the
world of conflict and international relations. Reader Nawal Ali asks: Why
has Latin America been so free of nukes or at least a
nuclear weapons program? Is it because technical requirements for nuclear weapons development are much higher then civilian nuclear ventures
or is it something else at play? The 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco banned nuclear weapons in Latin America. But the treaty’s existence does not fully answer this question
— if Latin American states really desired nuclear weapons they would develop them anyway and accept the consequences, refuse to fully abide by the treaty, or
would not have signed it in the first place. Today’s Latin
America includes several countries that likely possess the
technological and financial resources to develop nuclear weapons, with effort — Argentina, Brazil, and
Mexico all spring to mind. One of these countries, Brazil, has long sought a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, a body whose current
permanent members all possess nuclear arms. Latin America is also no stranger to arms races, with a little-known early
20th century dreadnought race between Argentina, Brazil, and Chile being the most famous example. And
as David R. Mares writes in his excellent book Violent Peace: Militarized Interstate Bargaining in Latin America, interstate conflict, or at least militarized interstate
bargaining, is more common in the region than commonly known. Chile militarized its long border during the country’s period of dictatorship, Argentina nearly went
to war with Chile over Beagle Channel islands in the late 1970s, and violent rhetoric between Chile and its neighbors persists. So
if several Latin
American countries have the resources to develop nuclear weapons, and arguably at least some
incentive to do so, why does the region remain nuclear weapons-free? The simplest answer is that
nuclear weapons have gone out of style. As John Mueller has extensively argued, despite decades of proliferation fears
the number of nuclear-armed states has grown slowly. In an era where interstate war is comparatively rare,
the value of a nuclear security guarantee has shrunk when nuclear weapons’ diplomatic and image costs
have grown. As the threat of major war has receded both around the world and in the region — which is
partially due to US hegemony in Latin America, as Joe Young noted — the practical security gains from nuclear
weapons have declined. Given the time, effort, and resources required to acquire nuclear weapons, if states cannot expect enough
security or prestige gains to justify their costs they will be more hesitant to invest in them. Tellingly,
countries that have armed in the last few decades have tended to be isolated or facing extraordinarily
dangerous security situations: Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and South Africa are all a little of column A, and a little of column B. None of the Latin
American states with the resources to develop nuclear arms are, or more arguably have been, in this situation. Beyond security, nuclear
weapons are no longer seen as a path to international status. If a Latin American country armed itself
today with a nuclear weapon it would be more likely to receive global condemnation than great power
prestige. Indeed, in the modern era aircraft carriers are arguably a more important military status symbol
than nuclear weapons. For Latin American countries anxious to improve their international standing, prestige stems from economic growth and
membership in international organizations like the BRICS bloc (see Oliver Stuenkel’s writing on Brazil and the BRICS), and conventional weapons, rather than nuclear
status. (Though it is worth noting that in Latin America this argument is partially a circular one, as Brazil is one of the world’s most politically and economically
prominent non-nuclear states.) But it is important to remember that despite these explanations the lack of nuclear weapons in Latin America is not an accident;
Argentina and Brazil both launched, and then abandoned, nuclear weapons programs. Mitchell Reiss examines this
aborted nuclear arms race in detail as a case study in his 1995 book Bridled Ambitions: Why Countries Constrain Their Nuclear Capabilities. In the 1970s Argentina
developed a secret enrichment facility and by the early 1980s could “theoretically” enrich weapons-grade uranium. At the same time each branch of the Brazilian
military had a separate nuclear weapons program, the Air Force built an underground nuclear test chamber hidden in the Amazon (though Brazil was not actually
capable of carrying out a nuclear test), and the country maintained that it had the right to set off a test nuclear explosion. Both
countries had
incentives to develop nuclear weapons, and while their development programs ran into severe technical
problems and were never close to success, it’s plausible that they could have eventually produced
weapons with enough time and effort. So why did Argentina and Brazil shelve their nuclear weapons
programs? First, Reiss writes, both countries’ weapons programs moved slowly enough — partially due to serious
setbacks caused by nuclear states’ refusal to export their sensitive technologies — that their governments
had ample opportunity to shutter them. Secondly, both realized that a nuclear arms race was a mutual
losing game. Brazil’s great size advantage meant that Argentina could never match a Brazilian nuclear
arsenal in absolute terms over the long run, but also that Brazil would lose relative prestige if Argentina
developed nuclear weapons. Third, the existing Treaty of Tlatelolco, which both countries had signed but
not fully abided by, provided a convenient “out” and a more acceptable alternative to the NonProliferation Treaty, which both countries resented and had initially cooperated to oppose. Fourth, bilateral relations improved in the late 1970s and
soon afterwards Argentina and Brazil’s transitions to democracy reduced their governments’ desire for the bomb. Argentina’s humiliating loss in the Falklands War
increased its incentive to gain a nuclear deterrent, but also helped usher in a civilian government much less interested in nuclear weapons. Finally,
simple
good diplomacy and the desire for international approval allowed Argentina and Brazil to mutually agree
to abandon nuclear ambitions, and anyway while both were rivals for a leading position in South
American neither saw war as any real possibility, which lowered the contest’s stakes. In a series of agreements in the early 1990s both
agreed to shutter their nuclear weapons programs and fully abide by the Treaty of Tlatelolco, though Brazil remains interested in developing a nuclear-powered
attack submarine. While some allege that Brazil could develop nuclear weapons on short notice or use work on nuclear submarine propulsion as cover for a
weapons program, it
is difficult to see any real rational for such a drastic step in the near future.
5. Heg isn’t key to peace
Christopher J. Fettweis 11, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European
Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO
Assertions that without the combination of U.S. capabilities, presence and commitments instability would
return to Europe and the Pacific Rim are usually rendered in rather vague language. If the United States were to decrease
its commitments abroad, argued Robert Art, “the world will become a more dangerous place and, sooner or later, that will
redound to America’s detriment.”53 From where would this danger arise? Who precisely would do the fighting,
and over what issues? Without the United States, would Europe really descend into Hobbesian anarchy?
Would the Japanese attack mainland China again, to see if they could fare better this time around? Would the Germans and
French have another go at it? In other words, where exactly is hegemony is keeping the peace? With one exception,
these questions are rarely addressed. That exception is in the Pacific Rim. Some analysts fear that a de facto surrender of U.S.
hegemony would lead to a rise of Chinese influence. Bradley Thayer worries that Chinese would become “the language of diplomacy, trade and
commerce, transportation and navigation, the internet, world sport, and global culture,” and that Beijing would come to “dominate science and
technology, in all its forms” to the extent that soon theworldwould witness a Chinese astronaut who not only travels to the Moon, but “plants
the communist flag on Mars, and perhaps other planets in the future.”54 Indeed Chin a is the only other major power that has increased its
military spending since the end of the Cold War, even if it still is only about 2 percent of its GDP. Such levels of effort do not suggest a desire to
compete with, much less supplant, the United States. The much-ballyhooed, decade-long
military buildup has brought
Chinese spending up to somewhere between one-tenth and one-fifth of the U.S. level. It is hardly
clear that a restrained United States would invite Chinese regional, must less global, political expansion. Fortunately
one need not ponder for too long the horrible specter of a red flag on Venus, since on the planet Earth, where war is no longer the dominant
form of conflict resolution, the threats posed by even a rising China would not be terribly dire. The dangers contained in the terrestrial security
Believers in the pacifying power of hegemony ought to keep in mind
a rather basic tenet: When it comes to policymaking, specific threats are more significant than vague, unnamed
dangers. Without specific risks, it is just as plausible to interpret U.S. presence as redundant, as overseeing a peace that has already arrived.
Strategy should not be based upon vague images emerging from the dark reaches of the
neoconservative imagination. Overestimating Our Importance One of the most basic insights of cognitive
psychology provides the final reason to doubt the power of hegemonic stability: Rarely are our actions
as consequential upon their behavior as we perceive them to be. A great deal of experimental evidence exists to
support the notion that people (and therefore states) tend to overrate the degree to which their behavior is
responsible for the actions of others. Robert Jervis has argued that two processes account for this overestimation, both
ofwhichwould seem to be especially relevant in theU.S. case. 55 First, believing that we are responsible for their actions
gratifies our national ego (which is not small to begin with; the United States is exceptional in its exceptionalism). The hubris of the
United States, long appreciated and noted, has only grown with the collapse of the Soviet Union.56 U.S. policymakers famously
have comparatively little knowledge of—or interest in—events that occur outside of their own
borders. If there is any state vulnerable to the overestimation of its importance due to the
fundamental misunderstanding of the motivation of others, it would have to be the United States.
environment are less severe than ever before.
Second, policymakers in the United States are far more familiar with our actions than they are with the decision-making processes of our allies.
Try as we might,
it is not possible to fully understand the threats, challenges, and opportunities that our
allies see from their perspective. The European great powers have domestic politics as complex as ours, and they also have
competent, capable strategists to chart their way forward. They react to many international forces, of which U.S.
behavior is only one. Therefore, for any actor trying to make sense of the action of others, Jervis notes, “in the absence of strong
evidence to the contrary, the most obvious and parsimonious explanation is that he was responsible.”57 It is natural, therefore, for U.S.
policymakers and strategists to believe that the behavior of our allies (and rivals) is shaped largely by what
Washington does. Presumably Americans are at least as susceptible to the overestimation of their ability as any other people, and
perhaps more so. At the very least, political psychologists tell us, we are probably not as important to them as we think.
The importance of U.S. hegemony in contributing to international stability is therefore almost
certainly overrated . In the end, one can never be sure why our major allies have not gone to, and do not even plan for, war. Like
deterrence, the hegemonic stability theory rests on faith; it can only be falsified, never proven . It does not
seem likely, however, that hegemony could fully account for twenty years of strategic decisions made in allied capitals if the international
system were not already a remarkably peaceful place. Perhaps
these states have no intention of fighting one another
to begin with, and our commitments are redundant.
6. Lack of coordination on both sides is an alt cause to trade
Regan 2011 Sean Regan Commander, U.S. Coast Guard NAVAL WAR COLLEGE U.S. – MEXICO POLICY COORDINATION AN ASSESSMENT
OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY BORDER POLICY COORDINATION EFFORT A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial
satisfaction of the requirements of the Department of Joint Military Operations. 2011 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555536.pdf
The Policy Coordination Challenge Bureaucracies
on both sides of the border struggle to coordinate policies
across and within various levels of government including federal, state, and local structures. However, the complexity
and interdependence of bi-national issues means there is rarely a clear, single lead department or
agency on any given issue on either side of the border. Complicating coordination efforts are the various and often duplicative authorities
held by many U.S. and GoM institutions. In addition, the various bi-national interactions at the federal, state, and local
levels are often not apparent to the other levels of government. The different government stakeholders
often address issues directly and indirectly through bi-lateral institutions, commissions, and
agreements.7 The failure to coordinate efforts results in disjointed border policies and activities leading
to increased levels of congestion, delay, higher border-crossing costs, and insufficient infrastructure
planning. One example of a disjointed effort can be found at coordination related to the establishment
and management of land ports of entry (POEs).8 The United States and Mexico have over seven federal
departments within each national-level structure with POE-related responsibilities.9
7. Their evidence never says decreasing border surveillance would have the US
increase funding at ports of entries- Their barry and Crawford ev indicate bottle necks
at POE’s are a massive alt cause to trade
Cartels
1. Turn - decreasing border enforcement increases cartel violence
Jena Baker McNeill, 3-9-2009, "15 Steps to Better Border Security: Reducing America's Southern
Exposure," Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/03/15-steps-tobetter-border-security-reducing-americas-southern-exposure)//GV
One of many concerns raised by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington is the security of U.S. borders. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 established border security as a major mission for the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The failed congressional
attempt at comprehensive immigration reform focused renewed attention on the U.S. border with
Mexico as well as on the challenges of illegal border crossings and surges in cross-border crime. In response,
the Bush Administration employed additional Border Patrol agents, deployed new technologies at the border,
and erected physical barriers. These efforts have contributed to a decrease in the illegal alien population in the U.S. and to an expansion of crossborder security cooperation with Mexico. Sustaining these efforts is an essential component of regaining control of America's southern border and battling crossborder crime cartels while improving the flow of legal goods and services across the border. This was a good start. Today, however, the Obama Administration
must continue these measures and work to integrate national efforts with state and local governments
as well as with private citizens. At the Border Understanding the southern border is the first step toward gauging border security progress. This
border is more than just a demarcation on a map-it has unique challenges that must be considered in any attempt to gain operational control. Not only is the
southern border extremely long, spanning 2,000 miles from Texas to California, its terrain is incredibly diverse, from rugged, mountainous regions to expansive and
barren desert.[1] While physical features, such as the Rio Grande River and the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts, serve as natural border barriers that limit the
ability of people to enter the U.S. illegally, in other areas all that separates the United States from Mexico is an old fence.[2] The
main method by
which to enter and exit the U.S. and Mexico is through the 39 ports of entry (POE).[3] These POEs operate almost around
the clock, processing vast numbers of people, goods, and vehicles. In 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processed more than 319 million people and
more than 133 million trucks and cars, a good majority of which came through the southern border.[4] While the POEs act as a security mechanism, these entrances
are also a constant source of vulnerability, largely stemming from out-of-date and dilapidated infrastructure.[5] POEs serve to regulate the flow of people, goods,
and services into and out of the U.S. and Mexico, making the border an economic engine that generates hundreds of billions of dollars a year in commerce for both
countries-and moving goods and services throughout North America. This shared border has also led to an extensive economic relationship between the U.S. and
Mexico. America is Mexico's primary source of foreign direct investment (FDI).[6] Immigrants living in the U.S. send millions of dollars in remittances back home to
Mexico every year.[7] The benefits of this relationship to the U.S. are also immense. Due to the free-trade relationship established between the two countries under
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico became America's second-largest trading partner. (In 2008, China became No. 2, with Canada in first
place, and Mexico dropping to third.)[8] Challenges and Challenging Solutions As the economic relationship between the U.S. and Mexico has expanded, challenges
have also arisen that jeopardize the security of the border and require the immediate attention of both the U.S. and Mexico. Cartels
Running Amok.
Criminal cartels have seized de facto control of broad swathes of land in Mexico just across the U.S.
border.[9] Some of the most powerful cartels include the Gulf Cartel, The Federation, the Tijuana Cartel, the
Sinaloa, and the Juarez Cartel-who have also been known to make alliances with one another. These cartels sell
drugs and weapons, engage in human trafficking, and launder money. From these "businesses" stem everincreasing numbers of kidnappings, robberies, and murders. No ordinary street gangs, these cartels are like violent minimilitaries, fully equipped with intelligence, weapons, and other equipment.[10] They engage in these crimes largely without
interference from Mexican law enforcement, which is simply too overwhelmed, lacking both manpower and resources to tackle the
problem.[11] Cartel violence has escalated in recent years in retaliation to Mexican President Felipe Calderon's efforts to crack down on
cartel criminal activity. In 2007, close to 3,000 people were murdered by cartels.[12] By 2008, the number had
risen to more than 5,300 (the number is expected to rise in 2009).[13] The motivation behind this violence largely centers on the highly profitable
illegal drug trade-largely fed by American demands for illegal narcotics. This battle has induced outrageous acts of violence in areas like Ciudad Juarez, a Mexican
city across the border from El Paso, Texas, including gruesome beheadings.[14] In June 2008, a 12-year-old girl was killed when cartel gunmen used her as a human
shield.[15] The violence has begun to spill over into the United States. In January 2008, a U.S. Border Patrol agent, Luis Aguilar, was
run over and killed by drug smugglers as he tried to arrest them in California.[16] In 2005, four Americans were kidnapped for ransom by a cartel in Nuevo Laredo,
Mexico, not too far from Laredo, Texas.[17] While they were later released, their kidnapping as well as other acts of violence led the U.S. State Department to issue
a travel warning for American tourists in the Laredo area.
2. Turn- Statistics prove the border is being secured, multiple new initiatives solve
border security, plan would kill that
Whitehouse.gov 2015 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration/border-security,
Continuing to Strengthen Border Security)//A.V.
Continuing to Strengthen Border Security "When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I
began by doing what I could to secure our borders. Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our
southern border than at any time in our history. And over the past six years, illegal border crossings have
been cut by more than half." — President Obama, November 20, 2014 Under the Obama administration, the resources that
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) dedicates to security at the Southwest border are at an alltime high. Today, there are 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents along the Southwest Border, and our
border fencing, unmanned aircraft surveillance systems, and ground surveillance systems have more
than doubled since 2008. Taken as a whole, the additional boots on the ground, technology, and
resources provided in the last six years represent the most serious and sustained effort to secure our
border in our nation’s history, cutting illegal border crossings by more than half. And this effort is producing
results. From 1990 to 2007, the population of undocumented individuals in the United States grew from 3.5 million to 11 million people. Since
then, the
size of the undocumented population has stopped growing for the first time in decades. Border
apprehensions — a key indicator of border security — are at their lowest level since the 1970s. The
President’s immigration reform proposal gives law enforcement the tools they need to make our communities safer from crime. And by
enhancing our infrastructure and technology, the President’s proposal continues to strengthen our
ability to remove criminals and apprehend and prosecute threats to our national security. To build on these
efforts and to ensure that our limited enforcement resources are used effectively, the President has announced the following
actions: Shifting resources to the border and recent border crossers. Over the summer, DHS sent hundreds of Border Patrol agents and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel to the Southwest border, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) reordered dockets in
immigration courts to prioritize removal cases of recent border crossers. This
continued focus will help keep our borders
safe and secure. In addition, Secretary Johnson is announcing a new Southern Border and Approaches
Campaign Plan, which will strengthen the efforts of the agencies who work to keep our border secure.
And by establishing clearer priorities for interior enforcement, DHS is increasing the likelihood that
people attempting to cross the border illegally will be apprehended and sent back. Streamlining the immigration
court process. DOJ is announcing a package of immigration court reforms that will address the backlog of pending cases by working with DHS to
more quickly adjudicate cases of individuals who meet new DHS-wide enforcement priorities and close cases of individuals who are low
priorities. DOJ will also pursue regulations that adopt best practices for court systems to use limited court hearing time as efficiently as
possible. Protecting victims of crime and human trafficking as well as workers. The Department of Labor (DOL) is expanding and strengthening
immigration options for victims of crimes (U visas) and trafficking (T visas) who cooperate in government investigations. An interagency working
group will also explore ways to ensure that workers can avail themselves of their labor and employment rights without fear of retaliation. The
President's Proposal binocular icon Strengthen border security and infrastructure. The
President’s proposal strengthens and
improves infrastructure at ports of entry, facilitates public-private partnerships aimed at increasing
investment in foreign visitor processing, and continues supporting the use of technologies that help to
secure the land and maritime borders of the United States. Combat transnational crime. The President’s proposal creates
new criminal penalties dedicated to combating transnational criminal organizations that traffic in drugs, weapons, and money, and that
smuggle people across the borders.
It also expands the scope of current law to allow for the forfeiture of these
organizations’ criminal tools and proceeds. Through this approach, we will bolster our efforts to deprive
criminal enterprises, including those operating along the Southwest border, of their infrastructure and
profits. siren icon Improve partnerships with border communities and law enforcement. The President’s proposal expands our
ability to work with our cross-border law enforcement partners. Community trust and cooperation are
key to effective law enforcement. To this end, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will
establish border community liaisons along the Southern and Northern borders to improve
communication and collaboration with border communities, boost funding to tribal government
partners to reduce illegal activity on tribal lands, and strengthen training on civil rights and civil liberties
for DHS immigration officers. Crack down on criminal networks engaging in passport and visa fraud and human smuggling. The
President’s proposal creates tough criminal penalties for trafficking in passports and immigration
documents and schemes to defraud, including those who prey on vulnerable immigrants through
notario fraud. It also strengthens penalties to combat human smuggling rings.
3. Mexican state violence is decreasing - trends
Mexico News Daily, 3-21-2015, "Mexico Peace Index sees decline in homicides, violence," Mexico
News Daily, http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/index-sees-decline-homicides-violence/)//GV
Violence and crime have declined in Mexico since 2012, says a report by an international research organization, with current
conditions being similar to what they were in 2007. The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) says falling homicide rates and
activity by organized crime have not only made the country more peaceful but have helped boost the
economy. It also concludes that there is great potential for peace in the long term based on institutional
strengths. The Mexico Peace Index shows the national level of peace has improved 16% since 2011, with
improvements in 26 states, but also notes that under-reporting of crimes and the lack of prosecutions are a concern. The justice efficiency indicator,
which measures the ratio of homicides to homicide convictions, continues to worsen: the ratio doubled from 1.45 in 2006 to 3. 43 in 2013. The ratio of people
sentenced to prison terms also worsened, falling from 210 per 100,000 people to 104, which combined with the deterioration in the justice efficiency indicator
represents “a troubling trend that highlights the urgent need to fully implement the current justice reforms.” The institute said another serious issue is that most
violent crimes go unreported: only 8% of rapes and 23% of assaults are reported to authorities. However, that under-reporting has been taken into account by
adjusting figures to create a more accurate index, say its authors. The reliability of crime statistics has been called into question by many over the years, a concern
to which the IEP has responded by comparing other data and victim surveys against official figures. The results, says the institute, “strongly suggest the progress in
peace is real.” That progress means Mexico is almost as peaceful now as it was in 2007, says the study, which is when the war on drug trafficking escalated under
former President Felipe Calderón. Homicides
have seen the greatest improvement, having decreased by almost 30%,
while the level of organized crime dropped by 25%, though weapons-related crimes were up 11%.
4. Mexico's economy is resilient - ability to withstand growing drug violence, export
competitiveness and higher wages prove
Thomas White International 12 (January 27, 2012,“Mexico: The glow of economic
resilience lightens the shadows of violence”, http://www.thomaswhite.com/world-markets/mexicothe-glow-of-economic-resilience-lightens-the-shadows-of-violence/ )Wave3seo
But, surprisingly, the Mexican economy has so far remained somewhat impervious to all that
violence. GDP growth last year was relatively healthy and the expected slowdown during the
current year is likely to be a minor dip rather than a steep fall. Domestic consumer demand has
held up, supported by nearly $23 billion in remittances during 2011 from Mexicans working
abroad. Industrial investments are flowing in from abroad, and last year were estimated by the
UN at close to $18 billion. Despite higher consumer prices in recent months, inflation remains
under control and has allowed the central bank to maintain interest rates relatively low.¶ It is
interesting that much of the economy’s resilience is rooted in the sustained buoyancy in export
shipments, especially of manufactured goods, when consumer demand in the U.S., the
destination for most of Mexico’s exports, has not been particularly robust. This suggests
Mexico’s improved export competitiveness and, in fact, Mexico has been steadily increasing its
share in the total import basket of its northern neighbor. The most significant driver of this
trend are rising labor and other costs in China and in neighboring Asian countries that are the
principal suppliers into the U.S. market. Even though the average wages in Mexico are still
higher than most developing countries in Asia, the competitive edge in that Far East region has
gradually declined when aggregate costs are considered. The close proximity to the U.S., which
allows greater logistical flexibility in response to short-term demand fluctuations, adds to
Mexico’s luster in the eyes of large manufacturers.
5. Mexico is far from a failed state and trade high now
DeLong 2000, professor of Economics at Cal, 2K, J. Bradford DeLong, professor of Economics and chair
of the Political Economy major at the University of California, Berkeley. He served as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration under Lawrence
Summers. He is also a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and is a visiting
scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, “NAFTA's (Qualified) Success”, http://www.jbradford-delong.net/TotW/nafta.html Mollie
It is time to conclude that NAFTA--the North American Free Trade Agreement--is a success. It is nearly seven years since the ratification of
NAFTA, nearly seven years since then-Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen argued and President Clinton decided that NAFTA should be the second major initiative of
his administration. The major argument for NAFTA was that it was
the best thing the United States could do to raise the
chances for Mexico to become democratic and prosperous, and that the United States had both a strong
interest and a neighborly duty to try to help Mexican political and economic development. By that yardstick
NAFTA has been a clear success. NAFTA has helped Mexico economically. Over the past five years real GDP has grown at 5.5
percent per year. Even including the sharp shock of the 1995 peso crisis, Mexican real GDP has grown at 3.8 percent per year
since the ratification of NAFTA. The urban unemployment rate that was 6 percent in 1992 and rose to 8.5
percent in 1995 is now less than 4 percent. The Mexican boom has been led by the manufacturing,
construction, transportation, and communications sectors. Most of all, the Mexican boom has been led by
exports: next year Mexico's real exports will be more than three times as large as they were at the ratification of NAFTA, and
as a share of GDP exports have grown from a little more than 10 to 17 percent. It is here--in the growing volume of exports and
in the building-up of export industries--that NAFTA has made the difference. Four-fifths of Mexico's exports go to the United States. More than two-thirds of
Mexico's imports come from the United States. NAFTA guarantees Mexican producers tariff- and quota-free access to the American market. Without this guarantee,
a smaller number of Mexican exporters would dare try to develop the strong links with the market north of the Rio Grande that have enabled them to sell their
exports. Without this guarantee, few--either in Mexico or from overseas--would have dared to invest in the manufacturing capacity that has allowed Mexico to
satisfy United States demand. Without NAFTA's guarantee of tariff- and quota-free access to the American market, we would not have seen the rise in trade within
industries between Mexico and the U.S. over the past half decade. Rising intra-industry trade means that Mexico and the U.S. are moving toward a greater degree
of specialization and a finer division of labor in important industries like autos--where labor-intensive portions are more and more done in Mexico--and textiles-where the U.S. increasingly does high-tech spinning and weaving and Mexico increasingly does lower-tech cutting and sewing. As economists Mary Burfisher,
Sherman Robinson, and Karen Thierfelder put it, NAFTA
has nurtured the growth of productivity through "Smithian" efficiency gains
NAFTA, would Mexican
domestic savings have doubled as a share of GDP since the early 1990s? Surely not. Without NAFTA, would the
number of telephone lines in Mexico have doubled in the 1990s? Probably not. Moreover, Mexican exports
are by no means low-tech labor- and primary product-intensive goods. More than 20 percent of all Mexican exports are
that result from "widen[ing] the exent of the market" and capturing "increasing returns to finer specialization." Without
capital goods. More than 70 percent of Mexican manufacturing exports are metal products. Without NAFTA, would U.S. big three auto producers have invested in
the Mexican auto industry, and would Mexican exports of autos and auto parts to the U.S. have grown from $10 to $30 billion a year? Surely not. More important,
NAFTA has helped Mexico politically. Strong economic growth makes political reform much, much easier:
reslicing a growing pie is possible under many circumstances where reslicing a static pie is not.
AIncreasing economic integration brings with it pressures for increasing political integration as well: the
liquidation of the statist-corporatist PRI order, and a shift toward democratic institutions that are more like those of the
industrial democracies that Mexico hopes to join (and to which mexico hopes that NAFTA will serve as a passport of admission). The
result has been the first peaceful transfer of power in Mexico in more than a lifetime, with the election to the
Mexican presidency of Vicente Fox Queseda. Economist Dani Rodrik describes political democracy as a powerful meta-institution for building the political and
economic institutions needed for success: thus Mexico's
future looks much brighter now than it did back in the late 1980s
when the dominant PRI regularly stole elections and held a hammerlock on Mexico's government.