1AC
The United States federal government should substantially expand its guest worker
visa program towards Mexico.
Advantage 1: Economy
Economic growth is halting – failure to act irrevocably damages the market
Lange 8/3 (Jason Lange, Irish Independent, “US economy stuck on low gear despite hope on jobs”, 08/03/13, AD: 08/03/13,
http://www.independent.ie/business/world/us-economy-stuck-on-low-gear-despite-hope-on-jobs-29469275.html | Kushal)
US employers slowed their pace of hiring in July but the jobless rate fell anyway, mixed signals that
could make the US Federal Reserve more cautious about drawing down its huge economic stimulus programme. The number of jobs
outside the farming sector increased by 162,000, the Labour Department said yesterday. That was below forecasts.
Compounding that miss, the government also cut its previous estimates for hiring in May and June. At the
same time, the jobless rate fell two-tenths of a point to 7.4pc, its lowest since December 2008. Gains in employment fuelled some of that
decline but the
labour force also shrank during the month, robbing some of the lustre from the
decline in the unemployment rate. The data reinforces the view that the job market is inching
towards recovery, with the broader economy still stuck in low gear. "We're sort of grinding
along here," said Gordon Charlop, managing director at Rosenblatt Securities in New York. The question is whether the pace of job gains is
enough for the Fed to feel the US economy is ready to get by with less support. The US central bank currently buys $85bn (€64bn) a month in
bonds to keep borrowing costs low. The growth in payrolls left the three-month average gain at 175,000, and investor reactions were mixed to
the payrolls data. Most economists expect GDP will accelerate in the second half of this year, which would make it more plausible for the
current hiring trend to continue. Yesterday's report showed the average working week declined to 34.4 hours, while earnings slipped 0.1pc.
DAMAGE The report also showed 5.7pc
of Americans who had jobs in June could not get enough hours to
qualify as full-time workers. While the unemployment rate has fallen by eight tenths of a point over the last year, the share of
part-time workers who want more hours has barely dropped. Also, the number of long-term unemployed, while falling,
remains historically high. Bernanke has warned this situation could deal lasting damage to the
economy's growth potential. That is because workers out of work for extended periods might
never work again.
Current programs are insufficient – growth is contingent on an increase of guest
workerss
Bier 13 David Bier is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He holds degrees in political science and philosophy from Grove
City College in Pennsylvania. He specializes in immigration and environmental policy, focusing on the value of human beings as the ultimate
resource (“To Grow, The U.S. Economy Needs More Low-Skilled Immigrant Workers”, Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/05/06/to-grow-the-u-s-economy-needs-more-low-skilled-immigrant-workers/) sheller
Recently introduced legislation to tackle immigration reform has elements that should satisfy both liberals and
conservatives–namely, strong border security metrics for conservatives and a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally for liberals. But the
bill also contains provisions that could
end up being problematic for both sides, unless they agree to
dramatically expand the proposed guest worker program. The bill’s border security standards
include mandatory implementation of E-Verify, the electronic employment verification system that checks employees’
information against government databases to see if they are authorized to work. Unfortunately, because E-Verify results in
some errors for legal employees, nearly 180,000 authorized workers would be forced to sort
out erroneous rejections under a national mandate. Under this bill, employers must employ unconfirmed workers for up to six
weeks while they have the opportunity to appeal – which, in effect, guarantees unauthorized workers employment. Immigrants already engage
in mostly short-term employment, which means many will come knowing that E-Verify will give them a job. But the
real problem for
employers is if they are forced to hire and fire 1 percent (at current E-Verify rejection rates) of all new
employees, this measure will increase worker turnover expenses dramatically. Replacing
workers, even the low-skilled, can cost between $2,640 and $6,042, according to two recent studies by
economist Heather Boushey and another by the Sasha Corp., a management consulting firm. At the current rejection rate, E-Verify will reject
650,000 unauthorized workers per year, costing
businesses $3.9 billion in turnover costs. Actual costs may be higher
is a solution: If immigrants
because these workers would leave unexpectedly without the traditional two-week notice. But there
looking for short-term employment are able to apply for guest worker visas, there will be
fewer undocumented immigrants going through the E-Verify process – and fewer worker
turnover costs for employers. The only time in the last 70 years when illegal immigration was almost
eliminated was in the 1960s when Congress let in millions of guest workers. But the Senate
proposal includes a small program that would permit only 20,000 guest workers next year and at most
200,000. This number is far too low. The Government Accountability Office found more than 500,000 people
attempted to cross into the United States in 2011 alone. The Senate plan would cover less than half of new illegal
entrants in a given year, and that’s just entrants from a single country and with America in a down economy. Without a significantly expanded
guest worker program, undocumented immigrants are going to cycle through the E-Verify system, and American businesses are going to bear
the costs – something no conservative intended. Liberal goals also are threatened by the low guest worker numbers. As written, the current bill
opens a pathway to citizenship for newly legalized immigrants but only if border patrol is able to catch 90 percent of border crossers. The only
realistic way such a high percentage can be maintained is if most of the current flows enter legally rather than illegally. Moreover, an
expanded guest worker program would benefit American workers too. In 2012, the Department
of Agriculture looked at the economic impact of cutting low-skilled immigrants by 6 million and
found it would reduce Americans’ wages by up to 0.6 percent of GDP – or about $90 billion. Increasing the
number of guest workers allowed into the country will boost the economy, protect American
businesses and allow for a smooth pathway to citizenship for the new Americans that this bill
welcomes. With these incentives, Congress has more than enough reasons to fix this bill before
it is too late.
We isolate 3 scenarios:
Scenario 1: Small Businesses
Small businesses are declining now
Business Wire, 8/2/13, Small Business Employment Declines in July,
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/08/02/small-business-employment-declines-in-july/, KRM
small business employment declined by 10,000 jobs in July, while average compensation and
hours worked also dropped. Small business revenues saw an overall decline of 0.3 percent in June, with
¶ U.S.
the exception of the construction industry, which recorded a 0.2 percent increaseThose are among the findings of the monthly Intuit Inc. (NAS:
INTU) Small Business Employment and Revenue Indexes. The report found that:¶ ¶ Employment
dropped 0.05 percent in July.¶
compensation decreased 0.2 percent in July, with average monthly pay reaching the
equivalent of $2,692, down $7 from June.¶ Average monthly hours worked by hourly employees
decreased by 0.3 percent in July, which is equivalent to 107.6 hours, down 18 minutes from June.¶ This employment index is
based on data from Intuit Online Payroll and QuickBooks Online Payroll, covering the period from June 24 through July 23.¶ ¶ "The
recovery for small business has been slower and more bumpy than for big business," said Susan
Average monthly
Woodward, the economist who worked with Intuit to create the indexes. "Total employment has risen 5.1 percent from its bottom in January
2010, but employment for businesses with fewer than 20 employees has risen only 2 percent from its bottom in March 2010.¶ ¶ "Small
business revenues have declined 2.5 percent on a per-business basis from their peak in
November 2012. It's unclear why revenues are dropping across industries. But we can attribute the decline in revenues per business in
the real estate sector partly to more real estate agents entering the market, taking business from existing agents."¶ ¶ Decrease in Hours
Worked, Compensation¶ ¶ Small business hourly employees worked an average of 107.6 hours in July, making for a 24.8-hour work week, down
slightly from June's figure of 107.9 hours.¶ ¶ Average monthly pay for small business employees decreased from $2,699 in June to $2,692 in
July. The equivalent yearly wages would be about $32,300
Status quo guest worker programs are insufficient for small businesses
Calderia and Howard 4/2/13 (“Let Business Guide a Guest-Worker Policy”, The Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323296504578396190972670174.html) sheller
Based on media reports and politicians' news releases, there is finally momentum in Washington for
comprehensive immigration reform, something our respective organizations have long advocated. One component
of the system under discussion is critical: a new guest-worker program that will facilitate a market-driven supply of
essential, "lower-skill" workers. Without it, immigration reform would not be comprehensive, and it would not be
true reform.¶ The businesses we represent serve as an important gauge of the nation's overall economic health.
When America's 980,000 restaurants, 825,000 franchise establishments, 140,000 housingindustry members and the countless small business owners who rely on immigrant workers
thrive, the rest of the economy grows along with it. That is why our associations have joined with
ImmigrationWorks USA, a national organization dedicated to educating the public about the economic benefits of
immigration reform. Policy makers need to ensure that employers have access to the workers who
will enable them to grow—and to hire, in turn, more employees.¶ Today's economy is dynamic.
Bureaucrats in Washington cannot predict which business or sector will grow next , and
comprehensive immigration reform should reflect this reality. Any immigration bill that creates a
commission or bureau to determine visa quotas and decide which sectors deserve workers will
always trail the ever-changing needs of a growing economy.¶ Any guest-worker program worthy of the
name must give employers the flexibility they need to fill positions in their businesses when these positions open
up, for whatever reason.¶ The existing visa programs are inadequate for the U.S. economy. For example,
the H-2B guest-worker program is currently capped at 66,000 per year, a woefully low level. Not
only are current visa allocations far too few, the program requires employers to submit
applications to four government agencies and pay numerous fees.
Worker reform is key to multiple forms of small businesses in the economy
Mussler, 2013 (Daniel, President Grand Hotel in Michigan, Subcommittee of Workforce Protections in Congress,
March 14, 2013: online: http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=734631)
We are able to hire some college students, but increased opportunities for summer ¶ educational and
enrichment activities for college students has reduced the pool of available¶ students. Further,
most college students’ school schedules preclude them from remaining with ¶ us for the entire season, which runs
from April through mid-November.¶ We have also tried several innovative programs. We created a
service academy through¶ which we worked with the Michigan Employment Security Commission to find
unemployed¶ Michigan Citizens who expressed an interest in the hospitality field. We provided employment ¶ for
the summer and rotated them through different departments in the Hotel during the course of¶ the season. They
also received college-level classroom instruction provided by the Educational¶ Institute of the American Hotel and
Lodging Association.¶ At the end of the season, they received accreditation from the Institute, a guaranteed job¶
the next summer with us, and with the State’s assistance found winter jobs at various resorts in ¶ Colorado, Utah,
Arizona and Florida. Unfortunately for us, those resorts offered year-round¶ employment. We found that after we
had provided them an education and experience in the¶ hospitality industry and then found positions for them
with other resorts in other parts of the¶ country that offered year-round employment, we had virtually no
returning graduates.¶ We even tried a program where we recruited workers from homeless shelters in¶
metropolitan areas in southern Michigan. That was not successful.¶ We had a somewhat successful program
with the State with individuals with certain¶ limited physical and mental disabilities. We hired a qualified full-time
supervisor specially¶ trained to work with and live with these individuals to ensure integration to our working ¶
community. In recent years, the State’s role has diminished in this regard and, therefore, our¶ program as well. I
am pleased to say that our program enabled six of these individuals to ¶ become capable of living on their own and
several worked with us for over 20 years. ¶ 3¶ While these programs have not provided us with the work
force we need, we continue¶ and will continue to do everything in our power to find, recruit
and retain as many U.S. workers¶ as possible. In the meantime, the quality of service we provide
requires that we supplement our¶ professional, trained and dependable U.S. work force.¶ For many years, we
recruited workers from Florida. But as Florida turned into a year ¶ round vacation destination, those workers no
longer were available. The situation was¶ particularly critical in the hotel dining room, which is a key part of hotel
operations.¶ About 40 years ago, Grand Hotel began to look to foreign workers to fill positions for ¶
which we could not, despite extensive efforts, find U.S. workers. Our H-2B workers come from¶
several different countries. Many of these workers hold seasonal hospitality jobs in their home¶ countries. For
example, the Jamaican tourist season dovetails perfectly with ours and Jamaica is ¶ an important source of H-2B
workers for us. Some of them return year after year to Grand Hotel¶ because of the pay and working conditions we
offer to all staff, both domestic and foreign. In¶ 2012, of the 280 H-2B staff that worked with us, approximately 250
or 90% were returning staff.¶ Under federal law, our wage rates are approved by both the Michigan Employment¶
Security Commission and the U.S. Department of Labor. Our wage rates are based on Detroitarea ¶ wages.¶ We
provide a variety of housing in communities on the island that we subsidize for all ¶ staff. Most are single rooms;
some with private baths; some with shared baths with one other¶ room and some dormitory style. We are proud
of the condition of our employee housing. In the¶ past 3 years, we have spent in excess of $1.1 million on
improvements. In addition to housing,¶ we also provide three meals a day in our employee cafeteria. It is
important to note that our H-¶ 2B workers enjoy workers compensation, just as our American workers. We also
assist our U.S.¶ and H-2B workers in many ways. For example, in September of 1988, Hurricane Gilbert caused¶ $4
billion of damages to homes and crops in Jamaica. It is estimated that 80% of the homes on ¶ the Island lost their
roofs. Several staff members returned to Jamaica early to take care of their ¶ property and family and also report
back to staff members who stayed on Mackinac. Grand¶ Hotel gathered food and supplies and sent a trailer of
these supplies to Jamaica to assist with the¶ clean up.¶ In November of 2006, shortly after returning home to
Jamaica, 11 year Waiter Garfield¶ Slowly was seriously injured in an automobile accident and his child was killed in
the same¶ accident. News of the tragedy traveled quickly to Mackinac and Grand Hotel partnered with the ¶
Mackinac Island Community Foundation to provide monetary help and medical supplies.¶ $19,500 in aid was sent
to support Garfield and his family over a 4-year period. This is one of¶ many partnerships with the Mackinac Island
Community Foundation. My wife, Marlee, was on¶ the founding Board of Trustees for the Foundation and I still
serve on the Board. Grand Hotel¶ provides office space free of charge and also paid the Directors salary and
benefits for 15 years.¶ The Foundation is a resource for all staff, U.S. and H-2B workers, and provides financial¶
assistance for medical and family emergencies, natural disasters and serious illness.¶ Grand Hotel makes special
efforts to help its workers in other ways. Each year, all staff ¶ is allowed to order bulk food items and cleaning
supplies through the hotel at a great discount.¶ 4¶ These items are shipped within the U.S. or to their home
countries and used to support their¶ extended families for the entire year. At the beginning of each season,
clothing donations are¶ accepted from staff and Mackinac Island residents and redistributed to the staff coming to
work¶ in April. Much of our staff comes from a climate where warm clothing and boots are not readily ¶ accessible.
This program has provided our staff with free clothing and boots for the past 8 years. ¶ Grand Hotel also conducts
activities to celebrate our multicultural staff. Each year we¶ recognize Mexican, Jamaican and Filipino
Independence Days through activities in our¶ Employee Cafeteria and through the entertainment offered in our
outside restaurants. We also¶ help to sponsor football, soccer and cricket matches for the staff to participate in
and challenge¶ each other. The staff appreciates the recognition and everyone appreciates the opportunity to ¶
learn more about the culture and customs of their co-workers.¶ We are one of 70 northern Michigan resorts and
hotels that utilize temporary, seasonal¶ foreign workers on H-2B visas for specific jobs. Our workforce during the
summer is made up¶ of our U.S. workers and 300 or so temporary foreign workers. Our American jobs depend on
our¶ H-2B workers. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us to continue to operate¶
successfully without H-2B workers – they are the lifeblood of our seasonal business.¶ The potential
closure of Grand Hotel would have a devastating impact on Mackinac¶ Island, Northern Michigan and the
tourist industry in general.¶ Some relevant facts to consider are:¶ • Grand Hotel has reinvested in excess of $32
million in the past 15 years on capital¶ expenditures. All construction was performed by Michigan contractors.¶ •
During the past 15 years, an additional $25 million was spent on normal and major ¶ repairs to the Hotel’s
properties.¶ • On average, 600 individuals are employed at the Hotel each year, with an annual ¶ payroll in excess of
$14 million.¶ • Grand Hotel spends in excess of $1.4 million annually for State and Federal ¶ unemployment and
FICA taxes.¶ • The Hotel spends in excess of $1.4 million annually in Michigan for professional ¶ services such as
advertising, accounting and other outside services.¶ Grand Hotel is not much different from the
thousands of small and seasonal businesses¶ throughout the U.S. who have been forced to turn
to the H-2B program as a result of a lack of¶ available Americans willing and able to work in
temporary seasonal positions. And it is not just¶ the hotel and resort industry that needs these
workers.¶ Nearly every corner of the country uses seasonal temporary workers. The industries¶
include:¶ • Seafood processors, shrimpers, crabbers, and fishermen throughout the Gulf,¶ Carolinas, Alaska,
Northwest and Mid-Atlantic states;¶ • Hotels, restaurants, ski resorts and other important tourist destinations
throughout¶ New England, the Mid-West and the Rockies;¶ • Quarries from New England to Colorado;¶ 5¶ •
National Parks, including Grand Canyon, Sequoia, Yosemite and others;¶ • Forest industry in New England and the
Southeast;¶ • Theme parks and swimming pools in virtually every state; and ¶ • Landscapers and landscape
contractors across America.¶ Each year these employers go through great expense and trouble to follow the law.
The¶ H-2B process consists of applications to four separate Government agencies (State Workforce ¶ Agency, U.S.
Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S.¶ Department of State), legal fees,
Government filing fees and many other expenses. Employers¶ pay wages at levels that have been certified by the
U.S. Government to be high enough so that¶ they will not adversely affect the wages of similarly employed
Americans. Employers are¶ obligated to pay transportation expenses to and from the property (according to DOL
guidance),¶ and they must comply with the myriad rules and regulations that govern the worksite of U.S. and ¶
foreign workers alike.¶ For seasonal employers, the H-2B returning worker exemption worked well. Employers¶ still
willingly searched high and low for every American they could find. But when they could ¶ not find Americans, the
fact that they could turn to workers who have worked for them in the¶ past ensured that they could stay in
business. Most importantly, since returning workers had ¶ already undergone extensive background security checks
(and have to undergo similar cheeks¶ each time they apply to enter the U.S.), employers could feel confident that
they have helped¶ protect the security of our homeland. Moreover, in deciding to return to work with the same ¶
seasonal employer, these H-2B workers signaled that they were pleased with their working¶ conditions and the
wages they were paid. The returning worker exemption was one of those rare ¶ “win-win-win-win” situations: a win
for workers (American and foreign); a win for employers; a¶ win for the United States of America; and a win for the
communities we serve. The returning¶ worker exemption from the annual cap on H-2B visas should be re-instated.
Small businesses control the direction of growth
Wilfong 13 (James, Former Small Business Administration’s Assistant Administrator for
International Trade under President G.W. Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton, January 23, 2013: online:
http://www.manzellareport.com/index.php/u-s/592-small-business-is-the-driver-of-the-u-seconomy-and-middle-class-prosperity)
small business owners and small farmers have provided dynamic
growth and innovation, creating a flourishing middle class. They have supplied cities and small
towns with new products, processes and jobs. The Council on Competitiveness in a 2007 report said the United States
From our Nation’s founding, entrepreneurs,
leads all major industrial economies in the percent of the adult population engaged in entrepreneurial activity. ¶ Small business owners are
often not given the proper respect by politicians for their importance to society. Historically, the concept of small business has been given
volumes of lip service but, because of its diversity both in product and location, the proprietors have no incentive to coalesce around a single
lobbying organization and, hence, employ a scattergun approach to congressional liaison and, essentially, remain without effective means to
establish or influence any meaningful political agenda.¶ Grand openings of large business are many times more advantageous to people
standing for election. They are immediate and big news stories. To an elected official looking for votes in the next election, a press conference
announcing many new jobs can be highly beneficial; as far as having an impact on the economy, it is fleeting.¶ Small business ownership is most
times not glamorous. It is about working long hours every day, taking punches and getting back on your feet. It is about producing goods and
services and creating jobs without large tax breaks, employee training money or fanfare. Entrepreneurs and small business owners are truly
Small business generates nearly one-half of the U.S. gross
domestic product and employs 53 percent of all private-sector jobs. In fact, small business startups produced 100 percent of the net new jobs created between 1980 and 2005, according to the Small
Jefferson’s 21st Century yeoman farmers.¶
Business Administration (SBA).¶ Young, fast-growing firms create many of these new job opportunities. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) researcher David Birch calls these firms gazelles. Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter would have called them wild spirits. Gazelles are
companies that grow revenues at a rate of 20 percent for four years in a row. These businesses require hub airports, easy access to universities
and colleges to upgrade skills, an attractive environment (good place to live), and a culture open to new ideas and differences in people. They
are the job creators.¶ According to the SBA, entrepreneurs and
small businesses are responsible for 55 percent of
new and innovative products. They pay 44 percent of the private payroll, are located, for the most part, in smaller communities,
and 52 percent are home-based. Small businesses are responsible for more than 30 percent of the value
of goods and services exported by the United States.
H-2 guest workers stimulate economic growth and job creation – recent quantitative
case studies prove
Clemens 13 (Michael Clemens, Senior Fellow for the Center for Global Development, PhD in Economics from
Harvard University, “The Effect of Foreign Labor on Native Employment: A Job-Specific Approach and Application
to North Carolina Farms - Working Paper 326”, 05/15/13, AD: 07/17/13, http://www.cgdev.org/publication/effectforeign-labor-native-employment-job-specific-approach-and-application-north | Kushal)
One job to a foreign worker means one less job for an American, right? The logic sounds solid, but evidence
suggests it’s not necessarily so. Using data collected by the North Carolina Growers’ Association (NCGA), the
leading employer of workers with H-2 visas, Michael Clemens shows that foreign workers have almost no
direct effect on the employment prospects of US workers in H-2 occupations. Instead, they
actually have a large and positive indirect effect on US employment by contributing to North
Carolina’s economy. How do foreign workers affect the employment prospects of Americans? Economists have
traditionally approached this question by examining the effects of sudden shocks to the foreign labor supply on
native workers within a defined geographical or demographic unit. This paper takes a new approach by examining
the native labor supply for a specific occupation instead. It uses data collected by the North Carolina Growers’
Association (NCGA), the leading user of the United States' seasonal agricultural work visa—the H-2 visa. Clemens
estimates the number of US workers who want these agricultural jobs and how this number changes during a
sharp rise in unemployment. To employ workers on an H-2 visa, employers have to satisfy
requirements that ensure that there are no Americans who can fill these jobs. In other words,
employers are legally required to treat native workers as perfect substitutes for US workers. So
the number of applicants to these jobs describes the level of the native labor supply. The change in the native
labor supply for these jobs in response to the spike in US unemployment during the 2007–8 economic crisis
describes the local slope of the labor supply. Clemens finds that there are close to zero Americans who
want these jobs, even when unemployment spikes above 12 percent. This suggests that foreign
workers have almost no direct effect on the employment prospects of US workers in these H-2
occupations. Moreover, these foreign workers have a large and positive indirect effect on US
employment through their contribution to the output of the North Carolina economy. Since they are
taking agricultural jobs that no American wants, they are allowing these farms to operate and picking produce that
would not otherwise get picked. This increase in economic output translates to new jobs created
throughout the economy, far beyond the farm. Clemens estimates that one new US job across all
sectors of the North Carolina economy is created by every 1.5–2.3 foreign manual agricultural
worker in the short run. Assuming that in the long run, labor can be partially though not completely
substituted by other inputs, like additional tools and machinery, every 3.0–4.6 foreign workers create one new
American job.
Snapshots brush over our structural problems
Nathan Eddy is a business technology writer and a graduate of Northwestern University's Medill School of
Journalism, 8-8-2013 [“Small Business Optimism Climbs, but Employment Stalls”, eWeek,
http://www.eweek.com/small-business/small-business-optimism-climbs-but-employment-stalls]/sbhag
interestingly, despite positive growth in economic outlook, there was very little change in smallbusinesses revenue and profits over the last 12 months and similarly stagnant growth in
projections for both revenue and profits in the coming 12 months. There also was relatively little
change in growth strategies planned for small business in the next year, the survey revealed. "Unfortunately,
small-business owners didn't express that same positive growth when it comes to their own business," NSBA
President and CEO Todd McCracken said in a statement. "Past and projected growth in jobs and revenues
remained stagnant while small businesses availability to garner financing dropped—two key
indicators that go hand-in-hand." The number of small businesses relying on loans from large banks and
earnings of the business was down from previous surveys, and the number of small businesses relying on
community bank loans, credit union loans and credit cards remained virtually unchanged. Advanced CRM:
Answering Unique Business Needs Download Now In addition, small businesses reported virtually no change in
employment numbers from six months ago. Today, just 18 percent report increasing their employee size, while 26
percent report decreases in employee size, resulting in negative net employee growth.
Scenario 2: Production
Status quo immigration severely limits crop production
Feinstein 13 (US Senator Dianne Feinstein, “AMERICA’SAGRICULTURALCRISIS AND THEAGRICULTURALWORKERPROGRAMACTOF2013”,
April 2013, 07/20/13, http://www.agworkforcecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Updated-AgJobs-Booklet-April-2013-v2.pdf |
Kushal)
Gaines Farms is a family-owned farm located just north of the Alabama River near Autaugaville. The farm has been in business for more than
30 years and produces beef cattle, cotton, peanuts, hay, timber, and small grains.1 Co-owner Harold Gainestraveled over 200 miles to attend a
seminar on understanding the complicated requirements of the H-2A seasonal farm labor program. After attending the program, he explained
the challenges he faces in finding workers to help him harvest the products on his farm. “In
agriculture, it's coming to this,” states Mr.
labor-intensive operations like vegetables and produce, you can't hire good
help. The ones you can hire are often not qualified, not motivated, or both.”2 Shore Acres Plant Farm in
Gaines. “On larger operations, especially
Theodore, Alabama, is a family-owned plant nursery that sells a wide variety of foliage and flowering plants. Owner Oliver Washington IV
explains how important guest
workers are to the operation of his business. He
states, “We’ve had the same people for almost 10 years.
They are a good group of guys from an agricultural area in Mexico. They grew up around plants, so they
immigration law that went into effect in the fall of 2011 has made it even
know what to do.”A state
more difficult for Alabama farmers to meet their labor needs.
John Zippert, program director for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Rural Training & Research Center, says that “this
is scaring
Hispanic workers away, not just from the Alabama fields, but also from northern Alabama, in chicken processing plants.” He adds,
“I don’t think other unemployed people are going to take these jobs. From an economic
standpoint, this is a real problem.” 4 Chandler Mountain tomato farmer Jamie Boatwright saw all of his migrant workers leave
the state following the law’s passage. He attempted to make up the labor shortfall with domestic workers, but was unsuccessful. “Since this
law went into effect, I’ve had a total [of] 11 people that were Americans come and ask for work. A total of one of those actually came back the
next day.” That one worker picked four boxes of tomatoes and quit.5 Fellow Chandler Mountain tomato farmer Chad Smith predicts that the
labor shortage caused by Alabama’s immigration law means that “we could lose probably fifty
percent of [the tomato crop] we have left for the year.” Mr. Smith does not believe that he could attract domestic
workers even he raised his wages: “It ain’t about the money, it’s about the work physically. If a person can’t do the work, they can’t do it no
matter how much you pay them. As of next year, if nothing changes, there won’t be a tomato grown here.”6 Some tomato farmers, such as
Farms owner Keith Dickie, have reduced production because they fear that – yet again – they
will not be able to find enough workers to pick this fragile fruit.
K&D
Failure to reform collapses American agribusiness
FAIR 13 (Federation for American Immigration Reform, “The Effect on the Agriculture Industry of Converting to a
Legal Workforce”, May 2013, AD: 07/19/13, http://www.fairus.org/publications/illegal-immigration-andagribusiness | Kushal)
Over the past several decades, the
farming sector has grown increasingly dependent on a steady supply of
workers who have entered the country illegally, despite the unlimited availability of visas for
foreign agricultural guest workers. This has created a situation where presently half of all crop farm workers are unauthorized
and have annual incomes that are $5,600 less than that of authorized workers working in the same sector. The agribusiness sector has
consistently opposed an immigration policy that would result in a legal workforce. Their position is that current hiring practices are crucial for
Americans are not willing to do agricultural work and increasing wages to
attract native-born workers would result in significantly higher food prices or a decline in
American food production. Agribusiness lobbyist Sharon Hughes says, "We are either going to have our food
produced by foreign workers here in the United States, or the farming process will move to
foreign countries." Since 5.7 percent of U.S. farms account for 75 percent of total farm sales, it is clear that the food supply
chain of the country is almost entirely dependent on large-scale agribusinesses. Hence, their economic
the survival of the industry, as
interests are, to an extent, linked to national interests and cannot be trivialized when considering immigration issues. But is what they are
saying true? Between 1997 and 2007, the agriculture industry enjoyed a nearly 80 percent average annual increase in corporate profits, which
is higher than all other major industries surveyed. Over the same period, the average real wage of a farm worker remained stagnant and was
only half that of a non-farm worker of comparable skill level. In such a situation, it would be logical to question whether increasing farm wages
to attract legal workers would really have a debilitating effect on the industry. Prior studies have focused on the impact on food prices as a
result of passing on the full increase of labor costs to consumers. In this study, we explore the impact on profits of commercial farms if all the
increased labor costs are absorbed by the producers and the consequent effect on overall farm business. Both these scenarios must be
assessed in order to obtain a conclusion about the industry’s ability to absorb higher labor costs.
Guest workers are more profitable than mechanized agriculture
Clemens 13 Michael A. Clemens is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development where he leads the Migration and Development
initiative. His current research focuses on the effects of international migration on people from and in developing countries, and on rigorous
impact evaluation for aid projects. He also serves as CGD’s Research Manager. (“INTERNATIONAL HARVEST: A Case Study of How Foreign
Workers Help American Farms Grow Crops – and the Economy”, Partnership for a New American Economy and Center for Global Development,
http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/nc-agr-report-05-2013.pdf)
However, over
a longer period of time, farmers could possibly make adjustments to the way they ¶
harvest crops – like using machines – that could effectively replace the need for foreign
workers, ¶ meaning that, in comparison, the loss of 7,000 H-2A workers have a reduced impact on the North ¶ Carolina economy because
whatever farmers use to replace the foreign workers could recoup some of ¶ the economic value that foreign workers provide. But still,
farmers earn more by using foreign workers ¶ than by using mechanized harvesters, meaning
that even if the farms could make do without it, they ¶ would make less money and add less to the North
Carolina economy if they did not use foreign labor. ¶ With this model, the H-2A workers still add $248-$371 million to the North
Carolina economy – less ¶ than estimated if the foreign workers are irreplaceable, but still a large
benefit to the state.¶ 7,000 H-2A workers add roughly $248-$371 million to the North ¶ Carolina economy in a given year.17 | FINDINGS
US agriculture is intimately connected to the US and global economy
Edmondson 8 – USDA Economist (William, “U.S. Agricultural Trade Boosts Overall Economy,” April 2008,
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:cKyRuUhC2bgJ:www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/FAU/2008/04Apr/FAU124/FAU124.pdf+%2211,800+Ame
rican+jobs+(see+box,+%E2%80%9CData+sources,%E2%80%9D+p.+6).%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us.com)
As the world becomes more integrated, global trade and the economic links between countries
grow ever stronger. U.S. agricultural trade is a significant contributor to the overall U.S. economy
and to the rest of the world’s economies. The United States continues to be a net exporter of
agricultural products, the surplus helping to offset some of the U.S. nonfarm trade deficit. Trade
agreements have expanded agricultural trade and, in turn, have opened the U.S. market to exporting opportunities for both developed and
developing countries. Such trade benefits developing countries that in the past have had little market access. Agricultural exports by the United
States are now enjoying a resurgence due to rising food demand in emerging markets, reduced competition in feed-grain markets, and a
weakened dollar. At the same time the value of agricultural imports is rising, averaging 10-percent growth per year since 2001. The U.S. farm
and rural economies have always been affected by international and domestic macroeconomic trade influences. From early colonial days, when
tobacco and cotton were the most important export commodities, to today’s grain, oilseed, and processed foods, agricultural trade has been an
important part of the U.S. economic engine. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other bilateral and multilateral trade
agreements lowered trade barriers and created additional consumer demand for U.S. agricultural commodities in foreign nations. In turn, that
demand is satisfied with purchasing power acquired when their products are sold in the United States and elsewhere. The weakening U.S.
dollar, which has now fallen to a 30-year low compared with the world’s other major currencies, makes the price of U.S. goods increasingly
competitive abroad. Canada and Mexico are the leading U.S. trading partners—together, those nations buy over 35 percent of U.S. exports.
Meanwhile, U.S.
imports of agricultural goods have not slowed despite the weakened buying power
of the U.S. dollar. U.S. consumers continue to demand a large variety of imported goods and are willing to pay a premium for them.
Agricultural trade is most importantly a generator of output, employment, and income in the
U.S. economy. For every dollar spent on exports in 2006, another $1.65 was created in the economy to support the exporting activity
(see table 1, p. 15). ERS model results show that every $1 billion of agricultural exports in 2006 requires 11,800
American jobs (see box, “Data Sources,” p. 6).
Scenario 3: Housing
Stimulus reductions and interest spikes threaten recovery
Aravosis 7/10 (John Aravosis, Editor of AMERICAblog, joint JD/MSFS from Georgetown, worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's
Defense Fund, and as a stringer for the Economist. “Is housing set for a major fall?”, 07/10/13, AD: 08/03/13,
http://americablog.com/2013/07/is-housing-set-for-a-major-fall.html | Kushal)
There’s an interesting article over at CNBC that dovetails with what a reader was telling me last night about the housing situation he’s seeing in
the recent Fed move to dial back the “quantitative easing” stimulus has
led to a sharp jump in interest rates for mortgages that threaten to, at the very least, “pause”
recovery in the housing sector. Just last night, my friend Nick, who lives in Willow Glen, a nice neighborhood of San Jose,
northern California. Namely, that
California, told me that three months ago signs would go up for a new home sale and the place would be sold in a week. Now, properties just sit
there. He also spoke with a local realtor who confirmed that weeks ago they were seeing 10-15 offers on homes, now they’re down to three or
four. And reports in the Denver press show
the housing market “cooling” out there as well, though the Denver market is
still experiencing strong demand. CNBC argues that we’ve not seen this degree of an of anti-stimulus to the
housing market in a long while. They say that when the $8,000 home buyer tax credit expired in 2010, the
housing market took a serious hit – and that the tax credit was small pickings compared to the recent spiked in
interest rates: “That stimulus was so small compared to a 3.5 percent interest rate, it’s almost not even a comparable, but it’s the only
thing I can find,” said Mark Hanson, a well-known mortgage analyst in California who predicted many aspects of the mortgage market crash.
“When
that stimulus went away, new home sales fell 38 percent in a single month, down 25
percent year-over-year, and existing home sales fell 30 percent over a single month, 24 percent
year-over year.” Reuters reports that industry data backs up concerns about a pause in the market.
The surge in costs has been expected to push some undecided buyers into the market as they rush to lock in rates before they rise even more,
but MBA’s seasonally adjusted gauge of loan requests for home purchases fell 3.1 percent, the second-straight week of declines. I know Chris
has been no fan of quantitative easing, and I interviewed economist Joe Stiglitz about the quantitative easing policy a while back. But with
the economy still not even close to fully back on its feet, rising interest rates can’t be helping . I
did have to chuckle at this quote from the Denver story: “It is causing buyers to have to re-evaluate how they can bring more money to the
table so they can still buy that $200,000 dream home, or do they have to start looking more at the $195,000 range?” Bauer said. In Washington,
DC, where I live, you’d be lucky to find a condo that was the size of a shoe box and a total wreck for $200,000. Good luck. I can’t imagine
anything larger than 350 sq. ft. going for $200k here. As for a home, forget about it. It’s weird how when you live a town that’s so expensive,
you think of yourself as less well off because you can’t afford a real home like your parents had at your age, even though your one-bedroom
condo is worth twice what some people pay for huge homes elsewhere in America.
It’s on the brink and critical to the economy
Hughes 12 (Sam Hughes, Intern at the Center for American Progress, “A Strong Housing Market Is Critical to Our
Economic Recovery”, 11/15/12, AD: 07/19/13,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/housing/news/2012/11/15/45042/a-strong-housing-market-is-criticalto-our-economic-recovery/ | Kushal)
Some economists and experts are pushing the notion that the key to a strong housing market is a strong economy . They
argue that we don’t need specific policies to address the housing crisis, and instead should focus only on policies that grow the broader
the housing market is where the Great Recession of 2007–
2009 began and we’re not likely to see a robust economic recovery until the housing market
heals. We’re beginning to see the early stages of a housing recovery with the housing sector finally starting to contribute positively to
economic growth, but the housing market remains far from healthy . Below are six reasons why lawmakers need to focus
on housing to help spur further growth, rather than ignore this important business sector and hope for the best: Housing booms lead
the way to broader economic growth, not vice versa. During our three previous recessions—in 1980, 1991,
economy and create jobs. They’re wrong. In reality,
and 2001—residential
investment led the way to recovery, growing more than 30 percent on
average in the first years of the recovery. Despite recent gains, the housing market has so far lagged behind growth in the
broader economy, translating into billions of dollars in lost economic output and millions of missing jobs. If home construction were
near its historic norm, it would create an additional 3 million jobs. The housing sector traditionally
accounts for roughly one-fifth of the U.S. economy, but construction on new homes today is currently about half of
the historic norm. Since each home built creates three new full-time jobs and $90,000 in tax revenue, an upturn in home construction would be
a significant boost for the economy and alleviate some pressure on state and local budgets. Demand for homes is down primarily because of
tight lending standards, not the economy. According to a recent survey from Fannie Mae, 72 percent of Americans believe that now is a good
time to buy a home, but many are having a hard time getting approved for a home loan, thanks to excessively tight credit standards at banks. In
August 2012 a typical rejected applicant for a Fannie- or Freddie-backed loan had a FICO credit score of 734 and a down payment of 19 percent.
Data show that more than 50 percent of credit scores are below 734. Consumer spending will not come back until housing recovers. High-debt
households generally consume 15 percent less than low-debt households. In particular, underwater borrowers—those who owe more on their
house than their house is worth—spend less on home maintenance and renovations, chilling demand in home-related industries. Lack of home
equity constrains small-business formation and investment. Roughly one in four small-business owners uses home equity as a source of capital
or collateral. Each foreclosure results in enormous spillover costs to investors, borrowers, and local communities. Foreclosures not only harm
borrowers and investors but they also devastate communities. One recent study estimates that spillover costs of foreclosures have reached
nearly $2 trillion. Plus, each vacant home brings down the value of neighboring homes by more than $20,000, costs state and local
governments $34,000 in tax revenues and associated services, and can also become a hotbed for crime and other social problems .
Fixing
our housing problems will not be easy but it is crucial to our economic recovery. With that in mind, policymakers
should stop waiting for the housing sector to fix itself and should put in place policies to get the market back to full strength.
Labor shortages hamper construction – guest workers are critical
NAHB 13 (National Association of Home Builders, “Home Builders Call on Congress to Improve Immigration Bill’s
Guest Worker Provisions”, 04/22/13, AD: 07/19/13, http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?newsID=16254 |
Kushal)
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) commends the bipartisan Senate sponsors of
legislation to advance comprehensive immigration reform and today called on lawmakers to improve the guest worker
provisions in the bill to address the significant role that foreign workers play in the housing industry
and to help alleviate current labor challenges that are hampering the housing and economic
recovery. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization
Act (S. 744), NAHB Chairman Rick Judson, a home builder and developer from Charlotte, N.C., urged Congress to
implement a new market-based visa system that would allow more immigrants to legally enter
the construction workforce each year. “Despite our efforts to recruit and train American workers through the HBI Job Corps
program and other programs, our industry faces a very real impediment to full recovery if work is delayed
or even cancelled due to worker shortages,” said Judson. “A new, workable visa program would
complement our skills training efforts within the nation’s borders, and fill the labor gaps
needed to meet the nation’s housing needs.” In a recent survey of NAHB’s membership, 46 percent of the builders
April 22, 2013 -
surveyed experienced delays in completing projects on time, 15 percent had to turn down some projects and 9 percent lost or cancelled sales
Foreign-born workers have traditionally played a vibrant and
important role in home building. Today, they account for 22 percent of the construction labor force, according to the Census
Bureau. Moreover, trades with a high concentration of immigrant workers also tend to have more vacancies and labor shortages. There
are currently 116,000 unfilled positions open in the construction sector – a post-recession high.
as a result of recent labor shortages.
While the W Visa program that addresses a guest worker program for the low-skill sector within Senate bill S. 744 reflects a good-faith attempt
on the part of lawmakers to address a serious concern, NAHB believes the program is unworkable for the residential construction industry.
the program wrongly singles out the construction industry with a discriminating set of
rules, including an arbitrary and meager cap that not only ignores but rejects the value of the
housing industry to the nation’s GDP,” said Judson. “Our industry, which in normal times accounts for
more than 17 percent of the nation’s total economic output, should be afforded the same
opportunities as any other sector of the economy. Congress must reassess this critical flaw in the
“First and foremost,
legislation.”
The plan resuscitate housing markets and establish long term growth
McDaniel 13 (Paul McDaniel, “Immigrants Boost Economic Vitality through the Housing Market”, 07/01/13, AD:
07/19/13, http://immigrationimpact.com/2013/07/01/immigrants-boost-economic-vitality-through-the-housingmarket/ | Kushal)
immigration is a net benefit to the United States’ economy. It leads to
higher wages, business formation, job creation, and greater innovation – nationally and locally.
Foreign workers who immigrate to the U.S. help alleviate labor force gaps left by a workforce increasingly nearing and
entering retirement age. Furthermore, immigrants help fulfill growing healthcare needs of an aging population. In addition to these
positive benefits of immigration, the favorable effect immigrant home-buyers have on the housing market
is another important economic impact. Indeed, new research from the Americas Society/Council of the Americas and
the Partnership for a New American Economy describes how the 40 million immigrants residing in the United States
added $3.7 trillion to housing wealth in the U.S. The research, prepared by Jacob Vigdor at Duke University, uses
Abundant research shows that
county-level data on population and housing from the U.S. Census Bureau and American Community Survey from 1970 to 2010. The results
show that immigration
led to a boost in home values, particularly in neighborhoods hit hardest by
the U.S. housing bust. Communities that recognize the positive contributions of immigrants and encourage a welcoming climate for
all involved will be on a road to a brighter future. Specifically, the report presents three broad findings related to immigrants and the housing
market: Immigrants directly drive housing demand through their own purchasing power; immigrants indirectly generate demand by drawing
native-born individuals to opportunities in growing areas; and immigrants shift demand for housing within metro areas toward neighborhoods
that had fallen out of favor. An interactive map (found here and here) provided by the two organizations illustrates the net change in a county’s
immigrant population from 2000 to 2010 and the corresponding effect on median home value in that county. What the data and the map
indicate is that immigrants, through their housing purchases and other economic activity, help
stabilize housing values in
communities that would have otherwise experienced declining home prices . Furthermore, by buying
homes and moving into communities, immigrants also help revitalize neighborhoods that may otherwise have stagnated. When we examine
the county-level map, we see that, not surprisingly, the largest gains in housing wealth per homeowner from immigration since 2000 are in
counties that are part of metropolitan areas. Indeed, metropolitan areas are the places that welcome the largest aggregate numbers of
newcomers over time and also contain the greatest supply of available housing. In particular, we see large gains in counties within the large
metropolitan urban areas of the Northeast, metro areas throughout the Mountain West, Pacific Northwest, and in the Sunbelt South – the
Southeast, South Central, and Southwest areas of the U.S., places that have had some of the greatest growth in recent decades – including
Arizona, California, Texas, central and south Florida, as well as other particular cities throughout the heartland. The report examines some of
these specific counties within those areas. Out of all counties in the U.S., Harris County (Houston, Texas) experienced the largest impact of
immigration on the local housing market. Over the past 10 years, the influx of immigrants contributed over $25,000 to the typical home value.
Many other Sunbelt counties have seen similar positive effects. In the Rustbelt, many communities have experienced native-born population
decline in recent decades. The arrival of immigrants settling in those places has offset this decline, prevented additional native-born from
departing, assuaged local housing market declines, and helped stabilize neighborhoods. In rural small towns throughout the country,
immigrants have helped lessen, or in some cases reverse, population and economic declines, while maintaining or boosting property values.
Furthermore, within many communities large and small throughout the country, immigrants play a role in revitalizing what many may have
previously viewed as economically declining communities, or neighborhoods susceptible to urban/suburban decay. Data such as these showing
immigrants’ positive impact on housing markets throughout the United States is but another thread woven into the tapestry of our
understanding about the many positives immigrants present to the country and to local communities. Communities that recognize such positive
contributions and encourage a welcoming climate for all involved will be on a road to a brighter future.
US key to global economy – housing proves
Caploe 09 (David Caploe, the CEO of the Singapore-incorporated American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in Asia., “Focus
still on America to lead global recovery”, 04/23/09, AD: 08/03/13 | Kushal)
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by
United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The
world has
become accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot
of economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' While
superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the global economy has in fact been 'Americacentred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries
that sell to the US. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't
been for the last six decades. If
the US does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to
happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but
also to the entire world. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically
unprecedented benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in the Third
World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time, this deep
inter-connection between the US and the
rest of the world also explains how the collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy 'sub-prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst
global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that
there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does not drive global
economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to
the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the
1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive
but in reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to
confront US banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and
global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which its policies at home are failing not just there but around
the world as well. Which raises the question: If the US can't or won't or doesn't want to be the global economic engine, which country will? The
obvious answer is China. But that is unrealistic for three reasons. First, China's economic health is more tied to America's than practically any
other country in the world. Indeed, the reason China has so many dollars to invest everywhere - whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is
precisely that it has structured its own economy to complement America's. The only way China can serve as the engine of the global economy is
if the US starts pulling it first. Second, the US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far outstripped that of the rest of the
world. The fundamental source of its economic power is its ability to act as the global consumer of last resort. China, however, is a poor
country, with low per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest economy. There are real possibilities for
growth in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is doubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus
plan can pull the rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on a massive scale. Finally, the key 'system' issue
for China - or for the European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of the world economy - is monetary: What are the implications of
having your domestic currency become the global reserve currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not
always successfully, from 1959 to the present. Without going into detail, it can safely be said that though having the US dollar as the world's
medium of exchange has given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge problems, both for America and the global
economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this history. It will try to avoid the yuan becoming an international medium
of exchange until it feels much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold currency problems that the US has grappled with for
decades. Given all this, the US will remain the engine of global economic recovery for the foreseeable future, even though other countries must
certainly help. This
crisis began in the US - and it is going to have to be solved there too.
Global economic crisis causes war – strong statistical support proves
Royal 10 Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense [Jedediah Royal, 2010, Economic Integration,
Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed.
Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215]
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external
conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic
decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been
considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the
systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding
that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power
and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous
shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin.
19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation
(Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a
permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power
(Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel
leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests
that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown.
Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation
of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues
that interdependent states arc likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of
future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to
replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be
inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for
decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent
states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed
conflict at a national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal
conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write. The
linkage, between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually
reinforcing. Economic conflict lends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour.
Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and
external conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has
also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Weerapana, 2004).
which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises
generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that,
when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased
incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect . Wang
(1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic
decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering
(2009) suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic
states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to
lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic
performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically
linked lo an increase in the use of force In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates
economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship
links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection
between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and
deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic
interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first
paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global
interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by
economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those
views.
Economic stability muffles escalation – mutual investment, market allocation, and
data
Boudreux, professor of economics, 2006 (Donald J., Chair of the Economics Department at George Mason
University, “Want World Peace? Support Free Trade”, November 20,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p09s02-coop.html)
During the past 30 years, Solomon Polachek, an economist at
the State University of New York at
Binghamton, has researched the relationship between trade and peace. In his most recent paper on the
topic, he and co-author Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers University review the massive amount of research on trade, war,
and peace. They find that "the overwhelming evidence indicates that trade reduces conflict."
Likewise for foreign investment. The greater the amounts that foreigners invest in the United States, or
the more that Americans invest abroad, the lower is the likelihood of war between America and
those countries with which it has investment relationships. Professors Polachek and Seiglie conclude
that, "The policy implication of our finding is that further international cooperation in reducing barriers to both trade
and capital flows can promote a more peaceful world." Columbia University political
scientist Erik Gartzke
reaches a similar but more general conclusion: Peace is fostered by economic freedom. Economic
freedom certainly includes, but is broader than, the freedom of ordinary people to trade internationally. It includes
also low and transparent rates of taxation, the easy ability of entrepreneurs to start new businesses,
the lightness of regulations on labor, product, and credit markets, ready access to sound money,
and other factors that encourage the allocation of resources by markets rather than by
government officials. Professor Gartzke ranks countries on an economic-freedom index from 1 to 10, with 1
being very unfree and 10 being very free. He then examines military conflicts from 1816 through 2000. His findings
are powerful: Countries that rank lowest on an economic-freedom index - with scores of 2 or less -
are 14 times more likely to be involved in military conflicts than are countries whose people
enjoy significant economic freedom (that is, countries with scores of 8 or higher). Also important, the
findings of Polachek and Gartzke improve our understanding of the long-recognized reluctance of democratic
nations to wage war against one another. These scholars argue that the so-called democratic peace is really the
capitalist peace. Democratic institutions are heavily concentrated in countries that also have strong protections for
private property rights, openness to foreign commerce, and other features broadly consistent with capitalism. That's
why the observation that any two democracies are quite unlikely to go to war against each other
might reflect the consequences of capitalism more than democracy. And that's just what the data show.
Polachek and Seiglie find that openness to trade is much more effective at encouraging peace than is democracy per
se. Similarly, Gartzke discovered that, "When measures of both economic freedom and democracy are included in a
statistical study, economic freedom is about 50 times more effective than democracy in diminishing
violent conflict." These findings make sense. By promoting prosperity, economic freedom gives ordinary people
a large stake in peace. This prosperity is threatened during wartime. War almost always gives government
more control over resources and imposes the burdens of higher taxes, higher inflation, and other
disruptions of the everyday commercial relationships that support prosperity. When commerce
reaches across political borders, the peace-promoting effects of economic freedom intensify.
Why? It's bad for the bottom line to shoot your customers or your suppliers, so the more you
trade with foreigners the less likely you are to seek, or even to tolerate, harm to these foreigners.
Advantage 2: Agriculture
Agricultural labor shortages force farmers to resort to mechanization
Calvin and Martin 10 (Linda Calvin and Phillip Martin, USDA, “The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor Facing the
Future in a Global Economy”, November 2010, AD: 07/20/13, http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/135123/err106.pdf
| Kushal)
Interest in mechanization rises and falls with the price and availability of labor. When labor is
relatively scarce and wages rise, producers seek laborsaving innovations (Hayami and Ruttan, 1985). Growers,
grower organizations, machinery manufacturers, and the public sector have invested in research to develop labor aids and mechanical
harvesters. Individual growers may do their own R&D if they think they can cut labor costs and make a profit. A grower may pay a
machinery manufacturer to develop a machine. Growers could use any machinery they develop on their own operations and even sell the
machinery to their competitors. Some commodity groups include large growers who can support private mechanization R&D, but many
growers are too small to do so. Grower organizations have funded mechanization research with member fees on each box of produce sold. In
some cases, the investment in R&D may have some near-term payoff, particularly when a private firm has a promising prototype. In other
cases, the R&D may be more basic with no immediate payoff. Private machinery manufacturers pursue mechanization if expected benefits
exceed expected costs. Economists are concerned that research costs can be high for fruit and vegetables, making some crops potential
“technological orphans” because they pose special challenges to successful mechanization, but attract few private resources (Alston and
Pardey, 2008). For example, the market for many fruit and vegetable mechanical harvesters is relatively small. The United States had over 93
million acres of field corn in 2007 but only 298,800 acres of lettuce. Conducting research to mechanize harvesting involves fixed costs that
must be spread over a smaller market in the case of lettuce. Despite this challenge, there
are many examples of successful
innovations by private firms. Innovations in mechanization for one commodity can often be applied to other commodities. There
is also a worldwide market for farm machinery, which provides potential for additional sales. Some of the machines used by U.S. producers are
imported, and U.S. innovations are also exported to producers in other countries. Today, private machinery manufacturers, augmented by
funds from individual growers, grower organizations, and Federal and State governments, conduct most agricultural mechanization research.
Private-sector expenditures on general agricultural research have exceeded public sector expenditures since the early 1980s, and the gap is
widening (Schimmelpfennig and Heisey, 2009). Government investment in R&D is economically justified when private investors are unable to
provide a socially optimal level of research. Most growers benefit from public mechanization research, although smaller growers may be at a
disadvantage if a harvester is more economical for larger growers. There are, however, broader potential social benefits to public R&D that the
Government might consider when deciding whether to invest, including any positive impact on fruit and vegetable consumption, the value of a
strong domestic fruit and vegetable industry for national security, and employment goals—particularly when an industry may be the major
employer in a region. Another potential public benefit to consider is that successful
mechanization could reduce the
reliance of the fruit and vegetable industry on unauthorized workers and reduce the lure of easyentry agricultural jobs. When the Government invests in R&D, it also has to consider potential social costs. The elimination of jobs is
an important social cost, particularly at times of high unemployment. Jobless workers can have ripple effects on communities and local
businesses that house, feed, and provide services to farmworkers. On the other hand, the machine operators and mechanics who replace hand
harvesters usually earn higher wages; a small number of workers displaced by mechanization may find higher paying jobs working in the
mechanized harvest. The skills, however, required for workers in the mechanical harvest system are not necessarily the same as those required
in the hand-harvest system.6 Public support of fruit and vegetable mechanization reached its peak in the 1960s and 1970s, a period when farm
labor costs were rising rapidly. Agricultural engineers in university and Government research institutions worked with growers and private
machinery manufacturers to develop labor aids to increase worker productivity and mechanical harvesters to reduce labor requirements
(Martin and Olmstead, 1985). Efforts
to mechanize fruit and vegetable production stalled after 1980 because there
was a large supply of labor available, which held down wages. In addition, the substantial, Federal- and Statesupported mechanical research system for fresh fruit and vegetables was mostly dismantled during the 1980s, leaving such research primarily
to the private sector (Martin and Olmstead, 1985). Now there is renewed interest in agricultural mechanization associated with the loss, or
potential loss, of unauthorized foreign workers. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 created the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI), providing $230 million for fiscal years 2009-12 to support research on five issues critical to the
future of the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry, including “improved mechanization.” This is the first major Federal investment in mechanization
research for fruit and vegetables since the early 1980s. Research funded under this initiative requires 100 percent non-Federal matching funds.
Adoption of Mechanical Harvesters Even if a mechanical harvester is available, there are economic obstacles to its adoption. Many growers
prefer manual harvesting because quality is generally better and yields are higher. Moreover, switching
to mechanical harvesting is often expensive and risky, requiring a major transformation of the farm’s operations, such
as replanting crops to accommodate the harvester, using new plant varieties, and developing new packing processes.
Guest workers stop the shift to mechanization
Halle 7 (Sara Halle, J.D. Drake University Law School, “PROPOSING A LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO A THREE-PART AMERICAN MESS: U.S.
AGRICULTURE, ILLEGAL LABOR, AND HARVEST MECHANIZATION”, 10/02/07, AD: 08/03/13,
http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol12No2-Halle.pdf | Kushal)
To a large extent the United States government has historically discouraged research and
development by facilitating guest worker programs, subsidizing farmers, and failing to enforce sanctions
against agricultural employers who knowingly employ illegal workers.72 Combined, these three factors
discourage farm owners from investing in the mechanization of their harvesting operations.
Government subsidization further distorts the already distorted agricultural sector by creating higher demand for
the cheap labor supplied by guest worker programs.73 Subsidization also “support[s] large-scale agricultural
operations that create demand for immigrant labor.” 74 Because this demand for foreign workers can easily be
met by the distorted labor market, farm owners have no incentive to seek alternative means of production: “ By
artificially inflating the supply of labor, government interference in the agricultural labor market
keeps the price of labor low and reduces incentives for harvest mechanization and
technological advancement in fruit and vegetable production.” 75 The abundance of cheap
laborers supplied by the actions of the government discourages farmers from investing in the
agricultural mechanization and technological advancement of their production. 76 Furthermore,
there is very little to deter farmers from employing illegal foreign workers in their fields.77 History has shown that
every effort to enforce immigration labor laws has been met with political opposition strong enough to more or
less render enforcement meaningless.78 For example, in 1998 the INS conducted raids during Georgia‟s Vidalia
onion harvest.79 While it managed to apprehend a “modest” number of illegal workers, there were thousands
more who fled to avoid arrest.80 Almost immediately agricultural employers and local politicians were complaining
the raid halted the harvest and that their crops were rotting in the fields.81 Within the week Georgia‟s two
senators and three of its representatives complained to Attorney General Janet Reno and to the Secretary of Labor
and Secretary of Agriculture in a letter “fiercely criticizing the INS enforcement action for its „lack of regard for
farmers.‟” 82 As a result of this political firestorm, the INS agreed to allow those who had fled to return to the
farms in order to complete the harvest.83 The INS agreed not to arrest or deport the workers in exchange for the
growers‟ promise “to work with immigration officials in the future to keep illegal workers out of their fields.”
Mechanized agriculture is unsustainable – Resource and environmental constraints
mean only less mechanized farms can alleviate the impacts
Hellwinckel and Ugarte 09
[Chad Hellwinckel and Daniel De La Torre Ugarte, Chad Hellwinckel, Ph.D., is a research assistant professor at the University of Tennessee's
Agricultural Policy Analysis Center. Daniel De La Torre Ugarte, Ph.D., is a professor at the Department of Agricultural Economics of the
University of Tennessee and the associate director of the Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, “Peak Oil and the Necessity of Transitioning to
Regenerative Agriculture”, 10/7/2009, Resilience,http://www.resilience.org/stories/2009-10-07/peak-oil-and-necessity-transitioningregenerative-agriculture]
The food crisis of 2008 gave a first glimpse of the problems that are emerging as global oil
production peaks. As the total annual quantity of oil physically capable of being extracted from
the earth begins to decline over the next several decades, agriculture may find itself dependent upon a
scarce and expensive resource. In 2008, world commodity markets reached their highest levels in 30 years, food prices
skyrocketed and food shortages emerged, leading to riots affecting more than 40 countries. After many years of
having to deal with the negative consequences of chronically low prices, poorer nations suddenly had to deal with the opposite. With the global
economic downturn starting in late 2008, both energy and food commodity prices receded from their high water mark. But forecasts
of
declining conventional oil production suggest it is only a matter of time before oil prices rise
again, and a food crisis re-emerges due to higher input costs and renewed emphasis on bioenergy production to
fill the drop in conventional energy sources(1). Agriculture, like all other industries over the past century, has taken great
advantage of the extraction and refining of plentiful, energy-dense, fossil fuels. Today, agriculture
has evolved into a net energy user for the first time in 10,000 years instead of being a means of converting free solar energy
into metabolizable energy, it now transforms finite fossil energy into metabolizable energy. The industrial agricultural system has
allowed for the cheap production of plentiful food to feed a growing population, but evidence indicates that it is ill-suited to meet
the challenges of the 21st century. Over the next several decades, the practices of agriculture must
reverse the fossil energy dependence and once again become a net source of energy, stop
erosion and begin to regenerate soil, and meet human food needs. In other words, agriculture must transition
to practices that run on solar energy, regenerate fertility and produce in abundance. Fossil Energy Dependence To meet the needs of a growing
population, the modern U.S. food system uses 10.25 quadrillion BTU's of fossil energy inputs, or about 10% of U.S. annual fossil fuel
consumption. The industrialization
of agriculture has, for the first time in history, led to the situation
where agriculture actually uses more energy than it creates, with 7.3 units of energy going to create and deliver
one unit of metabolizable energy (2). This energy deficit of agriculture is an historic anomaly. Up until the past 50 years, agriculture had always
yielded more energy than it used (3). Historically, by producing more energy than the farmer needed, others were freed from food production,
and civilizations were built on the small positive gains in energy from agriculture. The Energy Returned on Energy Invested ratio (EROEI) of U.S.
agriculture in 1920 has been estimated to be 3.1, but by the 1970s had fallen to 0.74. Add the energy required to move,process, package,
deliver and cook food in the modern food economy, and EROEI becomes 0.14,indicating that agriculture has lost its traditional role as an energy
production system and become simply another user of fossil fuels. Historically, the foundation of civilization rested on consistent solar
radiation. Now it rests on the annual extraction of finite fossil fuels. One solution is to find other energy sources, such as wind or solar, for
energy-intense agriculture. Yet when comparing the EROEI ratios of the alternative fuels, the benefits of oil are apparent5. Today, economies
are running off the large oil discoveries of the 1950s and 1960s with EROEI ratios of 50+6. Alternative fuels will likely have an increasing role in
meeting the energy needs of the larger economy, but to
believe agriculture can continue to function under the
current energy balance is folly. It is imperative that agriculture return to a more balanced energy ratio over the next century. Soil
Loss By using energy-dense inputs to produce on remaining land, industrial agriculture has been able to offset soil loss with intensification of
production. But in the transition to less energy-intensive methods, continuing
soil losses are not feasible. Every year
75 billion metric tons of soil erode from the earth's agricultural lands, and 30 million acres are abandoned
due to over-exhaustion of the soil (7, 8). This is equivalent to losing an area the size of Ohio every year. Erosion is a problem that has followed
cultivation for 10,000 years. Its slow effects are evident in the lands surrounding fallen civilizations such as in the Tigris/Euphrates valley, Israel,
Greece or the hills of Italy. Over time, agriculture has led to the loss of one-third of global arable land, much of it within the past 40 years(9).
Green revolution methods of mechanization has sped the rate of erosion in many regions and led to the abandonment of traditional practices,
such as integrated crop-animal systems or polyculture plantings, that had slowed erosion and enabled some traditional systems to function for
centuries (10). Soil is a depletable resource that forms over thousands of years . It is estimated that it takes 800
years for one inch of soil to form in the American Midwest (11). Modern agriculture is depleting soils at a rate of one to two magnitudes faster
than they are formed (12). The United States, which has much lower erosion rates than Africa and Asia, is still losing soil at a rate of four tons
per acre per year13 14. Once soil is eroded, it cannot be easily or quickly recreated. This use of soils can be thought of as spending the
accumulated capital of millennia, not unlike the use of fossil fuels. In the past, if one culture exhausted its soils and declined, civilization could
re-emerge in newly settled fertile areas. Today, with 3.7 billion acres under cultivation, there are few remaining virgin soils. If this trend of soil
depletion continues, we will face an increasingly hungry world, even without the added burden of biofuels production. Establishing
Regenerative Practices Long-term
agricultural policies must be guided by three imperatives: 1) reverse fossil
energy dependence and once again become a net source of energy; 2) stop erosion and begin to
regenerate soil; and 3) meet human food needs. There is increasing evidence that regenerative agriculture
can produce more food with less energy than industrial agriculture, while increasing the health
of soils (15, 16). Regenerative agriculture17 allows natural systems to maintain their own fertility,
build soil, resist pests and diseases and be highly productive. Regenerative agriculture (17) uses
the natural dynamics of the ecosystem to construct agricultural systems that yield for human consumption.
Regenerative methods regenerate the soil, the fertility, and the energy consumed in semiclosed nutrient cycles, and by capturing, harvesting and reusing resources such as sun, rain, and
nutrients that fall within the farm’s boundary. Other terms refer to similar principles, such as natural farming,
permaculture, agro ecology, integrated agriculture, perennial polyculture, holistic management, forest gardening, natural systems agriculture
and sustainable agriculture. Successful regenerative practices are used by small landholders capable of managing more intensive and complex
systems which rely on the integration of crop-animal-human functions, use of perennial species, and the growing of multiple crops in the same
field (18). Many of these practices are based on traditional cultural land-use practices, but others are newly forged systems.
Less mechanized farms match mechanized output and aid the environment
National Geographic 13 (National Geographic, “Sustainable Agriculture”, 2013, AD: 08/03/13,
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/sustainable-agriculture/ | Kushal)
Sustainable agriculture takes many forms, but at its core is a rejection of the industrial approach to
food production developed during the 20th century. This system, with its reliance on monoculture,
mechanization, chemical pesticides and fertilizers, biotechnology, and government subsidies,
has made food abundant and affordable. However, the ecological and social price has been steep:
erosion; depleted and contaminated soil and water resources; loss of biodiversity;
deforestation; labor abuses; and the decline of the family farm. The concept of sustainable
agriculture embraces a wide range of techniques, including organic, free-range, low-input, holistic, and biodynamic. The common
thread among these methods is an embrace of farming practices that mimic natural ecological processes. Farmers
minimize tilling and water use; encourage healthy soil by planting fields with different crops year after year and integrating croplands with
Beyond growing
food, the philosophy of sustainability also espouses broader principles that support the just
treatment of farm workers and food pricing that provides the farmer with a livable income . Critics
livestock grazing; and avoid pesticide use by nurturing the presence of organisms that control crop-destroying pests.
of sustainable agriculture claim, among other things, that its methods result in lower crop yields and higher land use. They add that a wholesale
commitment to its practices will mean inevitable food shortages for a world population expected to exceed 8 billion by the year 2030. There's
recent evidence, though, suggesting that over time,
sustainably farmed lands can be as productive as
conventional industrial farms.
Scenario 1: Biodiversity
Mechanization will destroy the environment – Short term gains mask a swiftly
approaching collapse of productivity
Feenstra et al 13 (Gail Feenstra, Writer; Chuck Ingels, Perennial Cropping Systems Analyst; and David Campbell, Economic and Public
Policy Analyst with contributions from David Chaney, Melvin R. George, Eric Bradford, the staff and advisory committees of the UC Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education Program. “What is Sustainable Agriculture?”, 2013, AD: 08/03/13,
http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/sarep/about/def | Kushal)
Damage to Soil. Soil erosion from farmland threatens the productivity of agricultural fields and causes a number of problems elsewhere in the
environment. An average of 10 times as much soil erodes from American agricultural fields as is replaced by natural soil formation processes.
Because it takes up to 300 years for 1 inch of agricultural topsoil to form, soil that is lost is essentially irreplaceable. The consequences for longterm crop yields have not been adequately quantified. The amount of erosion varies considerably from one field to another, depending on soil
type, slope of the field, drainage patterns, and crop management practices; and the effects of the erosion vary also. Areas with deep organic
loams are better able to sustain erosion without loss of productivity than are areas where topsoils are shallower. Erosion affects productivity
because it removes the surface soils, containing most of the organic matter, plant nutrients, and fine soil particles, which help to retain water
and nutrients in the root zone where they are available to plants. The subsoils that remain tend to be less fertile, less absorbent, and less able
to retain pesticides, fertilizers, and other plant nutrients. Why then is erosion allowed to continue at excessive levels on many U.S. farms? Often
the short-term costs of implementing erosion control measures far exceed the immediate economic benefit to the farmer, but such costbenefit analyses fail to take into account the long-term losses of fertility and water-holding capacity of the soil. Up to a certain point, increased
fertilization and irrigation will compensate for the lower soil fertility. Long-term loss of farmland productivity and damage to the environment
from eroded sediments, therefore, often are overlooked in the need for short-term economic gains. Over
the past 50 years, the
negative effects of soil erosion on farm productivity have been masked by improved technology
and increasing use of fertilizers and pesticides. Ironically, many of these measures used to
increase the short-term productivity of American farms are also causing excessive erosion,
which threatens productivity over the long term. For example, diminished use of cover crops leaves soils
unprotected from wind and rain during much of the year, and increased mechanization has led to use of larger fields
without windbreaks or drainage contours. The effects of erosion are also felt elsewhere in the
environment. A recent study estimated the off-site cost of cropland erosion in the United States to be in the range of a billion dollars per
year (Clark, Haverkamp, and Chapman 1985). Eroded soil clogs streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, resulting
in increased flooding, decreased reservoir capacity, and destruction of habitats for many
species of fish and other aquatic life. The eroded soils contain nutrients and other chemicals that are beneficial on farm
fields, but can impair water quality when carried away by erosion. As a result, drinking water supplies may contain nitrate or organic chemicals
in concentrations that exceed public health standards, or surface waters may become clogged with excessive plant growth from the added
nutrients.
The green revolution is bankrupt – mechanization of agriculture is unsustainable
because diminishing returns require continual expansions
Pfeiffer 03 Dale Allen Pfeiffer, 10/3/2003. Geologist, a science journalist and editor of From the Wilderness. “Eating Fossil Fuels,” From the
Wilderness, http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/fossil-fuels.cfm.
Just when agricultural output could expand no more by increasing acreage, new innovations
made possible a more thorough exploitation of the acreage already available. The process of
�pest� displacement and appropriation for agriculture accelerated with the industrial
revolution as the mechanization of agriculture hastened the clearing and tilling of land and
augmented the amount of farmland which could be tended by one person. With every increase in food production, the human population grew
apace. At present, nearly
40% of all land-based photosynthetic capability has been appropriated by
human beings.2 In the United States we divert more than half of the energy captured by photosynthesis.3 We have taken over all the
prime real estate on this planet. The rest of nature is forced to make due with what is left. Plainly, this is
one of the major factors in species extinctions and in ecosystem stress. The Green Revolution In the
1950s and 1960s, agriculture underwent a drastic transformation commonly referred to as the
Green Revolution. The Green Revolution resulted in the industrialization of agriculture . Part of the
advance resulted from new hybrid food plants, leading to more productive food crops. Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution
transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%.4 That is a tremendous increase in the amount of food
energy available for human consumption. This
additional energy did not come from an increase in incipient
sunlight, nor did it result from introducing agriculture to new vistas of land. The energy for the
Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides
(oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation. The Green Revolution increased the energy flow to agriculture by an average of 50
times the energy input of traditional agriculture.5 In the most extreme cases, energy consumption by agriculture has increased 100 fold or
more.6 In
the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each
American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows: · 31% for the manufacture of
inorganic fertilizer · 19% for the operation of field machinery · 16% for transportation · 13% for irrigation · 08% for raising livestock (not including
livestock feed) · 05% for crop drying · 05% for pesticide production · 08% miscellaneous8 Energy
costs for packaging,
refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in
these figures. To give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern agriculture, production of one kilogram of nitrogen for
fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This is not considering the natural gas feedstock.9 According to
The Fertilizer Institute (http://www.tfi.org), in the year from June 30 2001 until June 30 2002 the United States used 12,009,300 short tons of
nitrogen fertilizer.10 Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen, this equates to the energy content of 15.3
billion liters of diesel fuel, or 96.2 million barrels. Of course, this is only a rough comparison to aid comprehension of the energy requirements
for modern agriculture. In
a very real sense, we are literally eating fossil fuels. However, due to the laws
of thermodynamics, there is not a direct correspondence between energy inflow and outflow in
agriculture. Along the way, there is a marked energy loss. Between 1945 and 1994, energy input to agriculture
increased 4-fold while crop yields only increased 3-fold.11 Since then, energy input has continued to increase without a corresponding increase
in crop yield. We
have reached the point of marginal returns. Yet, due to soil degradation, increased
demands of pest management and increasing energy costs for irrigation (all of which is
examined below), modern agriculture must continue increasing its energy expenditures simply
to maintain current crop yields. The Green Revolution is becoming bankrupt.
Biodiversity loss causes human extinction
Kates 04, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental
Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf
Biodiversity loss may pose the greatest direct threat to human survival, if it destabilizes the
biosphere and interferes with recycling of such vital elements as carbon, nitrogen, and
phosphorus (Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:2). The end result of the accelerating extinction of plant and
animal species could be “wholesale ecosystem collapse” (Brown 2000:8). Biodiversity is also essential
to a productive and sustainable agriculture, and humans have no technology to substitute for most of
the services provided by diverse species (wild biota) (Pimentel et al 1994:355; Pimentel et al 1997:13). Thus, there are
ecological limits on the possibility of converting natural habitats into agricultural fields, and some experts have suggested protecting
environmental quality by preserving about one-third of the terrestrial ecosystem as natural vegetation (Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:2;
Pimentel et al 1994:355).
Generic defense is scientifically debunked - absent further action, extinction debts are
escalated that decreases the threshold for extinction
Butler 12 (Rhett Butler, researcher for CNN, National Geographic, the US State Departments, BBC, etc. and guest speaker at Stanford, UCB,
UCSC, the Smithsonian, and more, “DEFORESTATION AND EXTINCTION”, 7/22/12, AD: 10/13/12, http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0908.htm |
Kushal)
The greatest loss with the longest-lasting effects from the ongoing destruction of wilderness
will be the mass extinction of species that provide Earth with biodiversity. Although great extinctions have
occurred in the past, none has occurred as rapidly or has been so much the result of the actions of a single species. The extinction rate
of today may be 1,000 to 10,000 times the biological normal, or background, extinction rate of 1-10 species
extinctions per year. ¶ So far there is little evidence for the massive species extinctions predicted by the species-area curve in the chart below.
However, many biologists believe that species
extinction, like global warming, has a time lag, and the loss of forest
species due to forest clearing in the past may not be apparent yet today. Ward (1997) uses the term
"extinction debt" to describe such extinction of species and populations long after habitat alteration:¶ Decades or centuries after a habitat
perturbation, extinction related to the perturbation may still be taking place.
This is perhaps the least understood and
most insidious aspect of habitat destruction. We can clear-cut a forest and then point out that
the attendant extinctions are low, when in reality a larger number of extinctions will take place
in the future. We will have produced an extinction debt that has to be paid... We might curtail our hunting practices
when some given population falls to very low numbers and think that we have succeeded in "saving" the species in question, when in reality we
have produced an extinction debt that ultimately must be paid in full...
Extinction debts are bad debts, and when they
are eventually paid, the world is a poorer place.¶ Historic mass extinctions¶ For example, the disappearance of crucial
pollinators will not cause the immediate extinction of tree species with life cycles measured in centuries. Similarly, a study of West African
primates found an extinction debt of over 30 percent of the total primate fauna as a result of historic deforestation. This suggests that
protection of remaining forests in these areas might not be enough to prevent extinctions caused by past habitat loss. While we may be able to
predict the effects of the loss of some species, we know too little about the vast majority of species to make reasonable projections. The
The process of extinction is enormously
complex, resulting from perhaps hundreds or even thousands of factors, many of which
scientists (let alone lay people) fail to grasp. The extinction of small populations, either endangered or isolated
from the larger gene pool by fragmentation or natural barriers like water or mountain ranges, is the best modeled and
understood form of extinction. Since the standard was set by MacArthur and Wilson in The Theory of Island Biogeography (1967),
unanticipated loss of unknown species will have a magnified effect over time.
¶
much work has been done modeling the effects of population size and land area on the survival of species. ¶ The number of individuals in a
given population is always fluctuating due to numerous influences, from extrinsic changes in the surrounding environment to intrinsic forces
within a species' own genes. This population fluctuation is especially a problem for populations in isolated forest fragments and species that are
critically endangered throughout their range.
When a population falls below a certain number, known as the minimum
is unlikely to recover. Thus the minimum viable population is often considered
the extinction threshold for a population or species. There are three common forces that can drive a species with a
viable population (MVP), it
population under MVP to extinction: demographic stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, and reduced genetic diversity.
¶
Demographic
stochasticity involves birth and death rates of the individuals within a species. As the population size decreases, random quirks in mating,
reproduction, and survival of young can have a significant outcome for a species. This is especially true in species with low birth rates (i.e. some
primates, birds of prey, elephants), since their populations take a longer time to recover. Social dysfunction also plays an important role in a
population's survival or demise. Once a population's size falls below a critical number, the social structure of a species may no longer function.
For example many gregarious species live in herds or packs which enable the species to defend themselves from predators, find food, or choose
mates. In these species, once the population is too small to sustain an effective herd or pack, the population may crash. Among species that are
widely dispersed like large cats, finding a mate may be impossible once the population density falls below a certain point. Many insect species
use chemical odors or pheromeres to communicate and attract mates. As population density falls, there is less probability that an individual's
chemical message will reach a potential mate, and reproductive rates may decrease. Similarly, as plant species become rarer and more widely
scattered, the distance between plants increases and pollination becomes less likely. ¶ Environmental stochasticity is caused by randomly
occurring changes in weather and food supply, and natural disasters like fire, flood, and drought. In populations confined to a small area, a
single drought, bad winter, or fire can eliminate all individuals. ¶ Reduced genetic diversity is a substantial obstacle blocking the recovery of
small populations. Small populations have a smaller genetic base than larger populations. Without the influx of individuals from other
populations, a population's genome stagnates and loses the genetic variability to adapt to changing conditions. Small populations are also
prone to genetic drift where rare traits have a high probability of being lost with each successive generation. ¶ The smaller the population, the
These factors, often
working in concert, tend to further reduce population size and drive the species toward extinction. This
trend is known as the extinction vortex. See the box on the right for an example of an extinction vortex. ¶ Some
more vulnerable it is to demographic stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, and reduced genetic diversity.
mathematical ecologists have suggested that population fluctuations may be governed by properties of chaos making the behavior of the
system (the fluctuation of a species's population size) nearly impossible to predict due to the complex dynamics within a given ecosystem.
Mass extinctions take out dominant species
Ibisch and Bertzky 6 (P.L. Ibisch, Faculty of Forestry, University of Applied Sciences, M. Bertzky, Institute of Agriculture Economics and
Social Sciences, “Halting Biodiversity Loss: Fundamentals and Trends of Conservation Science and Action”, 2013, AD: 08/08/13,
http://www.bsi.org/bsi_info/conservation/Halting_Biodiversity_Loss.pdf | Kushal)
The story of life on Earth is filled with losses of species and new developments. The phenomenon of extinction is as old as the first living
organisms and has always and constantly taken place on the stage of our planet. Scientifically two
different kinds of extinction
can be distinguished due to the different nature of records and other characteristics: the mass
and the background extinction. A mass extinction is characterized by the extinction of large
numbers of different plants and animals within a short time (in relation to Earth history) but on a large
scale in space. Moreover, mass extinction have influenced the evolution of plant and animal
species – according to Bowring et al (1999) mass extinctions are “comparable to natural selection because
they may trigger the demise of dominant species and massive reorganization of ecosystems ”.
Scenario 2: Warming
Industrial Ag is the biggest internal link to warming
Cummins 10 [Ronnie, 10/7, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, Industrial Agriculture and Human Survival: The
Road Beyond 10/10/10, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/07-9]
Despite decades of deception and mystification, a critical mass at the grassroots is waking up. A new generation of food and climate activists
understands that greenhouse
gas-belching fossil fuels, industrial food and farming, and our entire
global economy pose a mortal threat, not just to our present health and well being, but also to
human survival. Given the severity of the Crisis, we have little choice but to step up our efforts .
As 35,000 climate activists at the historic global climate summit in April of 2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia shouted, “We must change the System,
not the climate.” “Changing
the System,” means defending our selves, the future generations, and the
biological carrying capacity of the planet from the ravages of “profit at any cost” capitalism. “Changing the System,” means
safeguarding our delicately balanced climate, soils, oceans, and atmosphere from the fatal consequences of fossil fuelinduced climate change. “Changing the System” means exposing, dismantling, and replacing, not just individual outof-control corporations like Monsanto, Halliburton, and British Petroleum, and out-of-control technologies like gene-altered crops and
mountaintop removal; but our
entire chemical and energy-intensive industrial economy, starting, at least for
many of us, with Food Inc.’s destructive system of industrial food and farming . “Changing the system,” means
going on the offensive and dismantling the most controversial and vulnerable flanks of our suicide economy: coal plants, gas guzzlers, the
military-industrial complex, and industrial agriculture’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and factory farms. Frankenfoods and Industrial
Agriculture Highly subsidized GM
crops - comprising 40% of U.S. cropland, and 10% of global crops - and the
the most profitable and strategically
important components of industrial agriculture. Taxpayer subsidized GMOs and factory farms allow Food Inc. (corporate
junk food and unhealthy processed foods and beverages derived from them, are
agribusiness) to poison the public and pollute the atmosphere and environment. Subsidized GM and monoculture crops - along with cheap soy,
corn, and chemical additives - allow the McDonald’s, Cargills and Wal-Marts of the world to sell junk food, meat, and beverages at much lower
prices than healthy, non-chemical foods. GMO crops and their companion pesticides and chemical fertilizers are the cash cows and vanguard of
a global farming and food distribution system that consumes prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and emits tremendous amount of climatedestabilizing greenhouse gases. GMOs provide the ideological and technological foundation for the factory farms and mono-crop plantations
that are destroying the climate, the soils, and the planet. Either we bring them down, or they will bring us down. According to Monsanto and
the global war on bugs, war on biodiversity, chemical farming lobby, patented GMO seeds, crops, biofuels, animals, and trees can miraculously
kill pests, reduce pesticide use, boost yields, alleviate world hunger, reduce petroleum use, and help farmers adapt to drought, pestilence, and
global warming. As a growing "Millions Against Monsanto" corps understand, the Biotech Bullies are dangerous liars. Industrial
agriculture, GMOs, and so-called cheap food have destroyed public health and wrecked the environment.
Genetically Modified (GM) crops have neither reduced pesticide use, nor chemical fertilizer use. They kill pests, but they also give rise to superweeds and
superpests. GM crops, like all industrial monoculture crops, use vast amounts of fossil fuel and water. GMO and their companion chemicals (pesticides and chemical fertilizers) destroy the
greenhouse gas sequestering capacity of living soils and kill off non-patented plants, trees, and animals. Most GM crops, 90% of which are derived from Monsanto’s patented seeds, are
genetically engineered to boost the sales of toxic pesticides such as Roundup, and thereby increase toxic pesticide residues in foods. GM crops do not produce higher yields, nor provide more
nutritious foods. GM soybeans, the most important industrial agriculture crop, along with corn, consistently have lower yields, while chemical-intensive GM food crops contain far fewer
vitamins and essential trace minerals than organic foods. Nor has gene-splicing (unlike organic farming) produced plant or tree varieties that can adapt to global warming. Nonetheless GM
crops remain Food Inc.’s propaganda “poster child.” The unfortunate bottom line is that 65 years of chemical and GM agriculture, a literal World War Three on public health, rural
communities, and the environment, have nearly killed us. Humans and our living environment have been poisoned, not only by pesticides, nitrate fertilizers, greenhouse gas pollution, and
contaminated factory-farmed food, but also by the mutant organisms and patented chemical residues that accompany these genetically modified foods and crops. Either we make the Great
Transition to a relocalized economy whose foundation is renewable energy and solar-based (as opposed to GMO and petroleum-based) organic food and fiber production, or else we are
destined to burn up the planet and destroy ourselves. Despite mass media brainwashing (“Better living through chemistry… Monsanto can feed the world… GMO crops and trees can reduce
fossil fuel use and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases…”), consumers and farmers are seeing through the lies. Defying the efforts of the powerful industrial agriculture/biotech lobby, a
growing number of activists and concerned citizens are connecting the dots and taking action. As a consequence Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth. A critical
mass of research reveals that genetically engineered crops, now covering almost 40% of U.S. cropland (173 million acres of GM crops) and 10% of global farm acreage (321 million acres),
pollute the environment, kill essential soil micro-organisms, generate superweeds and pests, decrease biodiversity, aid and abet seed monopolization, encourage massive use of toxic
pesticides and chemical fertilizer, spew out massive amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases, and seriously damage animal and human health. Injecting genetically engineered
hormones into dairy cows to force them to give more milk is reckless and dangerous. Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH, now marketed by Eli Lilly, increases
the risks of breast, prostate, and colon cancer for those who consume the milk. It also severely damages the health of the cows. Residue levels of Monsanto’s toxic herbicide, Roundup, found
routinely in non-organic foods, destroy animal and human reproductive systems. Haphazardly ramming indeterminate amounts of patented foreign DNA, bacteria, and antibiotic-resistant
genes into the genomes of already non-sustainable energy and pesticide-intensive crops and foods (corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa) in order to increase the sales of Monsanto or
Bayer's GMO companion herbicides or to facilitate monopoly control over seeds by the Gene Giants is not only non-sustainable, but criminal. Rejection of this out-of-control GM technology is
In the EU, where GMtainted foods must be labeled, GMO crops are almost non-existent (although large quantities of GM animal feed are still being imported into
a major driving force in the rapid growth of organic food and farming, as well as the growing demand for mandatory safety testing and labeling of GMOs.
the EU from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina). Local
and organic food production is now growing faster
than GMO/industrial food and farming; improving public health and nutrition, reducing fossil
fuel use and greenhouse gas pollution, sequestering billions of tons of CO2 in the soil (up to
seven tons of CO2 per acre per year), and providing economic survival for a growing number of
the world’s 2.8 billion small farmers and rural villagers. The growth of organic agriculture and relocalized food and
farming systems are encouraging, but obviously organics are still the alternative, rather than the norm. As we
enter into the Brave New World of global warming and climate chaos, many organic advocates are starting to realize that we need to put more
emphasis, not just on the health and pollution hazards of GMOs; but rather we
need to broaden our efforts and mobilize
to abolish the entire system of industrsial food and farming. As we are now learning, industrial
agriculture and factory farming are in fact a primary (if not the primary) cause of global
warming and deforestation. Even if were able to rip up all of Monsanto’s GMO crops tomorrow, business as usual, chemicalintensive, energy-intensive industrial agriculture is enough to kill us all . On the other hand, if we’re going to take down
industrial agriculture, one of the best ways to leverage our efforts is to target the most hated corporation in the world, Monsanto. Besides
contaminating our food, destroying the environment and moving, by any means necessary, to gain monopoly control over seeds and biodiversity, Monsanto and their Food Inc. collaborators
are guilty of major “climate crimes.” These crimes include: confusing the public about the real causes of (and solutions to) global warming; killing the soil’s ability to sequester greenhouse
gases; releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere; promoting bogus industrial corn and soy-derived biofuels (which use just as
many fossil fuel, and release just as many greenhouse gases as conventional fuels); monopolizing seed stocks and taking climate-friendly varieties off the market; promoting genetically
engineered trees; and last but not least, advocating dangerous geoengineering schemes such as massive GM plantations of trees or plants than reflect sunlight. The negotiators and heads of
state at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate negotiations abandoned the summit with literally no binding agreement on meaningful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,
methane, and black carbon) reduction, and little or no acknowledgement of the major role that industrial food and farming practices play in global warming. Lulled by the world’s leaders
vague promises to reduce global warming, and still believing that new technological breakthroughs can save us, the average citizen has no idea how serious the present climate crisis actually
is. A close look at present (non-legally binding) pledges by the Obama Administration and other governments to reduce GHG pollution shows that their proposed, slightly modified “business as
usual” practices will still result in a disastrous global average temperature increase of 3.5 to 3.9 C by 2100, according to recent studies. This will not only burn up the Amazon, the lungs of the
planet, but also transform the Arctic into a region that is 10 to 16 degrees C warmer, releasing most of the region’s permafrost carbon and methane and unknown quantities of methane
hydrates, in the process basically putting an end to human beings’ ability to live on the planet. We are literally staring disaster in the face. In the follow up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit
this year, which is to be held in Cancun, Mexico (Nov. 29-Dec. 10) we, as members of global civil society, must raise our voices loud and clear. We must make it clear that we are years, not
decades away, from detonating runaway feedback mechanisms (heating up and burning up the Amazon and melting the Arctic permafrost) that can doom us all. Industrial Food and
Farming: A Deadly Root of Global Warming Although
transportation, industry, and energy producers are
obviously major fossil fuel users and greenhouse gas polluters, not enough people understand
that the worst U.S. and global greenhouse gas emitter is “Food Incorporated,” transnational
industrial food and farming, of which Monsanto and GMOs constitute a major part . Industrial farming,
including 173 million acres of GE soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, accounts for at least 35% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
(EPA’s ridiculously low estimates range from 7% to 12%, while some climate scientists feel the figure could be as high as 50% or more).
Industrial agriculture, biofuels, and non-sustainable cattle grazing - including cutting down the
last remaining tropical rainforests in Latin America and Asia for GMO and chemical-intensive
animal feed and biofuels - are also the main driving forces in global deforestation and wetlands
destruction, which generate an additional 20% of all climate destabilizing GHGs. In other words the direct (food, fiber,
and biofuels production, food processing, food distribution) and indirect damage (deforestation
and destruction of wetlands) of industrial agriculture, GMOs, and the food industry are the
major cause of global warming. Unless we take down Monsanto and Food Inc. and make the Great Transition to a relocalized
system of organic food and farming, we and our children are doomed to reside in Climate Hell. Overall 78% of climate
destabilizing greenhouse gases come from CO2, while the remainder come from methane, nitrous oxide, and black
carbon or soot. To stabilize the climate we will need to drastically reduce all of these greenhouse gas emissions, not just CO2, and sequester
twice as much carbon matter in the soil (through organic farming and ranching, and forest and wetlands restoration) as we are doing presently.
Currently GMO and industrial/factory farms (energy and chemical-intensive) farms
emit at least 25% of the carbon
dioxide (mostly from tractors, trucks, combines, transportation, cooling, freezing, and heating); 40% of the methane (mostly from
massive herds of animals belching and farting, and manure ponds); and 96% of nitrous oxide (mostly from synthetic fertilizer
manufacture and use, the millions of tons of animal manure from factory-farmed cattle herds, pig and poultry flocks, and millions of tons of
sewage sludge spread on farms). Black carbon or soot comes primarily from older diesel engines, slash and burn agriculture, and wood cook
stoves. Per
ton, methane is 21 times more damaging, and nitrous oxide 310 times more damaging,
as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, when measured over a one hundred year period. Damage is even worse if you
look at the impact on global warming over the next crucial 20-year period. Many climate scientists admit that they have previously drastically
underestimated the dangers of the non-CO2 GHGs, including methane, soot, and nitrous oxide, which are responsible for at least 22% of global
warming.
The impact is extinction—positive feedbacks and tipping points make the world
uninhabitable
Morgan 9
Professor of Current Affairs @ Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea, (Dennis Ray, “World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization
and possible extinction of the human race”, Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10, December 2009, Pages 683-693, ScienceDirect]
As horrifying as the scenario of human extinction by sudden, fast-burning nuclear fire may seem, the one
consolation is that this future can be avoided within a relatively short period of time if responsible world
leaders change Cold War thinking to move away from aggressive wars over natural resources and towards the eventual dismantlement of most
if not all nuclear weapons. On the other hand, another
scenario of human extinction by fire is one that may not
so easily be reversed within a short period of time because it is not a fast-burning fire; rather, a slow burning fire is gradually heating
up the planet as industrial civilization progresses and develops globally. This gradual process and course is long-lasting; thus it cannot easily be
changed, even if responsible world leaders change their thinking about ‘‘progress’’ and industrial development based on the burning of fossil
fuels. The way that global warming will impact humanity in the future has often been depicted through the analogy of the proverbial frog in a
pot of water who does not realize that the temperature of the water is gradually rising. Instead of trying to escape, the frog tries to adjust to
the gradual temperature change; finally, the heat of the water sneaks up on it until it is debilitated. Though it finally realizes its predicament
and attempts to escape, it is too late; its feeble attempt is to no avail— and the frog dies. Whether this fable can actually be applied to frogs in
heated water or not is irrelevant; it still serves as a comparable scenario of how the slow burning fire of global warming may eventually lead to
a runaway condition and take humanity by surprise. Unfortunately, by the time the politicians finally all agree with the scientific consensus that
global warming is indeed human caused, its development could be too advanced to arrest; the poor frog has become too weak and enfeebled
to get himself out of hot water. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the WorldMeteorological
Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme to ‘‘assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis
the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of humaninduced climate change,
its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.’’[16]. Since then, it has given assessments and reports every six or seven years.
Thus far, it has given four assessments.13 With all prior assessments came attacks fromsome parts of the scientific community, especially by
industry scientists, to attempt to prove that the theory had no basis in planetary history and present-day reality; nevertheless, as more
andmore research continually provided concrete and empirical evidence to confirm the global warming hypothesis, that it is indeed human-
global warming is
12 years of ‘‘impressive scientific research’’
caused, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels, the scientific consensus grew stronger that human induced
verifiable. As a matter of fact, according to Bill McKibben [17],
strongly confirms the 1995 report ‘‘that humans had grown so large in numbers and especially in appetite for energy that they
were now damaging the most basic of the earth’s systems—the balance between incoming and outgoing solar
energy’’; ‘‘. . . their findings have essentially been complementary to the 1995 report – a constant strengthening of the simple basic truth that
humans were burning too much fossil fuel.’’ [17]. Indeed, 12 years later, the 2007 report not only confirms global warming, with a
stronger
scientific consensus that the slow burn is ‘‘very likely’’ human caused, but it also finds that the ‘‘amount of
carbon in the atmosphere is now increasing at a faster rate even than before’’ and the temperature increases
would be ‘‘considerably higher than they have been so far were it not for the blanket of soot and other pollution that is temporarily helping to
cool the planet.’’ [17]. Furthermore, almost ‘‘everything frozen on earth is melting. Heavy rainfalls are becoming more
common since the air is warmer and therefore holds more water than cold air, and ‘cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent,
Unless drastic action is taken soon, the
average global temperature is predicted to rise about 5 degrees this century, but it could rise as
much as 8 degrees. As has already been evidenced in recent years, the rise in global temperature is melting the
Arctic sheets. This runaway polar melting will inflict great damage upon coastal areas, which
could be much greater than what has been previously forecasted . However, what is missing in the IPCC report,
while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent.’’ [17].
as dire as it may seem, is sufficient emphasis on the less likely but still plausible worst case scenarios, which could prove to have the most
devastating, catastrophic consequences for the long-term future of human civilization. In other words, the IPCC report places too much
emphasis on a linear progression that does not take sufficient account of the dynamics of systems theory, which leads to a fundamentally
different premise regarding the relationship between industrial civilization and nature. As a matter of fact, as early as the 1950s, Hannah Arendt
[18] observed this radical shift of emphasis in the human-nature relationship, which starkly contrasts with previous times because the very
distinction between nature and man as ‘‘Homo faber’’ has become blurred, as man no longer merely takes from nature what is needed for
fabrication; instead, he now acts into nature to augment and transform natural processes, which are then directed into the evolution of human
civilization itself such that we become a part of the very processes that we make. The more human civilization becomes an integral part of this
dynamic system, the more difficult it becomes to extricate ourselves from it. As Arendt pointed out, this dynamism is dangerous because of its
unpredictability. Acting into nature to transform natural processes brings about an . . . endless new change of happenings whose eventual
outcome the actor is entirely incapable of knowing or controlling beforehand. The moment we started natural processes of our own - and the
splitting of the atom is precisely such a man-made natural process -we not only increased our power over nature, or became more aggressive in
our dealings with the given forces of the earth, but for the first time have taken nature into the human world as such and obliterated the
defensive boundaries between natural elements and the human artifice by which all previous civilizations were hedged in’’ [18]. So, in as much
as we act into nature, we carry our own unpredictability into our world; thus, Nature can no longer be thought of as having absolute or ironclad laws. We no longer know what the laws of nature are because the unpredictability of Nature increases in proportion to the degree by
which industrial civilization injects its own processes into it; through selfcreated, dynamic, transformative processes, we carry human
unpredictability into the future with a precarious recklessness that may indeed end in human catastrophe or extinction, for elemental forces
that we have yet to understand may be unleashed upon us by the very environment that we experiment with. Nature may yet have her
revenge and the last word, as the
Earth and its delicate ecosystems, environment, and atmosphere reach
a tipping point, which could turn out to be a point of no return. This is exactly the conclusion reached by the
scientist, inventor, and author, James Lovelock. The creator of the wellknown yet controversial Gaia Theory, Lovelock has recently written that
it may be already too late for humanity to change course since climate centers around the world, . . . which are the equivalent of the pathology
lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth’s physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid
fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth’s family and an intimate part of it, that you and
especially civilisation are in grave danger. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort.
We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took
more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees
centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics. Much
of the tropical land mass will become scrub and
desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth’s
surface we have depleted to feed ourselves. . . . Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global
warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This ‘global dimming’ is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is,
leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool’s climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before
this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will
be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable. [19] Moreover, Lovelock states that the
task of trying to correct our course is hopelessly impossible, for we are not in charge. It is foolish and
arrogant to think that we can regulate the atmosphere, oceans and land surface in order to maintain the conditions right for life. It is as
impossible as trying to regulate your own temperature and the composition of your blood, for those with ‘‘failing kidneys know the neverending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy
kidneys’’ [19]. Lovelock concludes his analysis on the fate of human civilization and Gaia by saying that we will do ‘‘our best to survive, but sadly
I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions.
The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate’’ [19]. Lovelock’s forecast for climate change is based
on a systems dynamics analysis of the interaction between humancreated processes and natural processes. It is a multidimensional model that
appropriately reflects the dynamism of industrial civilization responsible for climate change. For one thing, it
takes into account
positive feedback loops that lead to ‘‘runaway’’ conditions.
This mode of analysis is consistent with recent
research on how ecosystems suddenly disappear. A 2001 article in Nature, based on a scientific study by an international consortium, reported
that changes in ecosystems are not just gradual but are often sudden and catastrophic [20]. Thus, a scientific consensus is emerging (after
repeated studies of ecological change) that ‘‘stressed ecosystems, given the right nudge, are capable of slipping rapidly from a seemingly steady
state to something entirely different,’’ according to Stephen Carpenter, a limnologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (who is also a coauthor of the report). Carpenter continues, ‘‘We realize that there is a common pattern we’re seeing in ecosystems around the world, . . .
Gradual changes in vulnerability accumulate and eventually you get a shock to the system - a flood or a drought - and, boom, you’re over into
another regime. It becomes a self-sustaining collapse.’’ [20]. If ecosystems are in fact mini-models of the system of the Earth, as Lovelock
maintains, then we can expect the same kind of behavior. As Jonathon Foley, a UW-Madison climatologist and another co-author of the Nature
report, puts it, ‘‘Nature isn’t linear. Sometimes you can push on a system and push on a system and, finally, you have the straw that breaks the
camel’s back.’’ Also, once the ‘‘flip’’ occurs, as Foley maintains, then the catastrophic change is ‘‘irreversible.’’ [20]. When we expand this
analysis of ecosystems to the Earth itself, it’s frightening. What could be the final push on a stressed system that could ‘‘break the camel’s
back?’’ Recently, another factor has been discovered in some areas of the arctic regions, which will surely compound the problem of global
‘‘heating’’ (as Lovelock calls it) in unpredictable and perhaps catastrophic ways. This disturbing development, also reported in Nature, concerns
the permafrost that has locked up who knows how many tons of the greenhouse gasses, methane and carbon dioxide. Scientists are particularly
worried about permafrost because, as it thaws, it releases these gases into the atmosphere, thus, contributing and accelerating global heating.
It is a vicious positive feedback loop that compounds the prognosis of global warming in ways that could very well prove to be the tipping point
Borenstein of the Associated Press describes this disturbing positive feedback loop of
permafrost greenhouse gasses, as when warming ‘‘. already under way thaws permafrost, soil
that has been continuously frozen for thousands of years. Thawed permafrost releases
methane and carbon dioxide. Those gases reach the atmosphere and help trap heat on Earth in
the greenhouse effect. The trapped heat thaws more permafrost and so on.’’ [21]. The significance and
of no return. Seth
severity of this problem cannot be understated since scientists have discovered that ‘‘the amount of carbon trapped in this type of permafrost
called ‘‘yedoma’’ is much more prevalent than originally thought and may be 100 times [my emphasis] the amount of carbon released into the
air each year by the burning of fossil fuels’’ [21]. Of course, it won’t come out all at once, at least by time as we commonly reckon it, but in
terms of geological time, the ‘‘several decades’’ that scientists say it will probably take to come out can just as well be considered ‘‘all at once.’’
Surely, within the next 100 years, much of the world we live in will be quite hot and may be unlivable, as Lovelock has predicted. Professor Ted
Schuur, a professor of ecosystem ecology at the University of Florida and co-author of the study that appeared in Science, describes it as a
‘‘slow motion time bomb.’’ [21]. Permafrost under lakes will be released as methane while that which is under dry ground will be released as
carbon dioxide. Scientists aren’t sure which is worse. Whereas methane is a much more powerful agent to trap heat, it only lasts for about 10
years before it dissipates into carbon dioxide or other chemicals. The less powerful heat-trapping agent, carbon dioxide, lasts for 100 years [21].
Both of the greenhouse gasses present in permafrost represent a global dilemma and challenge that compounds the effects of global warming
and runaway climate change. The scary thing about it, as one researcher put it, is that there are ‘‘lots of mechanisms that tend to be selfperpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off’’ [21].14 In an accompanying AP article, Katey Walters of the University of Alaska at
Fairbanks describes the effects as ‘‘huge’’ and, unless we have a ‘‘major cooling,’’ - unstoppable [22]. Also, there’s so much more that has not
and there’s a lot more to come out.’’ [22]. 4. Is it the
end of human civilization and possible extinction of humankind? What Jonathon Schell wrote
concerning death by the fire of nuclear holocaust also applies to the slow burning death of
global warming: Once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction, we have no right to
gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although,
even been discovered yet, she writes: ‘‘It’s coming out a lot
scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the
certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a
certainty that their use would put an end to our species [23].15 When we consider that beyond the horror of nuclear war, another horror is set
into motion to interact with the subsequent nuclear winter to produce a poisonous and super heated planet, the chances of human survival
seem even smaller. Who knows, even if some small remnant does manage to survive, what the poisonous environmental conditions would
have on human evolution in the future.
A remnant of mutated, sub-human creatures might survive such
harsh conditions, but for all purposes, human civilization has been destroyed, and the question
concerning human extinction becomes moot. Thus, we have no other choice but to consider
the finality of it all, as Schell does: ‘‘Death lies at the core of each person’s private existence, but part of death’s meaning is to be
found in the fact that it occurs in a biological and social world that survives.’’ [23].16 But what if the world itself were to perish, Schell asks.
Would not it bring about a sort of ‘‘second death’’ – the death of the species – a possibility that the vast majority of the human race is in denial
about? Talbot writes in the review of Schell’s book that
it is not only the ‘‘death of the species, not just of the earth’s
population on doomsday, but of countless unborn generations . They would be spared literal death but would nonetheless be
victims . . .’’ [23]. That is the ‘‘second death’’ of humanity – the horrifying, unthinkable prospect that there are no prospects – that there will be
no future. In the second chapter of Schell’s book, he writes that since we have not made a positive decision to exterminate ourselves but
instead have ‘‘chosen to live on the edge of extinction, periodically lunging toward the abyss only to draw back at the last second, our situation
is one of uncertainty and nervous insecurity rather than of absolute hopelessness.’’ [23].17 In other words, the fate of the Earth and its
inhabitants has not yet been determined. Yet time is not on our side. Will we relinquish the fire and our use of it to dominate the Earth and
each other, or will
we continue to gamble with our future at this game of Russian roulette while time
increasingly stacks the cards against our chances of survival?
2AC addons
Russia
Specifically collapse spills over to Russia
Marchmont News 9/25/12
http://blog.marchmontnews.com/2012/09/russia-may-jerk-two-steps-forward-and.html
MARCHMONT Capital Partners, LLC was initially founded in Sarasota, Florida, USA in May of 2005, based on the
initiative of Mr. Kendrick Davis White, an expert in corporate finance and private equity fund management with
over 18 years of professional experience of full time work in the Russian Federation. The main focus of the
company is consulting.
If the global economy is on upward momentum, and oil prices are high, Russia does great;
everybody’s just in a very wonderful mood. But if the global economy turns down, Russia may turn
down three times worse than the rest of the world. In this type of up and down momentum, and lack of
stability in the foundations of the economic structure, Russian investors have had very short time horizons. They
are worried about inflation, volatility; they’re worried of whether the government will change too abruptly. And all
those worries create high levels of risk.
That’s the biggest extinction
Filger 9
Sheldon Filger, columnist and founder of GlobalEconomicCrisis.com, May 10, 2009, “Russian Economy Faces
Disastrous Free Fall Contraction,” online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/russian-economy-facesdis_b_201147.html
In Russia, historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is
rarely encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of
the former Soviet Union that led to its political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both
intimately acquainted with their nation's history, are unquestionably alarmed at the prospect
that Russia's economic crisis will endanger the nation's political stability, achieved at great cost
after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are
occurring among rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries.
Recent polling demonstrates that the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev
are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites are the financial oligarchs, who have been forced
to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets in a desperate attempt to raise
cash. Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where economic collapse is not out
of the question, the impact will go far beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would
be for the Global Economic Crisis. There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more
relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic vulnerabilities and perceived decline
from superpower status, Russia remains one of only two nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal
of sufficient scope and capability to destroy the world as we know it. For that reason, it is not
only President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake at nights over the
prospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and destabilizing
social and political upheaval. It just may be possible that U.S. President Barack Obama's
national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic
meltdown in Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence
estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence community have already concluded that the
Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due
to its facilitating political instability in the world. During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia,
security forces responsible for guarding the nation's nuclear arsenal went without pay for
months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel would illicitly sell nuclear weapons
to terrorist organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia were to deteriorate much
further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal remain? It may be that the financial
impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence.
Peak Oil
Peak oil ensures industrial ag collapse now
IFG 7 (International Forum on Globalization, “The Rise and Predictable Fall of Globalized Industrial Agriculture”, 2007, p. 10-11 | Kushal)
Climate Change/Peak Oil—Fatal Threats to Globalized Agriculture Another threat from globalized industrial agriculture is the
role it plays in the rapid advancement of cli- mate change on the earth. In dozens of ways, from destruction of carbonabsorbing forests, to the massive over-use of fossil fuels for production and for transportation (upon which the entire model depends), climate change is directly furthered. One-eighth of the world oil supply is now used for transportation with a very high percentage of that being
used for long distance shipment of food across oceans or continents. It has been widely quoted that the average plate of food on an American
dinner table today has traveled more than 1,500 miles from source to plate. According to Edward Goldsmith, Europe’s leading ecological
Commodification of Survival – 11 – thinker, and publisher of The Ecologist, industrial agriculture bears overall responsibility for
about 25 per- cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, 60 percent of methane gas emissions, and 70-80
percent of nitrous oxide—all of them major greenhouse gasses contributing to climate change.7 Many climate scientists already predict hundreds more storms on the scale of Katrina or worse, and a rise in sea levels that could inundate thousands of miles of
coastal farmlands in both North and South. Ironically, there is also a reverse kind of threat to the food supply within a
global industrial agricul- ture system, in that we are now approaching an unprecedented shortage of oil and
natural gas on the Earth, called “peak oil” by many scientists and even corporations and governments. When that
shortage fully kicks-in—and some say it is doing so now—the entire global industrial agriculture system could be
threatened with collapse, as it will not be able to maintain long distance shipping in the face of increas- ingly high
energy costs. This could play havoc with food delivery globally and itself bring on a reversal of current trends. Here’s a brief
review of some of the climate related impacts from industrial agriculture : In the last few decades, climate-stabilizing tropical
rainforests have been cut down at an alarming rate, mainly for conversion to industrialized export-crop production, or for cattle grazing.
Millions of tons of nitrous oxide emissions are the result. Nitrogen fertilizers, a staple of industrial agriculture, are another major source of
nitrous oxide, contributing as much as 10 percent of total annual nitrous oxide emissions.8 Methane emissions are also dramatically increasing
because of flood-irrigated, nitrogen-dosed rice fields and the substantial increase in industrially raised livestock—in particular, cattle. Carbon
dioxide emissions are largely caused by the loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere. Modern industrial agriculture massively contributes to this by
practices such as drainage of wetlands, deep plow- ing that exposes the soil to the elements, use of heavy machinery that compacts the soil,
use of fertilizers and pesticides that destroy soil structure, overgrazing leading to desertification, and the practice of grow- ing monocrops on a
large scale. Modern irrigation is especially energy intensive. Farmer-saved seeds that have been developed and selected over millennia to
succeed in specific local climates and geological configurations have longer roots that can dig deep into the soil to find sources of moisture that
the short-rooted industrial commer- cial high yielding seeds cannot utilize. For example, in industrial corn production, it is sometimes necessary to pump out water from a depth of more than thirty meters. Such pumped irrigation requires more than three times as much fossil fuel
energy as rain-fed corn cultivation. Commercial high yielding hybrid seed varieties, and genetically modified seeds, require much more water
than traditional crops, just as they require more chemicals than non-commercial seeds. This increases dependence on perennially irri- gated
crops at a time when the planet’s fresh water supply is diminishing. Most modern industrial agriculture production is for export
markets—this translates into massive increases in the use of increasingly scarce fossil fuels for transport, and increased production and
disposal, packaging, and long distance refrigeration. All of this, however, could be undermined by the realities of “peak oil” which
could spell the beginning of the end of the dominance of the industrial agriculture model. This possibility,
combined with the model’s more apparent failures, makes it even more crucial that alternatives to the industrial
agriculture model be studied and implemented. This will be discussed later in Part Three.
Human labor is the only alternative
Kunstler 7 (James Howard Kunstler, the Energy Bulletin, “The agenda restated”, 02/05/07, AD: 08/05/13,
http://dev.energybulletin.net/node/25643 | Kushal)
We have to produce food differently. The ADM / Monsanto / Cargill model of industrial agribusiness is heading
toward its Waterloo. As oil and gas deplete, we will be left with sterile soils and farming organized at an
unworkable scale. Many lives will depend on our ability to fix this. Farming will soon return much closer to the
center of American economic life. It will necessarily have to be done more locally, at a smaller-and-finer scale, and
will require more human labor. The value-added activities associated with farming -- e.g. making products like
cheese, wine, oils -- will also have to be done much more locally.
Human Smuggling
Status quo immigration leads to trafficking
Costa 13 (Daniel Costa, Director of Immigration Law and Policy Research, “Senate Immigration Legislation Would Improve Human
Trafficking Protections for Guestworkers”, 07/12/13, AD: 07/26/13, http://www.epi.org/blog/senate-immigration-legislation-improvehuman/#sthash.qqT3cXL2.dpuf | Kushal)
A recently concluded trial highlights how weaknesses in the country’s guestworker programs can facilitate human
trafficking. Last week, a federal jury convicted Kizzy Kalu, a Denver-area man, of “89 counts of mail fraud, visa
fraud, human trafficking and money laundering.” While both progressives and conservatives have complaints about
the Senate immigration bill, it’s important to point out that the Senate took an important step forward in terms of new rules that would
protect vulnerable foreign workers like the ones recruited by Kalu from abroad through guestworker programs.
Guest worker reform solves human smuggling
Jachimowicz 4 (Maia Jachimowicz, Migration Policy Institute, “Bush Proposes New Temporary Worker Program”, February 2004, AD:
07/26/13, http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=202 | Kushal)
The proposal, which was delivered in the form of a statement of principles, included, among other things, the creation of a temporary
worker program for newcomers and for immigrants currently living in the US without authorization. Bush explained that such
reform was needed to reduce the potential national security threat of having eight million unidentified,
unauthorized immigrants in the United States. He also stressed that the proposed reform would help prevent future
exploitation of immigrants and human smuggling, and protect the wages of all workers. The president declared that the United
States' immigration system was "broken" and proposed that a system of "matching willing workers with willing employers" be the cornerstone
for reform.
Stopping trafficking is key to end human slavery
Vatican Herald 13 (Vatican Herald, “U.S.: combatting human trafficking is a moral obligation”, 07/10/13, AD: 07/26/13,
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/07/10/u.s.:_combatting_human_trafficking_is_a_moral_obligation/en1-707676 | Kushal)
Cooperation is especially needed on the governmental level to succeed in ending human slavery Mesquita says, “because
again if we’re talking about cross border problems, then you need to have cooperation between governments to stop it. If traffickers are in one
country, the victims end up in another, you have to have that level of international cooperation to prosecute the traffickers and aid the victims
to return to their home countries.” ¶ Countries need to continue to dialogue, he says, to further prevention, the identification of victims, aid to
victims, and the prosecution of traffickers. But mostly, world leaders should work together to end what is clearly an ethical scourge on
societies.¶ “We all do have a moral obligation to stop this problem and having that clearly enunciated by world leaders is integral.”
Terrorism
Guest worker reform solves the incentive for illegal immigration
Anderson 3 Stuart Anderson, Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy, served as Executive Associate
Commissioner for Policy and Planning and Counselor to the Commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization Service from August 2001 to
January 2003. (National Foundation for American Policy, “The Impact of Agricultural Guest Worker Programs on Illegal Immigration and Making
the Transition from Illegal to Legal Migration”, 11/20/03, AD: 07/19/13, http://www.nfap.com/pressreleases/Nov20_2003_pr.aspx | Kushal)
Arlington, VA – The National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) released two studies today: The Impact of
Agricultural Guest Worker Programs on Illegal Immigration and Making the Transition from Illegal to Legal
Migration. The reports are important and timely as policy makers debate the best approaches to reducing illegal
immigration and confronting the status quo of migrant deaths, the black market in labor, and powerful smuggling
organizations. The issue of what to do about those already in the country illegally remains controversial. The
studies point out the flaws in the current approaches and discuss the best way to make a transition from an illegal
to a legal migration system. A primary conclusion of both studies, says Stuart Anderson, author of the reports and
Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy, is that “ The absence of avenues to work
legally in the United States is a primary reason for the current levels of illegal immigration.” Copies
of both reports are available at: www.nfap.net. In Making the Transition from Illegal to Legal Migration, Anderson
concludes, “The approach that offers the most realistic opportunity for significant and positive change is
one that combines new temporary worker visas with a transition that addresses those currently in the country
illegally. Without such an approach, ten years from now both sides of the debate will still decry the status quo.”
The study examines the three choices policy makers grappling with illegal immigration face: 1) maintain the status
quo, which is an immigration enforcement-only approach that makes little use of market-based mechanisms; 2)
enact legislation to establish new temporary worker visas or improve existing categories; or 3) enact legislation
to create new temporary worker visas/improve existing categories combined with a transition
that addresses those currently in the country illegally. The study supports option 3, since the status quo
or “status quo plus more enforcement” portends no reduction in illegal immigration but rather a
continuation of migrant deaths, a black market in labor, and calls for harsher but likely
counterproductive enforcement measures. Moreover, a “guest worker only” approach is similar to the
status quo in that it has little chance of being successful, since, among other reasons, legislation to enact a new
guest worker program without addressing those in the country illegally is unlikely to become law. In The Impact of
Agricultural Guest Worker Programs on Illegal Immigration, the report explains how in varying forms from
1942-1964, the bracero program allowed the admission of Mexican farm workers to be
employed as seasonal contract labor for U.S. growers and farmers. Although facilitating legal entry for
agricultural work proved effective, today, the idea of allowing regulated, legal entry that employs market principles
to fulfill labor demand otherwise filled by individuals entering illegally is considered, depending on one’s
viewpoint, either novel, radical, or bold. The report finds that “By providing a legal path to entry for
Mexican farm workers the bracero program significantly reduced illegal immigration. The end
of the bracero program in 1964 (and its curtailment in 1960) saw the beginning of the increases in illegal
immigration that we see up to the present day.” It is recognized that the number of INS apprehensions
are an important indicator of the illegal flow and that, in general, apprehension numbers drop when the flow of
illegal immigration decreases. From 1964 -- when the bracero program ended -- to 1976, INS apprehensions
increased from 86,597 to 875,915 – a more than 1,000 percent increase, indicating a significant rise in
illegal immigration. The report found that “Additional factors in illegal immigration rising during this period
included economic conditions in Mexico and the lack of a useable temporary visa category for
lesser skilled non-agricultural jobs.” “This is not to say that the bracero program was without controversy or
that workers who entered through the program did not experience problems or even hardships,” says Anderson.
“The point is that when lawful temporary admissions were prevalent, illegal entry to the U nited
States was low. After the program was curtailed and later terminated, illegal immigration rose steadily.” The
report notes that “No one advocates resurrecting the bracero program in its various forms. Yet a revised H-2A
visa category that meets the needs of both employers and employees would make a significant
contribution to reducing illegal immigration in agriculture. “ The report also concludes: The data show
that after the 1954 enforcement actions were combined with an increase in the use of the bracero program, INS
apprehensions fell from the 1953 level of 885,587 to as low as 45,336 in 1959 – indicating, based on apprehensions
data, a 95 percent reduction in the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. During that time, the annual
number of Mexican farm workers legally admitted more than doubled from 201,380 in 1953 to an average of
437,937 for the years 1956-1959. “Without question the bracero program was . . . instrumental in ending the
illegal alien problem of the mid-1940’s and 1950’s,” wrote the Congressional Research Service in a 1980 report. In
the 1950s and 1960s, senior law enforcement officials in the U.S. Border Patrol and elsewhere in the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) understood and promoted the use of market forces to reduce illegal immigration
and control the Southwest border. A February 1958 Border Patrol document from the El Centro (California) district
states, “Should Public Law 78 be repealed or a restriction placed on the number of braceros allowed to enter the
United States, we can look forward to a large increase in the number of illegal alien entrants into the United
States.” When at a Congressional hearing in the 1950s, a top INS official was asked what would happen to illegal
immigration if the bracero program ended, he replied, “We can’t do the impossible, Mr. Congressman.” The
evidence indicates that a reasonable enforcement deterrent at the border is necessary to enable a temporary
worker program such as the bracero program to reduce illegal entry. Yet the evidence is also clear that
enforcement alone has not proven effective in reducing illegal immigration. INS enforcement did not grow weaker
after the 1960 curtailing of the bracero program or after the program’s subsequent demise in December 1964. And
both after 1960 and 1964, without the legal safety valve that the bracero program represented, illegal immigration
increased substantially. The current temporary worker visa category for agriculture, which U.S.
employers consider burdensome and litigation-prone, fails to attract a sufficient number of participants
to be part of the solution to illegal migration,” Anderson concludes. “While the bracero program
has been criticized, that does not mean that it is impossible to devise a temporary worker
program that takes into account the needs of both workers and employers. That would reduce
illegal immigration by providing legal, market-based alternatives to the illegal entry that we see
today on the Southwest border of the United States.”
Current rates of illegal immigration makes terrorism inevitable
Ting 5 (Jan Ting, Foreign Policy Institute, “Immigration and National Security”, 09/09/05, 07/19/13,
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20050909.americawar.ting.immigrationnationalsecurity.html | Kushal)
Every night, thousands of foreigners covertly enter the U.S. The official estimate is that the U.S. Border Patrol
intercepts only 1 out of every 4 illegal border crossers. But current and former Border Patrol officers say that the ratio of those
intercepted is much lower-probably more like 1:8 or 1:10. And because of the illegals’ remittances of U.S. dollars back to their home
country, Mexico in particular has been supportive of its citizens who choose to enter the U.S. illegally. Data on Border Patrol apprehensions
for fiscal years 2000-05 show that apprehensions were highest in 2000, over 1.5 million, and then declined over the next three years,
following 9/11. They rose again in 2004 and 2005, after President Bush announced his proposal for guest-worker amnesty in January 2004.
Most of those apprehended
near the U.S.’s southern border are Mexicans, but there are also numerous “other than
Mexicans,” or OTMs. Research by Wayne Cornelius of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California,
Apprehensions along the southern border make up about 98 percent of total apprehensions.
San Diego suggests that 92 percent of Mexicans seeking to enter the U.S. illegally eventually succeed. Meanwhile, the number of OTMs
apprehended near the southern border has been clearly and dramatically increasing since 2000, from 28,598 that year to 65,814 in 2004 and
100,142 OTM in the first eight months of fiscal 2005 alone. What happens following apprehension is very different for
OTMs than for Mexicans, who can be immediately returned to Mexico in what is described as voluntary departure.
(In the case of adult Mexicans, U.S. authorities simply take them back to the border.) In contrast, the Mexican
government does not allow the U.S. to send OTMs back into Mexico. That may be understandable, but since these
OTMs clearly entered the U.S. through Mexico, Washington might usefully and legitimately put some diplomatic
pressure on Mexico City either to take the OTMs back or to prevent their entry into the U.S. in the first place. An
OTM has to be scheduled for a hearing with an immigration judge, who can issue a removal
order. A scheduled immigration hearing may be weeks later, and even if a removal order is
issued, the alien has the right to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and then the federal
courts. The government therefore has a dilemma. It can either detain the alien until the hearing (and, if a removal
order is issued, until all appeal rights are exhausted), or it can release the alien on his “own recognizance,” and
hope that the alien will voluntarily appear for the scheduled hearing and, if ordered removed and after exhausting
all appeals, voluntarily appear for deportation. Because the government has only authorized and funded a small
number of detention spaces (a total of 19,444 in 2004, with another 1,950 added in May 2005), increasing
numbers of OTMs are released on their own recognizance. Fewer than 6,000 OTMs were released on their own
recognizance in each of 2001 and 2002, but the number increased to 7,972 in 2003 and jumped to 34,161 in 2004;
70,624 were released in just the first 8 months of fiscal 2005. The failure-to-appear rate at one Texas immigration
court is 98 percent. A removal order is typically issued in absentia for those who fail to appear. When the statutory
appeal rights all expire, the names are added to the list of alien “absconders” who have actually been caught by
the government, ordered removed by an immigration judge, exhausted all their appeal rights, but are still in the country anyway. The list
of such absconders is now 465,000 and growing, out of a total illegal alien population of 8 to 12 million, per a December 2003 estimate by
Tom Ridge, then Secretary of Homeland Security. Lou Dobbs of CNN, among others, uses 20 million as a more realistic number. The release
rate for apprehended OTMs is now so high, Border Patrol agents report that instead of hiding from the authorities, illegally entering OTMs
actually seek them out in order to obtain the document charging them with illegal entry. They call this “Notice to Appear,” which informs
them of the date and place of their scheduled hearing before an immigration judge, a permiso; some agents call it a “Notice to Disappear,”
since that is what it permits them to do. If they are challenged while moving deeper into the U.S. from the border, they can produce the
document to show that they have already scheduled an appointment before immigration judges. The
overwhelming majority
of the millions of illegals, and even of the absconders, are not terrorists. But the sea of
incoming illegal aliens provides a cover and a culture in which terrorists can hide, and a reliable
means of entry. And as we know from the case of the 2004 Madrid train bombings, many Islamist terrorists are fluent in Spanish
Immigration deficiencies will lead to weapons smuggling - a failure to secure borders increases
the likelihood of attack
Joyner 9 (Christopher C: Professor of Government and Foreign Service at Georgetown, “Nuclear terrorism in a globalizing world: assessing the
threat and the emerging management regime”, 06/22/09, AD: 07/19/13, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-216486733.html | Kushal)
A. The Cause for Concern During the last decade, the
determination of al-Qaeda to acquire nuclear weapons, the
information and communication powers afforded to them by globalization, and the existence of fissile nuclear materials
in unstable regions have all contributed to the transformation of the threat of nuclear terrorism
from a hypothetical scenario into a policy issue of grave concern. (27) In its examination of the terrorist
threats facing the United States after the events of September 11, 2001, the 9/11 Commission averred that, "[p]reventing
terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction must be elevated above all other
problems of national security ... [the President] should develop a comprehensive plan to dramatically accelerate the
timetable for securing all nuclear weapons material around the world." (28) This report was based on the discovery of documents by the
United States describing the extent of al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions. In 1998, Osama bin Laden declared that the acquisition of nuclear
weapons was a "religious duty." (29) Since this time, reports indicate that al-Qaeda has made numerous attempts to purchase nuclear
weapons on the black market, but these efforts have been thwarted by supposed sellers scamming al-Qaeda. (30) Indeed, the CIA's Bin
Laden Unit has documented what it describes as a "professional" attempt to acquire nuclear weapons by al-Qaeda, which prompted the
conclusion that "there could be no doubt after this date [late 1996] that al-Qaeda was in deadly earnest in seeking nuclear weapons. (31)
This particular attempt even involved meetings with Pakistani nuclear scientists, as well as calls for other scientists with nuclear expertise to
join the fight against the United States. In spite of the disruption of al-Qaeda's network since the War on Terror began in 2001, U.S. officials
continue to warn that its members retain the ability to launch terrorist nuclear attacks coordinated from its new bases in Pakistan. (32) As
the desire of al-Qaeda to conduct massive nuclear attacks against the United States is one
of the principal factors that has made nuclear terrorism a real threat in the 21st century . The
such,
danger that al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions pose to the United States is compounded by the manner in which the processes of globalization
have impacted the world. These
impacts have not only empowered other purveyors of jihadist violence,
but they also have simplified the means by which such terrorists can smuggle and deliver
nuclear weapons to their intended targets. Notwithstanding the debate over the pros and cons of globalization, it is
widely accepted that, "[t]he technological revolution presupposes global computerized networks and the free movement of goods,
information, and peoples across national boundaries." (33) In the same ways that these occurrences facilitate more efficient functioning of
daily life in many states, globalization concomitantly creates more and speedier networks through which international terrorist
organizations can perpetrate violent attacks. (34) Technological innovations such as the internet and telecommunication networks that have
accompanied globalization allow terrorists to communicate with one another across the globe, and thus contribute to the ease with which
they can orchestrate and execute complex missions. (35) With respect to nuclear terrorism, terrorists can now discover the location of fissile
materials and plan attacks on nuclear facilities with much greater ease. Meanwhile, they are also able to utilize tools like the internet to
globalization has allowed
terrorist groups like AI-Qaeda to transform themselves into powerful non-state actors with
specialized technological knowledge that can subvert the goals of powerful states. (37)
Moreover, globalization enables terrorist groups to transport nuclear weapons more stealthily
from their places of origin to intended targets. As a result of globalization and commercial liberalization, massive
amounts of international trade and commerce occur everyday. Given the sheer volume of goods entering all states,
the chance of detecting illicit commodities is lower. (38) In the case of the United States, as of late 2008 there were
disseminate and access information concerning the construction of nuclear devices. (36) As such,
317 entry points into the country, which makes the volume of goods entering the United States that much more difficult to detect and
only small amounts of easily
concealable fissile material are needed to create dangerous devices. Accordingly, physical detection is made
thoroughly examine. (39) This is significant because, with respect to nuclear materials,
more difficult and smuggling nuclear material in large containers becomes more practicable. (40) Electronic detection instruments, while in
development and being tested in limited cases, have not yet been fully deployed. (41) Meanwhile ,
large amounts of illegal drugs
immigrants enter even the most highly industrialized countries like the United States every year, testifying to
the ease with which groups could simply smuggle nuclear materials across porous state
borders. (42)These developments render the threat of nuclear terrorism a far more serious policy issue than previously
acknowledged, as they afford terrorist organizations greater power and easier means to accomplish
their nuclear ambitions to destroy western societies. (43) Meanwhile, globalization means that "new threats
cannot be contained and controlled within one State" and will consequently require international solutions. ( 44)
and
Nuclear terrorism escalates to global war
Ayson 10 (Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack:
Envisaging Catalytic Effects”, 06/21/10, AD: 07/19/13, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1057610X.2010.483756#.UeoOqI1tjNQ |
Kushal)
But these two nuclear worlds—a
non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear
exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an
act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of
nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s
terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals
who are seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by
third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called
n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear
terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it
might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to
be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in
Some possibilities, however
remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was
thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come
from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear
laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation
supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well.
by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its
radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency
of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41
Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials
refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift
immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel
and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program
continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear
Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in
Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers,
would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring
would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if
they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The
reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited
conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a
possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise
the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during
the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including
its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert.
In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up
against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions
to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it
must be admitted that any
preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.
Mexican Economy
Guest worker reform directly amplifies economic growth between the US and Mexico
IADP 13 (Inter-American Dialogue Report, “A More Ambitious Agenda”, February 2013, AD: 07/17/13,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdfhttp://www.thedialogue.o
rg/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf
In light of these numbers, it is hardly surprising that
immigration is a central issue in both the United States and
Mexico—although viewed through very different lenses. US citizens tend to see the main problem as the large number of undocumented
immigrants, Mexican or otherwise, and continuing flows of unauthorized migrants. Americans, rightly or wrongly, fear that undocumented
immigrants compete with them for jobs, bring down wages, increase financial burdens on schools and social welfare programs, and contribute
to crime rates. Mexicans have different concerns, led by how their compatriots are treated in the United States, what their rights are and
should be, and how the US government deals with the 6 to 7 million undocumented Mexicans within its border. It is no wonder that, for
immigration to the United States has been an unsettling factor in US-Mexico relations.
Missing from the debate has been an appreciation of the enormous economic contribution of
Mexican immigrants, including many who arrived illegally, to both the US and Mexican economies. More than half
of US population growth in recent years has been due to immigration. Migrants fill crucial jobs. They represent a significant
percentage of younger workers and new entrants to the US labor force, and their presence improves the age profile of the workforce,
boosting US capacity for growth and helping to sustain the US Social Security system. It is estimated that Mexican immigrants,
decades,
who have accounted for 30 percent of all immigrants annually for the past decade or so, contribute roughly 4 percent a year to US GDP. Last
year those immigrants remitted to their home country more than $20 billion, equivalent to nearly half the value of Mexico’s oil exports.
Reform could multiply the benefits of immigration. A new policy driven largely by economic
demand would open opportunities for millions of now unauthorized residents and be a boon
for both economies.
Mexico collapse causes global depression
DMN 95 (11/28/1995. Dallas Morning News, Lexis)
With the exception of 1982 - when Mexico defaulted on its foreign debt and a handful of giant New York banks worried they
few people abroad ever cared about a weak peso.
But now it's different, experts say. This time, the world is keeping a close eye
on Mexico's unfolding financial crisis for one simple reason: Mexico is a
major international player. If its economy were to collapse, it would drag
down a few other countries and thousands of foreign investors. If
recovery is prolonged, the world economy will feel the slowdown. "It
took a peso devaluation so that other countries could notice the key role
that Mexico plays in today's global economy," said economist Victor Lpez Villafane of the
Monterrey Institute of Technology. "I hate to say it, but if Mexico were to default on its
debts, that would trigger an international financial collapse" not seen
since the Great Depression, said Dr. Lpez, who has conducted comparative studies of the Mexican economy
would lose billions of dollars in loans -
and the economies of some Asian and Latin American countries.
Drug Trafficking
Immigrants are susceptible to drug cartels
Rough 10 (Ginger Rough, Arizona Central, “Brewer: Most Illegal Immigrants Smuggling Drugs”, 06/25/13, AD: 07/26/13,
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/25/20100625arizona-governor-says-most-illegal-immigrants-smuggledrugs.html?nclick_check=1 | Kushal)
Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday reiterated her assertion that the majority of illegal immigrants are coming to the United States for
reasons other than work, saying most are committing crimes and being used as drug mules by the cartels.¶ Brewer's
remarks are an expansion of comments she made last week during a televised debate between the four Republican gubernatorial candidates.¶
In the first exchange, she was responding to opponent Matt Jette of Apache Junction, who opposes the state's tough new immigration law and
is pushing a moderate platform that includes calls for comprehensive immigration reform.¶ In the debate, Jette said that most people who
cross illegally into Arizona are "just trying to feed their families." Brewer disputed that, saying, "They're coming here, and they're
bringing drugs.¶ And they're doing drop houses, and they're extorting people and they're terrorizing the families."
The governor, who has become a national media figure since signing Senate Bill 1070 into law on April 23, went further on Friday, saying that
the "majority of the illegal trespassers that are coming (into) the state of Arizona are under the direction and control of organized drug
cartels."¶ When pressed, Brewer said that even those who do come to the United States looking for work are often
ensnared by the cartels.¶ "They are accosted, and they become subjects of the drug cartels."¶
Drug violence fuels organized crime
Williams 12 (Phillip Williams, University of Pittsburgh, “Drug Trafficking, Violence, and Instability,” April 2012, AD: 07/26/13,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub1101.pdf | Kushal)
Human insecurity has greatly intensified over the ¶ past 2 decades in many parts of Latin America. To an ¶ unprecedented
degree, ordinary people in the region ¶ complain about living in fear of crime. With the exception of Colombia, criminal activity throughout the
¶ region has exploded. Doubling since the 1980s, homicide rates in Latin America are among the highest in ¶ the world. Kidnapping is also
frequent. Well above 50 ¶ percent of the approximately 7,500 worldwide kidnappings in 2007 took place in Latin America.1¶ Overall, ¶ the rates
of violent crime are six times higher in Latin ¶ America than in the rest of the world.2¶ With over 6,000 ¶ deaths reported in 2008 and over 6,500
in 2009, drugrelated violence in Mexico each year has surpassed ¶ conflict-caused deaths in both Afghanistan and
Iraq, ¶ two countries in the midst of civil war.3¶ In 2011, 12,903 ¶ drug-related violence deaths were recorded, and over ¶ 50,000
since President Felipe Calderón took office.4¶ Organized crime is one of the principal sources of threats ¶ to human
security, but so is flourishing street crime, ¶ which frequently receives far less attention from governments—whether the United States
Government or ¶ national governments in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Organized crime causes failed states
Carlson 97 (Thomas, Commander of the US Navy, The Threat of Transnational Organized Crime to U.S. National
Security: A Policy Analysis Using a Center of Gravity Framework, Global Security, Online)
Transnational organized crime contributes to and thrives on the recent and
growing trend of ungovernability that is undermining the ability of many
states to carry out their traditional functions. Ungovernability is defined as "the declining
ability of governments worldwide, but particularly in the Third World, to govern and carry out the many and various
Ungovernability is
characterized by a decline in the rule of law, stagnating economies, and
deteriorating infrastructures. The result has been an increasing burden
on the international community to take action in support of "failed" states, such as
responsibilities of managing a modern state in an increasingly complex environment."[52]
Somalia and Rwanda, when the situation reaches the appropriate moral, legal, humanitarian, and/or security threshold.[53]
Failed states are a comparatively larger risk that great power wars and make solving
other impacts impossible
Yoo 5 (John, Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law, Failed States, Int’l Colloquium,
Online)
Failed states pose perhaps the most dangerous threat to both American
national security and international peace and stability. Failed states have
served as the incubator of international terrorist groups, such as the al Qaeda
organization that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, or as trans-shipments points for
illicit drugs, human trafficking, or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
technologies. In Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and the former Yugoslavia, failed states have produced
the catastrophic human rights disasters. Since the end of World War II, far more lives
have been lost due to internal wars than international armed conflicts,
and many of the former have occurred in failed states. Military
intervention in response, often led by the United States and its allies, incurs high costs in
terms of money, material, and lives. Finding a comprehensive and
effective solution to these challenges of terrorism, human rights
violations, or poverty and lack of economic development requires some
answers to the problem of failed states.
Unemployment
Unemployment causes systemic suffering and death
Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and Kevin Hassett, Senior Fellow and
Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, former served as a senior economist at
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and an associate professor of economics and finance at the
Graduate School of Business of Columbia University, holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of
Pennsylvania, 05-12-2012, “The Human Disaster of Unemployment,” http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-human-disaster-of-unemployment
Long-term unemployment is experienced disproportionately by the young, the old, the less educated, and
African-American and Latino workers.While older workers are less likely to be laid off than younger workers, they
are about half as likely to be rehired. One result is that older workers have seen the largest proportionate increase
in unemployment in this downturn. The number of unemployed people between ages 50 and 65 has more than
doubled.The prospects for the re-employment of older workers deteriorate sharply the longer they are
unemployed. A worker between ages 50 and 61 who has been unemployed for 17 months has only about a 9
percent chance of finding a new job in the next three months. A worker who is 62 or older and in the same
situation has only about a 6 percent chance. As unemployment increases in duration, these slim chances drop
steadily.The result is nothing short of a national emergency. Millions of workers have been
disconnected from the work force, and possibly even from society. If they are not reconnected,
the costs to them and to society will be grim.Unemployment is almost always a traumatic event,
especially for older workers. A paper by the economists Daniel Sullivan and Till von Wachter estimates a 50 to
100 percent increase in death rates for older male workers in the years immediately following a
job loss, if they previously had been consistently employed. This higher mortality rate implies that a male worker
displaced in midcareer can expect to live about one and a half years less than a worker who keeps his job. There
are various reasons for this rise in mortality. One is suicide. A recent study found that a 10
percent increase in the unemployment rate (say from 8 to 8.8 percent) would increase the
suicide rate for males by 1.47 percent. This is not a small effect. Assuming a link of that scale, the
increase in unemployment would lead to an additional 128 suicides per month in the United
States. The picture for the long-term unemployed is especially disturbing. The duration of
unemployment is the dominant force in the relationship between joblessness and the risk of
suicide.Joblessness is also associated with some serious illnesses, although the causal links are poorly
understood. Studies have found strong links between unemployment and cancer, with
unemployed men facing a 25 percent higher risk of dying of the disease. Similarly higher risks have
been found for heart disease and psychiatric problems.The physical and psychological
consequences of unemployment are significant enough to affect family members . The economists
Kerwin Charles and Melvin Stephens recently found an 18 percent increase in the probability of divorce following a
husband’s job loss and 13 percent after a wife’s. Unemployment of parents also has a negative impact on
achievement of their children. In the long run, children whose fathers lose a job when they are kids have reduced
earnings as adults — about 9 percent lower annually than children whose fathers do not experience
unemployment.We all understand how the human costs can be so high. For many people, their
very identity is their occupation. Few events rival the emotional strain of job loss.