Immigration Politics Cal 2013 Starter Packet

Top Shelf

Notes
Record instructor notes about the file here The links still need a lot more work theres only enough here to get you started. They are located at the end of the file.

1NC
Immigration reform will pass as a result of the border compromise now is key
Washington Post 6-20

*The Washington Post. Breakthrough on Senate immigration bill: Democrats, GOP reach border security agreement 6/20/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A breakthrough at hand, Republicans

and Democrats reached agreement Thursday on a costly, military-style surge to

secure the leaky U.S.-Mexican border and clear the way for Senate passage of legislation giving millions of immigrants a chance at citizenship after years in Americas shadows. Lawmakers in both parties described a Southern border that would be bristling with law enforcement manpower and technology as a result of legislation at the top of President Barack Obamas second-term domestic policy agenda. The emerging deal called for a doubling of the Border Patrol, with 20,000 new agents, 18 new unmanned surveillance drones, 350 miles of new fencing, and an array of fixed and mobile devices to maintain vigilance. This is a border surge . We have militarized our border, almost, said Sen.
Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. Boots on the ground, drones in the air, summed up Sen. Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat who has been at the center of efforts to push immigration legislation through the Senate. The plan was announced by Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Republicans who had been publicly uncommitted on the legislation. Both said other

GOP fence-sitters would also swing behind the measure if the changes were incorporated , and by late in the
afternoon, two had done so.

A final vote on the legislation is expected by the end of next week.

< Link > Political capital is key Obamas maneuvering overcomes hurdles
Birnbaum 6-12

*Jeremy. Politics for the Washington Times. Sensational Season for Scandal: When a Ship Runs Aground, its the Captains Fault The Washington Times, 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Whats left among major initiatives is immigration reform. However, that faces a tough slog in the Senate and a possibly impossible trajectory in the House of Representatives. Its leading Republican sponsor, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, has already signaled that he might bail on the plan he helped craft if changes including guaranteed bolstering of border security arent added as the bill moves through the Senate. In other words, official Washington will devote lots of time to little more than housekeeping matters. Congress could pass a few appropriations bills, reauthorize farm programs and raise the federal
borrowing limit to avoid the disaster that would come with default. What that means is that not much more than the basics are on track to succeed this year. Thats

a big problem for Mr. Obama. The more time that passes, the less political capital

hell have to muscle through his priorities. Unless he acts quickly , he could lose his chance to make his the media abhors a vacuum , and thats what persistent inaction is creating. Reporters have no choice but to fill their news holes. As a result, minor kerfuffles and governmental failures, which would otherwise be relegated to the second tier, become
presidency truly historic. He needs more accomplishments to distinguish himself. More practically,

front-page news for lack of competition . Scandals blossom in the absence of a serious agenda . Thats one reason the Obama administration has been battered by the terrible trifecta of the snatching of reporters telephone logs, the continuing suspicions about the attacks in Benghazi and, most importantly, the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service. The recent news that the government has compelled telephone and Internet companies to fork
over information about average citizens has also raised concerns because of the dearth of impactful actions otherwise in the nations capital.

< Impact >

UQ

2NC UQ
The border surge compromise ensures passage it will achieve 70 total votes, which beat any of their evidence about the filibuster, the house, and the ubermajority.
Parker 6-21

*Ashley. Politics for the New York Times. Border Deal by 2 in G.O.P. Lifts Chances of Immigration Bill The New York Times, 6/21/13 (morning edition) ln//GBS-JV]
The prospects for Senate approval of a broad overhaul of the nations immigration laws improved on Thursday after two Senate Republicans worked out a deal on a plan to strengthen border security with the bipartisan group of eight senators that drafted the original bill, raising hopes that the new agreement could build Republican support for the immigration legislation . The deal calls for a border surge that nearly doubles
the current border patrol force to 40,000 agents from 21,000, as well as for the completion of 700 miles of fence on the nations southern border. The additional border agents, the senators said, would cost roughly $25 billion. Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and one of the deals architects, said he expected

that his provision could attract the support of roughly 15 Republicans for the legislation, which includes a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants already in the country. Those Republican votes would be a significant boon to the measure , which backers hope to push through the Senate by the end of next week. If nearly all Senate Democrats vote for the bill, as aides now expect, the additional Republican support would not only ensure the bills passage through the Senate, but that it passes with nearly 70 votes and bipartisan momentum as it heads to the Republican-controlled House .

Top of the Docket

Dann 6-11

*Carrie. Politics for NBC. Senate votes to begin historic immigration reform debate NBC News, 6/11/13 ln//GBS-JV]
In an initial victory
for proponents of comprehensive immigration reform, the

Senate on Tuesday easily passed a procedural

vote to begin debate on the broad bipartisan measure, with just 15 senators -- all Republicans -- objecting. The preliminary 82-15 vote of the legislation,
-- which required 60 votes for passage --

offers an initial show of strength for supporters

although some Republicans who voted for the initial procedural measure say they will not support the final product

unless amendments are added to strengthen the legislations requirements to secure the nations southern border. A short while later, a

vote on the motion to proceed -- which needed just a simple majority -- passed by a similar 84-15 margin . The votes came hours after President Barack Obama, flanked by a broad array of supporters in remarks at the White House , urged Congress to act on the legislation
and warned opponents that there is no good reason to play procedural games or engage in obstruction. If youre serious about actually fixing the system, then this is the vehicle to do it, Obama said. A

final vote on the

legislation is not expected until before the chambers July 4

end of the summer.

recess. Obama said Tuesday that he wants the bill to his desk by the

Obamas pushing and now is key

Kelley 6-12

*Caroline. Politics for Time. Can Congress Vote On Immigration Reform B efore Its Vacation? TIME, 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]

The clock is ticking for immigration reform. On Tuesday, President Obama urged Congress to move quickly on the sweeping reform bill
the Senate began debating this week. Theres no reason Congress cant get this done by the end of the summer, he said. The presidents urgency was reminiscent of the way President George W. Bush pushed for his own immigration reform package in 2007. Six years ago this Wednesday, Bush visited Capitol Hill to make a personal appeal to Republican senators on behalf of his plan, which included a goal that they vote before Congresss July 4 recessthe same target recently set for this years Senate reform effort by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer. The

Senate couldnt deliver a vote by July 4 in 2007, however, and Bushs bill eventually died in the doldrums of summer. Proponents of this years version hope for more success. But, they too face a
calendar challenge. Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says that he wouldnt bet a great deal of money on meeting the July 4th deadline this year. A

significant delay in the Senate could make it harder for the House to vote on immigration reform before Congress goes on vacation. The House is scheduled to be in session for just 16 days following the July 4 holiday before lawmakers begin their month-long vacation on August 5th. House Speaker John Boehner has said he hopes the House can vote before then. Reform advocates worry that if a bill isnt passed before August, opponents might marshal intense opposition to it in the media and at lawmakers town hall meetings, just as they did with Obamas health care plan in the summer of 2009, which threatened to derail that bill. Ornstein thinks immigration reform could survive Congresss recess, but that the delay would make passage more difficult .

The GOPs on board

Politic365 6-11

[Politic365.com., a Frequently Updated and Reputable News Source under the larger Umbrella of Roll Call Magazine. President Obama Pushes Congress on Immigration Reform 6/11/13 http://politic365.com/2013/06/11/introduced-by-a-dreamer-president-obama-pushes-congress-on-immigrationreform/ //GBS-JV]
Today President Obama

expressed his support for the bipartisan gang of eight immigration reform bill that has been making its way through the Senate. In an speech at the White House, where he was introduced by a DREAM Act eligible young adult, Tolu Olubunmi, President Obama said, The bipartisan bill is the best chance weve had in years.
The President also said that if people are serious about fixing the broken immigration system, then this is the bill to support because it has border security and provides a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented who are living in the shadows. In referencing the border, the

President stressed that border crossings are at a historic low. I know theres a lot of talk right now about border
security, so let me repeat: Today, illegal crossings are near their lowest level in decades, and if passed, the Senate bill as currently written would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America has ever seen, he said. By

stressing border security, the

President is trying to assure Republicans that securing the borders will remain a top priority . Senator
John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced an amendment that would require law enforcement to certify that the border is 100% secure before any of the undocumented could receive permanent status. In recent years, the

administration has increased the militarization of the border even utilizing unmanned drones while the number of undocumented immigrants arrested at the border continues to be low.

The substance of the deal makes it politically feasible

Mookim 6-12

*M. Politics for PolicyMic. Immigration Reform 2013: With One Hurdle Passed, the Bill's Future Is Still Uncertain 6/12/13 http://www.policymic.com/articles/47935/immigration-reform-2013-withone-hurdle-passed-the-bill-s-future-is-still-uncertain //GBS-JV]
After years of operating under a broken system, Congress

has successfully produced a comprehensive, effective plan to reform immigration in a surprisingly politically feasible manner . President Obama delivered a speech Tuesday morning that wholeheartedly endorsed this most recent congressional effort to advance immigration reform. Later in the day, the Senate voted by an overwhelming margin to begin discussing the bipartisan immigration bill recently pushed through the Judiciary Committee that is just now arriving to the Senate floor. In

the early stages of the debate, it is apparent that Republicans

emerged most critical of the bill, and for easily anticipated border security is improved as per Republican request, Democrats get their much-desired path to citizenship for Americas 11 million illegal immigrants. Additionally, several provisions are included that streamline legal immigration. To name a few, the cap on H-1B visas is raised substantially and backlogs for merit-based visas will be cleared.
reasons. The bill currently includes a grand bargain of sorts: Once

CBO report generates momentum

Cox 6-18

*Ramsey. Politics for the Hill. Schumer: CBO report is huge momentum boost to immigration reform bill The Hill, 6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that

the Congressional Budget Offices report that the comprehensive

immigration reform bill reduces the deficit is a huge momentum boost. This report is a huge momentum boost for immigration reform, Schumer said on the Senate floor moment after the CBO report was released. This debunks the idea that immigration reform is anything other than a boon to our economy , and robs the bills opponents of one of their last remaining arguments. CBO estimated that the Gang of Eights bill would reduce the deficit by $197 billion over the next ten years and reduce the deficit an additional $700 billion during the second decade of its implementation.

Ext. Will Pass General

Itll pass efforts to block the deal will fall short
Bazinger 4-8

*Kenneth. Political Editor for the NY Daily News and Kiplinger. For Obama, Republicans, a Pause in Partisanship 4/8/13 http://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T043-C012-S005-obamacongress-to-pass-immigration-reform.html#pAHwARZwQoseVifF.99 //GBS-JV]
The truce won't last, but it will allow some major bills to pass , including immigration reform. There's a spring thaw of sorts under way in Congress, clearing the path for some big bills to pass before the fall, when the focus will shift to the 2014 elections for House and Senate seats. Both parties, driven by the goodwill that remains from their recent agreement to fund the government through the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year, are in the mood for progress on other fronts. The biggest surprise on tap: immigration reform. A sizable package will pass by the end of the year . It'll include beefed-up border patrols, more work visas for skilled and unskilled individuals and a path for legal residency for many millions of people who are in the U.S. illegally. That last provision was a long shot as recently as a few months ago. Both parties stand to benefit over time. Democrats get to claim another big win for President Obama, allowing immigration to join health care as a cornerstone of his legislative legacy. Republicans gain a vital truce with Hispanic voters that may help them in future elections. It won't be easy. Many tea partyers remain firmly opposed, especially to provisions that would lead to citizenship or legal residency for illegal immigrants. But they'll come up short of votes to block Democrats and mainstream Republicans, who see immigration reform as helping businesses to fill skilled positions that Americans aren't qualified for and unskilled jobs that Americans don't want.

Ext. Border Compromise

More evidence the new compromise ensures passage prefer our evidence because its predictive and says the recent compromise is a larger indicator of broad momentum
Washington Post 6-20

*The Washington Post. Breakthrough on Senate immigration bill: Demo crats, GOP reach border security agreement 6/20/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Corker told reporters the

plan amounted to border security on steroids and said it would impart

tremendous momentum to the bill on the Senate floor . By days end, Republican Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Dean Heller of Nevada said they, too, were prepared to vote for the bill if the changes were incorporated. That brought to 10 the number of Republicans who have indicated they will vote for the bill, far more than enough to assure it will have the 60 required to overcome any
border security measures, the attempted

filibuster

by last-ditch opponents.

Democrats control 54 seats, and party aides have said they do not expect any defections from their side of the political aisle. Apart from the

legislation as drafted already included implementation of a biometric system to track the comings and goings of foreigners at air and sea ports as well as land crossings, and a requirement for
businesses to verify the legal status of job seekers.

Will pass Cornyn amendment

Dann 6-11

*Carrie. Politics for NBC. Senate votes to begin historic immigration reform debate NBC News, 6/11/13 ln//GBS-JV]
The Senate will now spend the remainder of the month debating and amending the bill, with much of the legislative oxygen being devoted to amendments that Republicans say are designed to woo more support from GOP members . One such measure is an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn of Texas that would put in place more stringent triggers for border security before undocumented immigrants with probationary legal status can apply for green cards. Speaking with Cornyn at his side, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell pointed to the Texas lawmakers proposed legislation as the key amendment that -- if adopted -- that would ensure border security to the satisfaction of Republicans. Cornyn told reporters on Capitol Hill that he has
been in conversations with Democratic members of the Gang of Eight about the amendment, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls a poison pill. I think if they had 60 votes to pass the bill out of the Senate, they probably wouldn't be talking to me, Cornyn told reporters. But they are, which tells me that they view

this as a way to get out of the Senate on a bipartisan basis and give it

some momentum and increase the likelihood of a bill passing in the House .

Ext. GOP
The GOPs on board
Mariani 3-11

[John. Politics for the Times. 3/11/13 http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/eight_senators_n egotiating_immigration_reform_reach_agreement_on_path_to_citi zenship.html//GBS-JV]

While some Republicans and conservatives remain skeptical that support for immigration reform will result in more votes from the Latino community, other Republicans mulling a White House bid "are eager to pass something ," Bouie said. "So Republicans may end up agreeing to the emerging framework which would be a real breakthrough for the chances of passing real immigration reform, albeit less ambitious than liberal supporters might
like."

AT//UQ Overwhelms
Itll still be a fight
AP 4-8

[The Associated Press. 4/8/13 ln//GBS-JV]

Senators writing a comprehensive immigration bill hope to finish their work this week, opening whats sure to be a raucous public debate over measures to secure the border, allow tens of thousands of foreign workers into the country and grant eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million people living here illegally. Already negotiators are cautioning of struggles ahead for an issue thats defied resolution for years. An immigration deal came close on the Senate floor in 2007 but collapsed amid interest-group bickering and an angry public backlash.

Will pass but new fights derail it

Zelizer 3-25

Julian Zelizer, CNN Contributor, Ph.D, Princeton University History and Public Affairs Professor, 3/25/13, Seize the immigration deal, www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/opinion/zelizer-immigration-reform/index.html]
The stars seem to be aligning for immigration reform. The election of 2012 scared many Republicans into thinking
that their increasingly hardline stance on immigration is cutting against big demographic changes. These Republicans fear that they might risk writing themselves off for decades to come, if the GOP loses a vital part of the electorate to Democrats. A growing number of prominent

Republicans are coming out in favor of a liberalized immigration policy, including the tea party darlings Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. During a recent speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Paul said that "immigration reform
will not occur until conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution." Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York announced that an appears that the

eight-person bipartisan group will soon reach a deal to move forward in the Senate. So it opportunity for bold immigration reform has finally arrived. But as any observer of congressional history knows, nothing is inevitable on Capitol Hill, particularly in the current Congress, where both parties remain extremely polarized and there are high costs for bucking the party orthodoxy. What needs to happen to close a deal? It is instructive to look back at history when Congress passed two landmark civil rights
measures: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Both were highly controversial; but ultimately, they went through as a result of bipartisan deals. Even though Congress is different in this era -- with both parties deeply divided internally and a closed committee system that dampens the power of party leaders to control members -- those historical struggles offer some instructive lessons for today as to how to seize a great opportunity that emerges. The news media have always been a powerful force in our society. At times, they have helped push our political system toward reform. Right now, a new generation of reporters can shine by taking on the biggest stories of the day that would have long-term impact on the direction of our country. This is what happened during the early 1960s, when a young generation of print and television reporters brought the nation vivid reports from the front lines of the civil rights struggle. In those years, reporters covered the brutal clashes that were taking place in southern cities like Birmingham and Selma, Alabama, showing the nation the reality of race relations. When presidential speechwriter Richard Goodwin watched the clashes on his television screen, he instantly understood how the media were transforming the national conversation. He noted, "For a century the violence of oppression had been hidden from the sight of white America. ... But now the simple invention of a cathode ray tube, transforming light into electrons, registering their impact on the magnetic tape, had torn the curtain away. And America didn't like what it saw." Similarly, in the new Internet age that we live in, the media can offer the nation a better understanding of the plight of immigrants who are living in this country and the kinds of problems that legislation can redress. Too often, discussions about immigration have revolved around vague and caricatured images. In the next few months, young and enterprising reporters can help politicians and voters see why the government needs to resolve this issue and how it can best do so. Another important lesson from history is the need to reach out to the other side when a rare opportunity comes along. In the civil rights debate, President Lyndon Johnson depended on the Senate minority leader, Republican Everett Dirksen of Illinois, to deliver the votes needed to end a filibuster in 1964. In order to get Dirksen on his side, Johnson told his administration team and congressional leadership to play to Dirksen's ego and sense of history. The key was to allow Dirksen to shape the bill, within certain parameters, so that he could leave his imprint on the measure. "You get in there to see Dirksen!" Johnson told Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic whip who was shepherding the bill through the Senate. "You drink with Dirksen! You talk to Dirksen! You listen to Dirksen!" Dirksen made some important changes to the bill during the negotiations but in the end, he delivered over 20 Republican votes, which killed the filibuster. Johnson got what he wanted. President Obama will need to make the same kind of moves, giving Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell some kind of a role so that he can buy into the legislation and win some amount of credit for producing a bill. The president will need to do the same in the House, where Speaker John Boehner will play a vital role as he tries to tame the radicals in his caucus. While giving either Republican such a role might frustrate Democrats who feel that their party is in command,

the results could be powerful. Immigration rights activists can sit tight as the final months of the debate unfold. For all the talk about bipartisanship in the 1960s, the reality was that bipartisanship was often produced when legislators felt immense pressure from the grass roots. When the Senate debated the civil rights bill in a lengthy filibuster that lasted 60 days in the spring and summer of 1964, civil rights activists -who had already forced Congress to deal with the issue through a mass march on Washington -- conducted protests in states and districts and gathered in Washington to lobby members. The immigration rights movement has been extremely effective in recent years, and now it must show its chops once again. It must also form alliances with other organizations, such as civil rights and gay rights groups, that have indicated they are willing to enter into a broader coalition to support this cause. The movement needs to work on legislators who are currently on the fence, especially Republicans who are thinking of joining Rubio, Paul and others. The key is to do this without stimulating some kind of backlash in their constituencies. The

moment for an immigration deal has arrived. The political incentives for saying yes are strong in both parties, and this is an issue that needs a resolution. The key question will be whether Congress seizes this opportunity or whether partisanship paralyzes the institution once again, as it has done so many times before.

Visas arent inevitable

FN 4-9

*Fox News. Senators arguing over high-tech visas for foreign workers in immigration deal, aides say 4/9/13 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/09/senate-gang-8-arguing-over-high-tech-visas-for-foreign-workers-in-immigration///GBSJV]
Senators finalizing a massive immigration bill are arguing over plans to boost visas for high-tech workers, Senate aides and industry officials say, with disputes flaring over how best to punish companies that train workers here only to ship them overseas. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who's taken the lead in pushing to crack down on outsourcing firms, also is seeking higher wages for workers brought in on the H-1B visas that go to specially skilled foreigners, aides and officials say. High-tech industry officials say his efforts risk punishing companies not involved in the abuses he's trying to target, and lawmakers including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., are taking the other side. The dispute comes as aides to four Democratic and four Republican senators have been racing to put the finishing touches on sweeping immigration legislation that would secure the border and grant eventual citizenship to 11 million people here illegally,
while also allowing tens of thousands more high- and low-skilled workers into the country on new visa programs. Aides worked into the evening Monday on the high-tech visa issue, and senators were to resume meeting in person Tuesday after returning to Washington from a two-week spring recess. They were hoping to complete their legislation this week, though next week may be looking more likely.

The high-

tech visa question loomed as one of a few remaining unsettled matters. At issue is overwhelming demand from companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google for the H-1B visas, which are now capped at 65,000 annually, plus 20,000 more that are reserved for foreign workers who have earned an advanced degree from a U.S. university. On Friday,
the Homeland Security Department announced that after less than a week of accepting applications, it already had received more requests than visas available for the 2014 budget year. Faced with that demand, senators have contemplated lifting the cap to around 100,000, with the ability to go as high as 150,000, aides and officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because negotiations were ongoing, and they stressed the numbers remained in flux and no final decisions had been made. Such

an increase would be a win for the tech industry, which has boosted its lobbying muscle in Washington in recent years. On a related issue, the legislation also is likely to allow permanent U.S. residency to unlimited numbers of people who get advanced degrees in science, technology or math from U.S. universities.

AT//Needs 70 / UberMajority
Theyll get 70 votes
Koplan 6-18

*Tal. Politics for Politico. Graham predicts 70-plus votes for immigration reform Politico, 6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Sen. Lindsey Graham predicts

immigration reform will pass the Senate with more than 70 votes,

saying passage is

necessary to stop the "demographic death spiral" in the Republican Party. Im going to leave you on a positive note, I think were

to have a political breakthrough that Congress is going to pass immigration reform. I think

going were going

to get plus-70 votes , Ive never been more optimistic about it, the South Carolina Republican said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. Saying the Republican Party had a deep bench of candidates for the 2016 election, especially former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Graham, a member of the Senate Gang of Eight that fashioned the reform bill, said immigration reform was still necessary to win. If we dont pass immigration reform, if we dont get it off the table in a reasonable practical way, it doesnt matter who you run in 2016, Graham said. Were in a demographic death spiral as a party, and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass comprehensive immigration reform.

AT//Wont Pass the House

A senate deal would make it through the house new deal, bipart, momentum
Barrett and Walsh 6-18 *Politics for CNN. Senate negotiators seek new compromise on immigration CNN News,

6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A bipartisan group of senators is scrambling to reach a fresh compromise they hope can propel a proposal to overhaul U.S. immigration policy toward passage in that chamber and provide momentum heading into the Republican-controlled House .

New Obama strategy generates momentum for House passage

Sherman and Palmer 6-13

*Jake and Anna. Politics for Politico. White House dials up efforts with House Republicans Politico, 6/13/13 ln//GBS-JV]
This push is strategic, of course. Obama wants to pass immigration reform, and for the moment the House is the biggest stumbling block between Capitol Hill and a bill being signed into law . The White House wants to gather a gaggle of Republicans
President has called who just might support Obamas initiatives. The

president and senior staff at the

White House have routinely engaged House Republican s on a variety of issues in an effort to build what the a common sense caucus that works to find common ground on priorities like strengthening the economy, reducing the deficit in a responsible way and reforming our broken immigration system, White House spokesman Josh Earnest wrote in an email to POLITICO. Of course, this hasnt yet brought the president and Republicans closer on policy. These meetings and
phone calls havent resulted in legislative agreements on gun control, deficit reduction, tax reform or an overhaul of the nations immigration

But its a noticeable shift. When Obama wanted to blunt the sequester or enact new gun laws, he fanned out across the country, looking to build pressure on lawmakers by rallying their constituents. It was widely perceived as a failure. Now, the White House recognizes that it must have a real relationship with lawmakers before asking them to support something, according to sources involved. This quiet outreach isnt Obamas only action on the Hill. The administration has put a full-court press on Senate Republicans, dining with them and bringing them onto the golf course. The White
laws.

House also recently reached out to top Republican senators

about a deficit deal.

Itll pass the House

Weil 6-18

*Dan. Politics for Reuters. House Begins to Move on Immigration Reform The AP, 6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A House bipartisan group plans to unveil its own long-awaited comprehensive version of an immigration reform bill this week, as the Senate continues debate on its controversial plan that establishes a pathway to
citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants. At the same time, however, Politico reports that Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte moved ahead Tuesday with a markup of a measure calling for tougher enforcement of immigration laws. House Speaker John Boehner also planned

to meet Wednesday with the all-Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss immigration and other issues of particular concern to Hispanic members, signaling even more movement toward what could be a bipartisan effort to get immigration reform though Congress .

Differences can be reconciled

AP 4-8

[The Associated Press. 4/8/13 ln//GBS-JV]

But overall, all

involved are optimistic that the time is ripe to make the biggest changes to the nations immigration laws in more than a quarter-century. For many Republicans, their loss in the November presidential election, when Latino and Asians voters backed Obama in big numbers, resonates as evidence that they must confront the immigration issue. The politics of self-deportation are behind us, said Graham, referring to GOP candidate Mitt Romneys suggestion in the presidential campaign. It was an impractical solution. Quite frankly, its offensive. Every corner of the Republican Party, from libertarians to the (Republican National Committee), House Republicans and the rank-and-file Republican Party member, is now understanding there has to be an earned pathway to citizenship. After consideration by the Judiciary Committee, floor action could start in the Senate in May, Schumer said. Meanwhile two lawmakers involved in writing a bipartisan immigration bill in the House, Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., sounded optimistic that they, too, would have a deal soon that could be reconciled with the Senate agreement .

AT//Boehner
Boehners on board and momentum controls his vote
AP 6-11

*The Associated Press. Obama Exhorts Congress to Pass Immigration Reform The AP, 6/11/13 ln//GBS-JV]
President Barack Obama

prodded Congress Tuesday to send him a bill by fall remaking the nation's

immigration laws, even as the Senate prepared to cast its first floor votes on the landmark measure opening a door to citizenship for millions. " Congress needs to act, and that moment is now , " Obama said, surrounded by immigration advocates, business and religious leaders, law enforcement officials and others in the East Room of the White House. "There's no reason Congress can't get this done by the end of the summer," the president said. "There's no good reason to play procedural games or
engage in obstruction just to block the best chance we've had in years to address this problem in a way that's fair to middle class families, business owners and legal immigrants." The

Senate was set to vote Tuesday afternoon on a pair of procedural measures to officially allow debate to move forward on the far-reaching legislation. The measure would boost border
security and workplace enforcement, allow tens of thousands new high- and low-skilled workers into the country, and create a 13-year path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. Both

votes were expected to succeed by comfortable

margins , because even some senators with deep misgivings about the immigration bill said the issue deserved a Senate debate. Ahead of
the votes, senators were readying amendments on contentious issues including border security, back taxes and health are coverage. Some

Republicans said they were seeking to strengthen enforcement provisions so that they could be comfortable voting for the bill. Other GOP measures were already being dismissed by Democrats as attempts to kill the bill by striking at the fragile compromises at its core. Meanwhile House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, made his most positive comments to date on the issue, saying Tuesday he thinks there's a good chance that legislation can be signed into law
"by the end of the year."

Boehner will play ball

RC 4-21

("Boehner Faces Competing Immigration Paths," 2013, www.rollcall.com/news/boehner_faces_competing_immigration_paths-2241961.html)

Leadership aides said thats true, that Boehner doesnt have a thumb on either side of the scale and that a wide array of options are still on the table. Besides, its

still unclear whether the recently unveiled bipartisan Senate groups bill can pass in that chamber: If it does, it would put new pressure on the House. Even while they say there is no explicit commitment from Boehner, members and aides who are part of or close to the bipartisan group seem to have confidence, even cockiness, that Boehner secretly has their back. Part of that is based on who Boehner is as a legislator: Hes a dealmaker at heart. But its also because of repeated public comments in which Boehner gave the group great deference. The existence of the group was revealed in a video of the Ohio Republican answering questions at the Ripon Society, a conservative think tank. In his remarks then, he said the bipartisan group was the right group of members to make progress on the issue of immigration and suggested some level of ownership or authorization of the effort. My theory was, if these folks could work this out, itd be a big step in the right
direction, Boehner said.

AT//Rubio Jumps Ship

No benefit to jumping ship Rubio will fight for CIR
Terbush 4-9

*John. Politics for the Week and TPM. Is Marco Rubio stalling on immigration reform? 4/9/13 http://theweek.com/article/index/242445/is-marco-rubio-stalling-on-immigration-reform //GBS-JV]
For now, Rubio

is still expected to sign on to the final bill . However, spurning the legislation could be a political win-win,

since it would allow him to "say that he wanted to make a deal, but the other side was too unreasonable in its demands," says the American Conservative's Daniel Larison. As Talking Points Memo's Benjy Sarlin notes, there is some recent historical precedent for Republicans initially supporting controversial Democratic-backed bills, only to wind up voting against them. However, he argues that Rubio's

actions are more likely "a wink to conservatives without any actual substantive concerns behind it ." Rubio has already placed himself to the left of his party on the issue, so there's no real benefit to turning back now , Sarlin argues. Conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin made a similar argument Monday, writing that Rubio's the senator has only been angling for more leverage in the negotiations, not attempting to stall the bill into oblivion. " No one has more to gain than Rubio if immigration
communications director told her that

reform passes

and passes with a good share of the GOP support," says Rubin. "And, in turn, the Republican Party has much to gain by

jump-starting legislation that President Obama did not champion in his first term."

AT//Poison Pill Amendments

No amendments that derail the deal
The Hill 4-18

("Gang of Eight vows to stay united, defeat immigration reform poison pills," 2013, thehill.com/homenews/senate/294893-gang-of-eight-vows-to-defeat-immigrationbill-poison-pills)
Members of the Senates Gang of Eight say they are open to amending the 844-page immigration reform bill they unveiled this week but will band together to defeat poison-pill amendments. We expect and welcome suggested improvements to the bill by our colleagues, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said at a press conference Thursday. We will oppose only those amendments that are intended to prevent a comprehensive solution from passing. Business groups want to
increase the number of visas for immigrant workers while labor unions want to speed up the path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. Democratic and

Republican members of the gang, though, pledged unity to fend off attacks on the bill from the right and the left. A bipartisan coalition of senators made a similar pledge in 2007, the last time
the Senate debated comprehensive immigration reform. The agreement broke down, however, as some members of the group voted for amendments that others called poison pills. Members also squabbled over the characterization of amendments and some Democrats complained that then-Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was often too quick to label a proposed change a poison pill to protect his work from revisions. Members of the gang described a difficult negotiation process that at several points appeared on the verge of failure. Sen. Charles

Schumer (D-N.Y.) said negotiations over a new class of visas for low-skilled immigrant workers, a hot point of contention between business and labor groups, was especially intense. The group held 24 meetings before finalizing legislation, which it introduced this week. The other members are Sens. Lindsey Graham
(R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). Schumer said he expects additional obstacles. Today is just the beginning of our voyage. It will be long and arduous. There

will be perils we cant even anticipate but we start off with optimism because this bipartisan agreement gives us a sturdy ship to ride out the stormy seas ahead, he said.

AT//Labor Disagreements
Labors on board
Elias 4-9

*Thomas. Staffer for the Californian. Will farm labor shortage drive immigration changes? The Californian, 4/9/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A large percentage of California fruit and vegetable pickers are illegal immigrants. Farm bureau organizations in other states report similar labor shortages. So farmers want any immigration changes coming from Washington, D.C., this year to include a guest worker program . Agriculture organizations that usually support Republican politicians have pushed several years for a system allowing temporary hiring of foreign workers if employers cannot find U.S. citizens or legal residents to take the jobs they offer. Organized labor has long opposed such a revival of the old Bracero program
One reason: that allowed American employers to bring in unskilled foreign workers during and after World War II, the unions claiming it could deprive U.S. citizens of work. But the nations largest labor group, the

AFL-CIO, has now worked out a deal with the U.S. Chamber

of Commerce and other business interests that would allow workers to be imported as needed to fill jobs that otherwise go unfilled. The proposed new visa would not specify a single employer for each worker, so that employers could no longer discipline migrant workers by threatening to have them deported if theyre not docile. It would also include wages above the federal minimum and require decent working conditions. The chamber also agreed to the unions idea of setting up a new government bureau to curtail work visas when unemployment rises to as-yet unspecified levels. Two things are clear from all this: Its highly likely that any major immigration change legislation passing Congress this year will have a guest worker component . And that this is happening mainly because of the labor shortages here and in other big farm states.

AT//Path to Citizenship
That hurdles been overcome
Mariani 3-11

[John. Politics for the Times. 3/11/13 http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/eight_senators_negotiating_imm igration_reform_reach_agreement_on_path_to_citizenship.html//GBS-JV]

The eight Republican

and Democratic senators working on immigration reform have agreed in private on a pathway that some 11 million illegal immigrants could take toward citizenship. The group, which includes New York Democrat Charles E. Schumer, has been meeting behind closed doors to craft an immigration reform bill , but aides familiar with the talks gave the Los Angeles Times the details of the proposed pathway to probationary legal status: "... the bill would require illegal immigrants to register with Homeland Security Department authorities, file federal income taxes for their time in America and pay a still-to-be-determined fine. They also must have a clean law enforcement record." Achieving probationary legal status would allow immigrants to work. It would not let them receive federal public benefits, including food stamps, family cash
assistance, Medicaid and unemployment insurance, the Times reported.

AT//Executive Order
Wont do it pref our ev because it speaks to Obamas political calculations
Hamilton 3-26

[Keegan Hamilton 3-26, How Obama Could (but Probably Won't) Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants Today, The Atlantic, 3-26-13, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-obama-could-butprobably-wont-stop-deporting-illegal-immigrants-today/274352/]
On the other hand, Kenneth R. Mayer, a professor

of political science at the University of Wisconsin and author of the book With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power, argues history is littered with e x ecutive o rder s popular with the president's party and condemned by the opposition. "Democrats and liberals say, 'This is wonderful, it's
about time,' while conservatives and Republicans are outraged, saying 'He's nullifying a law, he can't do that!'" Mayer says. "The answer is they're both right. In practice, the president can do this. But Congress

could try to stop him, and the way they do that is raising the political cost to a degree the president doesn't find acceptable ." With immigration-reform legislation inching toward the president's desk, it's unlikely he'll waste political capital by halting deportations or even reducing the immigrant detainee population , despite the budgetary considerations. The prospect of doing anything that might alienate Republicans, especially with a compromise so close, alarms activists like Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, an advocacy group comprised
largely of small-business owners.

Doesnt solve the DA executive action causes a fight and gets rolled back
Rodriguez, 10

(LawNYU, 59 Duke L.J. 1787)

On the first question of political feasibility, I leave aside whether the current mix of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the legislative priorities of the current president, and the legislative agenda as it is now unfolding would be conducive to the creation of an agency, largely because such details are ephemeral. Instead, the

important question is whether Congress, as a general structural matter, will be willing to delegate its power. Historically, Congress has been resistant to executive meddling in the allocation of visas. During the 1965 immigration reforms, for example, a proposal to create a commission charged with allocating visas proved to be a sticking point. The 1965 Hart-Celler Act n152
eliminated the national-origins quotas but phased in the new regime over a period of years. Members of the Johnson State Department were nonetheless concerned about the foreign policy implications of reducing the number of visas available to Northern European immigrants, even though the visas were underutilized. n153 The bill would have put into place a procedure for executive reallocation of visas to provide "the flexibility needed to deal with unforeseeable problems of fairness and [*1839] foreign policy." n154 It would have required the president to consult with a new Immigration Board, whose task would have been conducting continuous study of migration conditions and advising the president on criteria for admission. n155 Key

players in the House - primarily Representative Michael Feighan, Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary - resisted. n156 Feighan argued that the Board would "usurp [Congress's] statutory duty and functions" of regulating immigration, n157 transforming the president's limited power to keep immigrants out in emergencies into a power to let them in. n158 The administration ultimately bowed to the pressure engendered by the specter of executive micromanagement and dropped the Commission from the bill. n159 [*1840] The
Hart-Celler experience raises the classic administrative law question of why Congress does or does not delegate. n160 As noted above, in the case of immigration, Congress may

be reluctant to delegate because of a general desire to protect its territory, as core immigration policy over time has become entrenched in Congress's bailiwick. Perhaps Congress regards immigrant admissions decisions as value judgments that do not require the expertise of agencies or bureaucrats - a key factor in the decision to delegate. To put the proposition in lofty
terms, immigrant admissions constitute membership decisions, which belong to the legislative body standing in for the people.

AT//Thumpers General
Its the top of the docket 1NC Bazinger says its the only issue of relevance that congress discussing and that it was discussed during Obamas meetings with Congress this week. All sides of the aisle are working toward a deal, which should frame the way you evaluate uniqueness. Its not enough for the aff to have a card that theres something else that congress has to deal with you should hold it to a high standard must say it interferes with the immigration deal Only CIR gets through
Calmes 4-7

*Jackie. Politics for NYT. Obama Must Walk Fine Line as Congress Takes Up Agenda The New York Times, 4/7/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Each measure on the budget, guns and immigration in its own way illustrates the fine line that Mr. Obama must walk to succeed even with national opinion on his side. Privately , the White House is optimistic only about the prospects for an immigration bill, which would create a path to citizenship for about 11 million people in the country illegally. That is because an immigration compromise is the only one that Republicans see as being in their own interests, given their partys unpopularity with the fast-growing Latino electorate. In contrast, most Republicans see little advantage in backing gun legislation, given hostility toward it in their states or in districts throughout the South and the West and in rural areas. A budget compromise would require agreeing to higher taxes, which are anathema to conservative voters, in exchange for Mr. Obamas support for the reductions in Medicare and Social Security that
they want.

AT//Budget Thumper
Obamas retreat from the budget fight was a tactical victory makes immigration reform more likely
Ford 3-28

[John Ford, PolicyMic, 3/28/13, Why Obama Signing Sequestration Into Law Was a Strategic Move , www.policymic.com/articles/31012/why-obama-signingsequestration-into-law-was-a-strategic-move/421387]
President Barack Obama

finally signed the Sequester into law, locking the infamous spending cuts into place, at least until this September. It is rare for a president to sign into a law a program that he actively opposes President Obama called them "dumb" so why did this one allow these cuts with relatively little confrontation ? At the risk of seeming weak, President Obama is engaging in a tactical withdrawal here, not a retreat. The president sees that no more can be done on the budget stalemate at this time; with public opinion favoring him, and a popular mandate still only four months fresh, he is better off using his political capital on other reforms . With over half of his term gone, and a huge laundry list of initiatives still tabled, every move Obama makes is a time management puzzle . And with another inevitable fight on the budget scheduled for the summer, it is time for him to focus on other things for the spring . What is next for the president now that the budget is, for the moment, a settled issue? According to the White House, he is going to emphasize projects that do not require budgetary support: a raise to the minimum wage, immigration , and housing, for example.

AT//IRS Thumper
Not connected to Obama
WP 6-12

*The Washington Post. Republicans Still Struggling to Connect Obama to IRS Scandal 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
So far, the

House Oversight Committees investigation of the Internal Revenue Service and its targeting of Tea Party groups has yielded no evidence that the White House was involved. The original story that this
was the work of a few employees struggling to handle a growing workload remains intact, and the available information we have throws water on the idea they were motivated by partisanship. The IRS agent who initiated the flagging, for example, was a Republican. And

several of the groups denied tax exempt status were as the New York Times reported recently ineligible, given their partisan activities.

AT//Scandal Thumpers
The scandals have no effect on immigration reform and are even expediting its process ABC 5-17 [Why Immigration Reform Will Survive Obama's Scandals, May 17th, 2013, http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/immigration-reformsurvive-president-obamasscandals/story?id=19203730#.UZcRIbU3vzw, ]
The trio of scandals facing President Obama have many in Washington asking whether this marks the beginning of the end for his legislative agenda. An issue such as tax reform might be impeded considering that the Internal Revenue Service is at the center of one of the scandals. But an initiative that could emerge unscathed, or even strengthened, is immigration reform. Before the scandals, immigration appeared to be the item on Obama's second-term agenda that seemed likeliest to pass
through Congress. Deep fault lines have developed between both parties on issues like gun control, the deficit, and debt reduction. But on immigration, there is strong political incentive for GOP leaders in

Washington to join in the effort to pass a bill. And the scandals haven't changed that. Although it's only been a few days since the scandals have overtaken the political atmosphere in Washington, developments on immigration have quietly chugged along . A bipartisan group in the House announced Thursday evening they have reached a deal in principle on a comprehensive bill after four years of on-again, off-again talks. And in just three markup sessions, the Senate Judiciary Committee has considered 82 of the 300 amendments offered by its members, over a quarter of the total. Supporters and opponents of the bill
believe that the

immigration reform effort can make it through the scandal-obsessed

environment in Washington. "I think the conditions are ripe for the [immigration] bill to make it through. The president's been very helpful. He's been there when we've asked him to be, he's laid low when we ask him, and I've got no complaints about the president and I think he can be very helpful getting it over the finish line," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the Gang of Eight, told Politico. The publication noted that he is one of "Obama's chief Benghazi critics." Mickey Kaus, a political blogger and well known critic of the Senate Gang of Eight bill, said last week that the scandals could take away attention from the immigration reform effort, claiming that could improve its chances of success. "I actually think these distracting scandals help the bill's chances of passage ," he

said at an event sponsored by BuzzFeed. "The problem with this bill is: the elites like it, the voters don't like it. Every time there is publicity, every time it's at center stage, its chances of passage get worse." (We would note that polls show that Americans who know about the bill are divided over it, while a plurality haven't yet formed an opinion. But moving on...) So, yes, there are plenty

of reasons immigration reform might fail. But scandals just aren't one of them .

Internal Link

Ext. PC Key
Obamas political capital is key because it targets opposition
AFP 6-12

*The Agence France Presse. US immigration bill advances in Senate, clears first hurdle AFP, 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Obama made an outspoken pitch for the bill on Tuesday, saying those opposed to it are insincere about fixing a badly broken system. The president has gently pushed the bill from behind the scenes for months, fearing his open support would swell the ranks of conservatives who see the bill as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants and are determined to kill it. But ahead of the crucial test votes, Obama waded into the fray, leveraging the political capital on the issue he won during last year's election campaign, particularly among Hispanic voters. The president sought to disarm conservative Republicans -- even some who support immigration reform -- who argue that the bill should not be passed without tough new border security measures. "If passed, the Senate bill, as currently written
and as hitting the floor, would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America has ever seen. So nobody's taking border enforcement lightly," he said at a White House event. Obama also

took direct aim at the motives of lawmakers who

are opposed to the bill . "If you're not serious about it, if you think that a broken system is the best America can do, then I guess it you're actually serious and sincere about fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it, and now is the time to get it done."
makes sense to try to block it," he said. "But if

Capital solves disagreements

Dann 3-27

[Carrie. Politics for NBC. Obama Optimistic on Immigration Legislation NBC, 3/27/13 ln]
As a bipartisan group of senators chips away at the remaining obstacles to an immigration deal, President Barack Obama says he is optimistic that if lawmakers release a draft bill early next month he will be able to sign comprehensive immigration reform into law before autumn. If we have a bill introduced at the beginning of next month -- as these senators indicate it will be -- then I'm confident that we can get it done certainly before the end of the
summer, Obama said in an interview with Telemundo on Wednesday. Alfonso Aguilar, the Executive Director for the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, Democratic pollster Margie Omero, and Nathan Gonzales, the Deputy Editor of the Rothenberg Political Report and contributing writer for Roll call, join The Daily Rundown to talk about immigration legislation.

The president repeated that he could still introduce a White House-drafted version of the legislation if the Gang of Eight Senate group is not able to put forward a bill . But he said hes confident that lawmakers will be able to work out the final snags in the negotiations in time to unveil their proposal when they return from a two-week Easter recess next month. Advertise | AdChoices I'm optimistic, he said. I've always said that if I see a breakdown in the process, that I've got my own legislation. I'm prepared to step in . But I don't think that's going to be necessary. I think there's a commitment -- among this group of Democratic and Republican senators to get this done. The negotiations have been held up in part by continuing disputes between business and labor groups about the conditions of a guest-worker
program, particularly the wages and treatment ensured to temporary workers compared to those for American workers pursuing similar jobs. But the president said he doesnt believe that the dispute could scuttle the whole

reform framework. There are still some areas about the future flow of guest workers, he said. Labor and businesses may not always agree exactly on how to do this. But this is a resolvable issue. White House Spokesman
Josh Earnest expresses optimism over the ongoing negotiations of the Gang of 8 relating to immigration reform. While he expressed optimism that a final bill will contain a path to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally, Obama would not offer specifics on how long the process of obtaining citizenship should take. And he declined to outline how the security of the

nations border should be assessed, saying only that there should be no border security trigger that must be met before undocumented persons are eligible to begin the process of seeking legal status. We don't want to make this earned pathway to citizenship a situation in which it's put off further and further into the future, he said. There needs to be a certain pat h for how people can get legal in this country, even as we also work on these strong border security issues. While the White

House has deferred to the Senate group on the legislative language, the president has used the bully pulpit in recent days to urge lawmakers to action and remind the public of the general framework for reform that he supports including a path to citizenship. In addition to the Telemundo interview, he also sat down with Spanish-language channel Univision on Wednesday. Earlier this week, the president urged Congress to show political courage on the issue during remarks at a naturalization ceremony at the White House. President Barack Obama signs a bill creating the Charles Young
Buffalo Soldiers National Monument in Ohio during a ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House March 25, 2013 in Washington, DC. Earlier Wednesday, Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona held a joint press conference with Democrats Chuck Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado. The lawmakers traveled to Arizonas southern border to survey the state of security there, a tour that offered a very real illustration of the illegal immigration issue when they spotted a woman scaling a border fence. (She was later apprehended by border security officers, McCain said.) Advertise | AdChoices At a press conference, Schumer told reporters there that negotiators are 90 percent of the ensure full border security.

way there on a compromise bill, adding that the trip offered a glimpse into what further resources are needed to

Capital can overcome any barrier

DMR 1-22
[The Des Moines Register.

www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130122/OPINION03/3012200 49/0/NEWS/?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1]
Taken as an agenda for his second term, Mondays

inaugural address included references to immigration, climate change, gay rights, voting rights and safe schools. Achieving those things will require the president mounting his bully pulpit to put heat on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform, protections for the rights of gays and lesbians, gun control,

environmental regulation and expansion of renewable forms of energy. President Obama again demonstrated his gift of oratory on Monday. He delivered a well-crafted inaugural address with inspiring themes woven throughout and a call to action for our generation to achieve the ideals of previous generations. But Obama should have learned in his first term that it is not

enough to state lofty goals in great speeches. It takes hard work, perseverance and tough-mindedness to deal with members of Congress who may not want him to succeed.

Obamas leadership and signal of commitment are key

Sink 3-25

[Justin Sink, The Hill, 3/25/13, Obama: 'The time has come' to move immigration bill in Congress, thehill.com/video/administration/290129-obama-the-time-has-come-tomove-immigration-reform]
President Obama used a naturalization ceremony at the White House on Monday to declare

the time has come to move immigration reform through Congress. Obama said expects debate on an immigration bill to begin next month at a ceremony where 28 people, including 13 armed servicemembers, became citizens. Bipartisan groups in both the House and Senate are moving closer to unveiling separate immigration reform proposals, and the president is hoping to build momentum for a deal . We've known for years that our immigration system is broken, that we're not doing
enough to harness the talent and ingenuity of all those who want to work hard and find a place in America, Obama said. And after avoiding the problem for years, the time has come to fix it once and for all. The time has come for comprehensive, sensible immigration reform. Speaking from the East Room, Obama argued that immigration strengthens the country. It keeps us vibrant, it keeps us hungry, it keeps us prosperous. It is what makes us such a dynamic country, he said. If we want to keep attracting the best and the brightest, we've got to do a better job of welcoming them. Advocates

for immigration reform see a real chance for legislation to pass Congress this year, despite opposition from some House GOP lawmakers, many of whom have said they will oppose

measures that grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and have questioned proposed protections for gay or les bian couples. Immigration

reform is a potent political issue for Obama, who won more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012. Since that showing,
a growing number of conservative lawmakers have signaled they would back immigration reform, including measures to provide a pathway to citizenship. Groups aligned with Obama

have signaled their intention of pressuring Congress.

Obama push key

Foley 3-25

[Elise, reporter, "Obama On Immigration Reform: 'We've Got To Finish The Job'" Huffington Post -- www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/obama-immigrationreform_n_2949063.html]
President Barack Obama

said Monday that he wants to see movement in the Senate on immigration reform next month and passage of a bill as soon as possible, continuing his pressure on Congress to move quickly to fix the immigration system. We are making progress, but weve got to finish the job, Obama said at a naturalization
ceremony in the White House. Weve all proposed solutions, he added. Weve got a lot of white papers and studies. Weve just got, at this point, to work up the political courage to do whats required to be done. Obama, joined by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas, told the 28 new citizens that witnessing such ceremonies is one of the best things about being president. He spoke first about the importance of immigrants and what they bring to the country. Immigration makes us stronger, he said. It keeps us vibrant, it keeps us hungry, it keeps us prosperous. It is part of what makes this such a dynamic country. Then he turned to immigration reform talks, which are moving forward in the Senate but have not yet resulted in the introduction of a bill. The so-called gang of eight in the Senate is working to finish its immigration bill before Congress returns from recess in the second week of April. As of Friday, the

bipartisan group of senators still needed to finalize several issues, including how to deal with wages that could be affected by the future flow of guestworkers. Obama said he expects them to meet that timeline and put forward a bill in April. He didnt put an exact time frame on when he wants to see passage of legislation, although he urged swift movement. During a Jan. 29 speech in Las Vegas, Obama said he would put forward his
own bill if Congress failed to act, but for now he is waiting for the efforts in both chambers to move forward. The president quickly laid out his requirements for immigration reform: enhanced border security, a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and modernizing the legal immigration system. Although many Republicans are still wary of a path to citizenship, a majority of Americans 63 percent support one, according to a Public Religion Research Institute poll released last week. Obama, as he has before, said

this is the time

to finally pass immigration reform.

Capitals key publicity stunts wont get it done presidential leaderships vital to passage
Joseph 3-1

*Cameron. Politics for the Hill, citing Ford OConnell GOP Strategist. Republicans warn Obama has 'poisoned' relations with campaign-style attacks The Hill, 3/1/13 ln//GBSJV]
Still, some centrist Democrats say that while Obamas approach has so far been effective, he needs

to make sure to stick to a tone of bipartisanship and avoid antagonizing Republicans who might otherwise work with him. He does need to have a hands-on approach , but what does that look like? It should, particularly from a White House that's not looking down the
barrel of an election anymore, should be one that fosters cooperation and bipartisanship, said Kristen Hawn, the head of a center-left superPAC that is also helping former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (D) push their bipartisan debt reduction plan. GOP strategist Ford OConnell, who has long called for immigration reform, said he was worried Obamas pressure could hurt bipartisan talks. Folks inside the Beltway in both parties don't like being shown up and when the president gallivants around the countryside saying 'this is what it is' that burns up people in Congress. It's certainly helping him on the message side right now, but I think some people

inside and outside the Beltway are tiring of this, O'Connell said. You're talking about some very delicate issues and what people want within Congress is a leader, not a legislative dictator. It's going to take some very big behind the doors action where people have to put their cards on the table
and if

people feel like he's going to burn them they're not going to do it .

PC key to force a vote

Brownstein 1-31

Ronald Brownstein, National Jouranl, 1/31/13, On Immigration, What Obama Can Learn From Bush's Failed Efforts, www.nationaljournal.com/columns/politicalconnections/on-immigration-what-obama-can-learn-from-bush-s-failed-efforts20130131
The prospects for major immigration reform are now the brightest in years, but for key players in Washington, a shadow still looms: the ghost of 2006. That was the last time the stars were aligned for a
breakthrough. Immigration reform that included a path to citizenship for those in the United States illegally had the support of President Bush, a broad labor-business-faith coalition, and a bipartisan Senate majority. Yet that

armada ultimately splintered against the stony refusal of House Republican leaders to consider a bill opposed by a majority of their majority. Any of that sound familiar? Already many of the same dynamics are developing, with President Obama stamping immigration reform as a top priority , a bipartisan Senate coalition reassembling, a broad outside alliance of support groups coalescingand most House Republicans rejecting anything that hints at amnesty for illegal immigrants. Yet the contrasts between now and 2006, particularly in the political climate, are also significant. Understanding both the similarities and the differences will be critical for reform advocates if they are to avoid replicating the disappointment they suffered under Bush. Presidential interest was then, as it is now, critical in elevating immigration reform . Since his
days as Texas governor, Bush had courted Hispanics, andeven during the 2000 GOP presidential primary campaignhe strikingly defended illegal immigrants as moms and dads trying to make a better life for their children. Together with his political architect, Karl Rove, Bush saw comprehensive reform that coupled a path to citizenship with tougher enforcement as an opportunity to consolidate the beachhead that allowed him to capture more than 40 percent of Hispanic voters in his 2004 reelection. But

Bush largely looked away when Republicans who controlled the House channeled that impulse in a very different direction. In December 2005, they passed an enforcement-only bill drafted by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, that, for the first time,
designated all undocumented immigrants as felons. (Previously, illegal presence in the U.S. had been a civil, not criminal, violation.) Initially, debate in the GOP-controlled Senate drifted. Majority Leader Bill Frist, considering a 2008 presidential bid, pushed his own enforcement-only bill. But amid the backdrop of huge public rallies against Sensenbrenners proposal, Sen. Arlen Specter unexpectedly joined with three other Republicans and all eight Judiciary Committee Democrats in late March to approve a comprehensive plan, including a path to citizenship, that followed a blueprint negotiated by Sens. Edward Kennedy and John McCain. When broader Senate agreement teetered over the terms of legalization, Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez devised a compromise that divided illegal immigrants into three categories, requiring those here less than two years to leave but allowing those with deeper roots to eventually earn citizenship by paying fines and learning English. After Bush finally delivered a national address on immigration, a bill embodying that plan cleared the Senate with 62 votes, including support from 23 Republicans. House Republicans immediately signaled their disinterest by refusing to appoint a conference committee and instead scheduled hearings in border communities to highlight security lapses. Border security reigned supreme, recalls Ron Bonjean, the communications director for then-Speaker Dennis Hastert. I remember being in a meeting with the leadership where pollsters came in and said border security was the key to our reelection. Even in

2006, something like the Senate plan likely could have attracted 218 votes in the Housebut not a majority of Republicans. Faced with a collision between his two political imperativescourting Hispanics and mobilizing conservatives Bush blinked , allowing House leaders to replace the Senate bill with enforcement-only legislation, which he signed that fall.
These choices began the GOPs slide among Hispanics that continues unabated: Hispanic support for Republican House candidates plummeted from 44 percent in 2004 to just 29 percent in 2006, presaging Mitt Romneys disastrous 27 percent showing among those voters in 2012. That slippage is one of the two most important differences in the political environment around immigration between 2006 and today. Back then, as Bonjean notes, hardly any House Republicans argued that the GOP needed to pass a plan attractive to minorities. But many GOP leaders now see that as self-preservation. The political imperative has shifted the tectonic plates, says Frank Sharry, a key player in the 2006 debate who remains central as executive director of Americas Voice, which backs full citizenship for immigrants. Immigration was viewed as a wedge issue for Republicans in 2006. Now its viewed as a wedge issue for Democrats. The Gang of Eight proposal released this week makes it likely that, as in 2006, the

Senate will eventually pass a bipartisan immigration bill. Once again, there are probably 218 House votes for such a plan, but not a majority of the majority Republicans. That raises another key difference from 2006: Hastert faced little pressure to consider the Senate bill, because Bush bit his tongue
when

the speaker buried it . If House Republicans shelve another bipartisan Senate plan in 2013,
much more

they should expect

public heat, because Obama wont be

as

deferential .

Capitals key to comprehensive legislation thats key to passage

Helderman and Nakamura 1/25

Rosalind S. Helderman covers Congress and politics for the Washington Post, staff writer for The Washington Post Senators nearing agreement on broad immigration reform proposal, 1/25, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators -nearingagreement-on-broad-immigration-reform-proposal/2013/01/25/950fb78a-6642-11e29e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html
But obstacles

abound. For instance, Rubio has said he thinks immigrants who came to the country illegally should be able to earn a work permit but should be required to seek citizenship through existing avenues after those who have come here legally. Many Democrats and immigration advocates fear Rubios approach would result in wait-times stretching for decades, creating a class of permanent legal residents for whom the benefits of citizenship appear unattainable. They have pushed to
create new pathways to citizenship specifically available to those who achieve legal residency as part of a reform effort. It is not yet clear whether the Senate group will endorse a mechanism allowing such people to eventually become citizens something Obama is expected to champion. Schumer said it would be relatively detailed but would not get down into the weeds. A source close to Rubio said he joined the group in December at the request of other members only after they agreed their effort would line up with his own principles for reform. As a possible 2016 presidential contender widely trusted on the right, Rubio could be key to moving the bipartisan effort. Rubio and other

Republicans have said they would prefer to split up a comprehensive immigration proposal into smaller bills that would be voted on separately, but the White House will pursue comprehensive legislation that
seeks to reform the process in a single bill. I doubt if there will be a macro, comprehensive bill, said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who supported the 2007 effort. Anytime a bills more than 500 pages, people start getting suspicious. If its 2,000 pages, they go berserk. But

a single package will be key for passage . Well not get it done in pieces, he said. Every time you do a piece, everyone says what about my piece, and you get more people opposing it. Eliseo Medina, secretary treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, which spent millions recruiting Hispanic voters last year, said immigration advocates expect Obama to be out front on the issue . The president needs to lead and then
Schumer said Friday that the Republicans have a choice, Medina said. The best way to share the credit is for them to step up and engage and act together with the president.

Capitals key Obama must sell the deal and carefully legislate
Keller 2-3

*William. Immigration for the NYT. Selling Amnesty The New York Times, 2/3/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Lets assume that President Obama

and the Democrats sincerely want an immigration bill, that this is not a trick to trap Republicans into an anti-immigrant vote that will alienate Hispanic voters and secure Democratic advantage for a generation. The Senate seems to be hospitable territory . Four Republicans including the ascendant Marco Rubio have joined four Democrats in embracing the politically difficult principles at the heart of the matter. Some advocates of immigration reform talk confidently of mustering 70 Senate votes, which would represent an astonishing reversal of fortunes for an issue that has long been mired in demagogy. The House, where many Republicans fear getting creamed by Tea Party challengers in a primary next year, is more problematic. The fear is that the House will balk or will break immigration into little pieces, pass the parts that crack down on undocumented workers and kill any effort to legalize the 11 million already here. That pessimism is natural; the House is the place where ideas go to die. But it neednt happen this time. If President Obama and Congressional leaders play their cards right , as they are doing so far , immigration reform real immigration reform can clear Congress this year. Selling the measure to the Republican House will require close attention
to substance,

marketing and legislative tactics .

Obamas sustained leadership is key

Hesson 1-2

*Ted is a writer @ ABC News. Analysis: 6 Things Obama Needs To Do for Immigration Reform, 2013, http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/things-presidentobama-immigration-reform/story?id=18103115]
On Sunday, President Barack Obama

said that immigration reform is a "top priority" on his agenda and that he would introduce legislation in his first year. To find out what he needs to do to make reform a reality, we
talked to Lynn Tramonte, the deputy director at America's Voice, a group that lobbies for immigration reform, and Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank. Here's what we came up with. 1.

Be a

Leader During Obama's first term, bipartisan legislation never got off the ground. The president needs to do a better job leading the charge this time around, according to Chishti. "He has to make it clear that it's a high priority of his," he said. "He has to make it clear that he'll use his bully pulpit and his political muscle to make it happen , and he has to be open to using his veto power." His announcement this weekend is a step in that direction, but
he needs to follow through.

Capitals key to a workable solution for legalization and visas

Garrett 2-21

*M. Politics for the National Journal. The Hidden Obstacles to Legal Immigration Reform The National Journal Online, 2/21/13 factiva//GBS-JV]
The toughest issue may be legal immigration. You know, the issue everyone is for. Who is against legal immigration? Obama is for it. Mitt Romney was for it. Our entire history is suffused with the narrative of dreams that began at the golden door first opened by legal immigration. We all agree, right? Think again. Legal immigration is much tougher than that. Its the stunningly underappreciated policy linchpin to reform. Its politics are even more complicated than border security or legalization of undocumented workers. And the White House draft said nothing about it. Nothing. The
presidents speech in Nevada on Jan. 29 was similarly vacuous. The White House insists it has a plan, and Obamas May 10, 2011, speech in El Paso made a glancing reference to helping immigrant entrepreneurs stay and create jobs and a way for seasonal agricultural workers to stay legally in America. That was it. Legal

immigration is far more complex. If Obama and Congress dont create a workable balance of future legal immigration in the argot, future flow it might as well give up. Why? Because thats what Congress did with the 1986 immigration reform act. It legalized 3 million undocumented workers here, didnt tighten border security, and created a legal immigration system so small (in numbers) and slow (in terms of approval) that illegals flooded across the border for jobs in a variety of industries. That will happen again unless new numbers and rules are applied to all variety of work and immigrant applicants for it. It is for this reason that Republicans chief among them non-savior Marco Rubio, the senator from Florida cannot and will not accept immigration reform that does not rewrite legal immigration rules. Legal immigration is now the subject of intense outside negotiations between the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which are aligned in pursuit of reform, unlike in 2007), as well as other stakeholders. Business wants actual job demands to determine how many visas are issued for all varieties of work. Big labor wants get ready a commission to review the needs and decide how many visas should be allocated. Theres no resolution. Yet. The White House eyes this intense debate with Sphinx-like inscrutability . Its a high-stakes fight over an alphabet soup of visas, which includes but is not limited to H-1B for immigrants with highly specialized theoretical and practical knowledge suitable for high-tech jobs; H-2A for seasonal agricultural workers who pick
crops; H-2B for peak-season nonagricultural workers who toil at theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and ski resorts; and H-4 for the family members (nonworking spouses and children) of H-2A and H-2B workers, who are desperate to legally live in America. According to the State Department, there were 117,409 H-1B visa recipients in 2010 and 129,134 in 2011 not nearly enough, according to business leaders and those eager to keep top-performing immigrant specialists here. The Washington Post on Tuesday wrote of student visa recipients from India who have invented a world-changing system to decontaminate water from hydraulic fracking. They may have to leave America and take their plans to hire 100 employees to India or elsewhere. The story said that places like China, Canada, Germany, Australia, and Singapore are dangling cash and other incentives before visa-limited American innovators such as these. And what about the workers who wash dishes, change sheets at hotels, mow resort golf courses, and provide home health care? Are they temporary? Are they high-skilled? No. Are they necessary? Absolutely. What are the legal numbers for these workers going forward? The

choice will be a functioning U.S.

economy, with a ready supply of legal labor, or a choked off and backward legal immigration system (like we have now), where the jobs are filled but by illegals and we repeat the cycle all over again. The biggest immigration news of the weekend wasnt the leak. It was what the leak exposed. And what the Senate working group, now on a tight deadline, will have to address with specificity, originality, and political deftness. You read it here first. If immigration reform dies, it will not be because of disagreeable topics such as border security, legalization, or a national ID card. It will be because of the agreeable topic of legal immigration .

Political Capital High

Obamas pushing
Kelley 6-12

*Caroline. Politics for Time. Can Congress Vote On Immigration Reform Before Its Vacation? TIME, 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
The clock is ticking for immigration reform. On Tuesday, President Obama urged Congress to move quickly on the sweeping reform bill
the Senate began debating this week. Theres no reason Congress cant get this done by the end of the summer, he said. The presidents urgency was reminiscent of the way President George W. Bush pushed for his own immigration reform package in 2007. Six years ago this Wednesday, Bush visited Capitol Hill to make a personal appeal to Republican senators on behalf of his plan, which included a goal that they vote before Congresss July 4 recessthe same target recently set for this years Senate reform effort by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer. The

Senate couldnt deliver a vote by July 4 in 2007, however, and Bushs bill

eventually died in the doldrums of summer. Proponents of this years version hope for more success. But, they too face a calendar challenge. Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says that he wouldnt bet a great deal of money on meeting the July 4th deadline this year. A

significant delay in the Senate could make it harder for the House to vote on immigration reform before Congress goes on vacation. The House is scheduled to be in session for just 16 days following the July 4 holiday before lawmakers begin their month-long vacation on August 5th. House Speaker John Boehner has said he hopes the House can vote before then. Reform advocates worry that if a bill isnt passed before August, opponents might marshal intense opposition to it in the media and at lawmakers town hall meetings, just as they did with Obamas health care plan in the summer of 2009, which threatened to derail that bill. Ornstein thinks immigration reform could survive Congresss recess, but that the delay would make passage more difficult .

Hes spending PC on immigration

Stanage 3-5

*Niall. Politics for the Hill. New Obama Strategy: Take No Prisoners The Hill, 3/5/13 ln//GBS-JV]
However, on

immigration, the leak of details from a White House proposal first appeared to diminish the chances of progress. Obama quickly got immigration reform back on track by making phone calls to the leading Republicans on the issue, including Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). McCain and Graham were subsequently invited to a White House meeting last week. Afterward, Graham insisted that it was one of the best meetings I ever had with the president. Tony Fratto, a former deputy press secretary for President George W. Bush, said that any evaluation of Obamas second-term approach needs to acknowledge these nuances. I dont think its some kind of secondterm infusion of courage, he said. Its very tactical in the way they deal with issues. Cal Jillson, a professor of political
science at Southern Methodist University, offered a more generous analysis of Obamas strategy. Where you can get Republican support, it makes no sense at all not to take it, he said. But if you cant give them half a loaf and get a significant number of votes in return, then why give them half a loaf in the first place? Democratic strategist Doug Thornell, meanwhile, offered a simpler explanation for Obamas approach:

Time is short . Hes more than halfway through his presidency now, and its become apparent that Congress is totally dysfunctional, he said. And if he waits around for them to demonstrate leadership, well be waiting forever. The president is once again, it seems, feeling the fierce urgency of now .

AT//PC Fails / Hirsh

PC is real and it works congress wants compromise and progress pref our ev because its newer and speaks to congressional sentiment
Roarty 13

*Alex. Politics for the National Journal and the Atlantic. There's Reason to Be Optimistic About CongressSeriously The Atlantic, 2/21/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Nevertheless, this

is a new congressional session, and Boren's pessimism might

possibly

be

proved

wrong . For

the first time in a decade, if not longer, conditions are aligned for bipartisan deal-making , raising hopes that Congress might actually do something and satisfy the wishes of millions of Americans hungry for action. "I
am pleased with the signs I see in Congress today to try to make deals," said Lee Hamilton, who was a veteran Democratic House member from Indiana. "There

are threads of it -- it's not a fabric yet -- but there are threads, and that's encouraging ." In today's context, defining success is important -- and requires a healthy dose of both skepticism and pragmatism. There's little hope that this Congress can reverse the -- exacerbated by, among other things, powerful special interests and partisan media -- that has gripped Washington. The forces that drove Rep. Boren out of Congress remain potent, and the legislative atmosphere on Capitol Hill is still toxic. Instead of a long-term course correction, the question is whether Republican leaders in the House, President Obama, and Senate Democrats can facilitate a reprieve -- if only to show the public that the institution is still functional. Cutting a deal with the broad backing of both parties isn't a question so much of relieving those pressures as of learning to pass laws in spite of them. The makeup of the 113th Congress and the occupant of the White House make conditions riper for bipartisan legislation than at any time since President George W. Bush's first years in office. Since then, Washington has been in the grip of one of two dynamics: Either one party has held Congress and the presidency, or one party, possessing limited power, has had little interest in passing consequential legislation. The latter was the case last session, when Republicans controlled only
the House. In most cases, they used this chamber to approve legislation, such as Rep. Paul Ryan's eponymous budget, that helped define the party's agenda but had no chance of gaining approval in the Senate (much less withstanding a veto from the White House). They were trying to wait out a president whom they believed would be sent packing in 2013. Democrats were in a similar position from 2007 to 2009, when they controlled Congress but wanted to wait out Bush's tenure. The lack of bipartisanship, of course, didn't prevent major legislation from becoming law over the past 10 years. But when Democrats controlled Washington and passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, or similarly empowered Republicans approved Medicare Part D in 2003, they didn't need the backing of the other party -- and by and large didn't get it.

This

session is different . Neither party has unilateral control, and yet there is an appetite, in the first year of Obama's second term, to make a serious attempt to legislate. The last time Capitol Hill saw something similar came in 2001 and 2002. Republicans suddenly lost the Senate when Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont defected from
the GOP in the early summer, but Congress still overwhelmingly approved the No Child Left Behind Act months later (although the first round of Bush's tax cuts passed with only a dozen or so Democrats on board in each chamber). Later, the parties worked together to approve a slew of national security issues after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But drawing comparisons to that period is difficult because of 9/11; and, besides, most of Bush's term is hardly associated with bipartisan comity. The better parallel -- and the experience current optimists point to -- is

1996 and 1997, which bridges the end of President Clinton's first term and the beginning of his second. That two-year span saw agreements on a series of important issues, ranging from two big-ticket items (welfare reform and a balanced-budget agreement) to lesser-known achievements (such as raising the minimum wage). The similarity between that period and now extends beyond the split control of government. Only a year earlier,
Republicans had ridden the "revolution" of 1994 into control of Congress, when they promised to push their agenda whether Clinton approved or not. But the party ultimately dealt with political setbacks, none more damaging than the government shutdown of 1996. The public blamed Republicans, and afterward Clinton never again trailed GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole (who was Senate majority leader at the time of the shutdown) in a head-to-head matchup, according to preelection polls. Public opinion

might once again be pulling against Republicans, burnt as they were by Obama's reelection and their unexpected losses in the Senate. In a
January poll by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News, 49 percent of adults disapproved of the GOP -- and only 26 percent approved. It was the worst rating for Republicans since 2008. Just

as the Republicans in Clinton's time decided their political survival depended on coming to the table, the GOP of today might do the same. "Republicans overplayed the

government shutdown, and President Clinton won that battle," said Dan Glickman, a former House member who was Clinton's Agriculture secretary. "And, with that, he effectively used the bully pulpit to control the agenda. He gave a lot of cover for people to vote for him. It's not the only factor, but members of Congress are much [more] likely to support a president when the people at home are inclined to support the president ." How much Obama's broad popularity matters to most GOP House members is debatable. With many of the president's
supporters packed into heavily Democratic urban districts, most Republicans represent safely red districts. (In November, Mitt Romney won 227 congressional districts, a majority, despite losing by 4 percentage points in the national vote.) But Obama's

standing could

weigh more heavily on House Speaker John Boehner and

image to worry about. Popular

Majority Leader Eric

Cantor

than on their followers; Cantor has

recently attempted to rebrand the party with a softer image. While their charges' interests are more parochial, they have the national party's

opinion could prod the two leaders to reach agreements with Obama, especially on emotional issues such as gun control and immigration . Or, at the very least, public pressure could work to ease the disagreements that make even basic government action difficult -- a factor that might have been at work when House Republicans engineered a three-month delay of the debt ceiling. " They're hearing the message
outside the Beltway that 'we elected you people to make things work,'" said John Breaux, the former longtime Democratic senator from Louisiana. The

are well documented. More than any other player in Washington, he

onus falls particularly hard on Boehner, whose struggles to control his conference will determine whether anything gets done this

year. How he decides to proceed could rest on how frequently he's willing to leave conservative colleagues out in the cold and, consequently,
how far he's willing to risk his speakership. The good of the party, and not his seat of power, propelled Boehner's decision to bring the superstorm Sandy relief bill to a vote earlier this year, when it passed with just a minority of support from Republicans. That combination --

Democrats and the moderate wing of the House GOP -- is the pathway to enacting a sweeping set of bipartisan agreements . A week after the storm vote, a large bipartisan majority passed a three-month extension of the debt ceiling.
"It is hard

to see this Congress being viewed as a bipartisan one, but we have seen a glimmer of light on the recent bipartisan vote to extend the debt ceiling," said Ron Bonjean, a onetime aide to the Republican leadership. Maintaining that momentum in the House won't be easy, and it could require Obama's personal leadership . Getting Boehner to take such a perilous route could depend in large part on successful cajoling from the president . And on this subject -- the relationships among Washington's top leaders -- discussion of a deal being cut becomes sharply
pessimistic.

Capital is specifically necessary to repair White House-Boehner relations

Roarty 2-21

*Alex. Politics for the National Journal and the Atlantic. There's Reason to Be Optimistic About CongressSeriously The Atlantic, 2/21/13 ln//GBS-JV]
The disrepair of personal relationships in Washington plays only a minor role in the absence of party comity. But more so than other long-term factors, this is something the current players can control . As legislators try to craft difficult bipartisan compromises, a willingness to cross party lines , even at the risk of criticism from colleagues, is crucial. It's why Republican Sen. Marco Rubio's inclination to work with Democrats on immigration reform or Democratic Rep. Ron Wyden's collaboration with Ryan on health care were so widely praised; such efforts attract positive attention because they are so rare. Political enemies have worked together for the common good before. Boehner and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy collaborated on No Child Left Behind. And Gingrich got along famously with Clinton, Breaux said, because the two men respected each other. "Even when he was trying to impeach [Clinton], they were still able to overcome that and get things done," Breaux said. He added: "I think that lack of personal relationships in the legislative body is absolutely the most harmful thing, exceeding any philosophical differences. It can overcome stringent disagreements ." Hill Democrats are openly encouraging Obama, whom they saw as failing to reach out during his first term, to rebuild those relationships. "What kind of commitment from the

White House will there be to work the Congress aggressively, daily and continuously?" wondered Glickman, who is now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "It can be painful to do that, because presidents don't like that part of the job. I'm not sure this president likes it either."

Previous immigration pushes failed because Obama spent too much PC on other issues and couldnt arm-twist the GOP effectively---their ev doesnt account for the GOPs tendency toward intransigence which makes PC true in the context of immigration
Hutchinson 2-1

*Earl. Political Analyst for New America and host of the Hutchinson Report. No Risk for President Obama in Immigration Reform Fight 2/1/13 The Huffington Post, ln]
But Obama even as his popularity numbers slightly fell among Latinos did not totally ignore the issue. He lashed

the GOP for torpedoing comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress on the two occasions when it appeared that an immigration bill might be reintroduced. Obama was not to blame that this didn't happen. The crushing problems and bruising fights over deficit reduction, spending, health care reform, coupled with high soaring gas prices and the jobless crisis were endless and time consuming . The fights required every bit of his political capital and arm twisting to make any headway against an obstructionist, intransigent
and petty

GOP determined to make him pay a

steep political price for every inch of legislative ground

he sought to gain. The 2012 election changed only one thing

with the GOP. That was its in your face, xenophobic rants against illegals supposedly stealing jobs from Americans and breaking the law. GOP leaders had no choice but to tamp down their saber rattle immigration rhetoric for the simple fact that Latino voters punished the party mightily in 2012 for that rhetoric, and sent an even stronger signal that it would continue to punish the GOP if it didn't change at least its tone on immigration. The

2012 election changed one other thing. It gave Obama the long sought and awaited opening he needed to go full throttle on immigration reform. The election result was not the only strong point for Obama on reform. In 2007, then
President George W. Bush was widely and unfairly blamed

for making a mess of the immigration reform fight in Congress by not

pushing hard enough

for passage of the bill. Immigrant rights groups lambasted Republican senators for piling crippling demands for

tight amnesty, citizenship and border security provisions in the bill. Leading Republican presidential contenders didn't help matters by flatly opposing the bill as much too soft on amnesty and border enforcement. This did much to kill whatever flickering hope there was for the bill's passage. This undid the inroads that Bush made in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections when he scored big with Latino voters. A big part of that then was due to the perception (and reality) that Bush would push hard for immigration reform. But the GOP didn't learn a thing from this. It was almost as if Bush's Latino vote ramp up was an aberration. The GOP's metallic ear on immigration culminated in the idiotic quip from GOP presidential loser Mitt Romney that the best way to solve the immigration crisis was for undocumented workers to "self-deport." Obama's battle for the Latino vote in 2012 was never intended to head off any mass defection of Latino voters to the GOP. There was never any chance of that. The polls that showed Latinos less than enthusiastic about Obama also showed absolutely no enthusiasm for any GOP would-be presidential candidate, let alone that there would be a massive vote for GOP candidates. Still, Obama's frontal

challenge to the

GOP
that

to do something about

immigration reform is not only a long overdue move to right a long simmering policy wrong, but a move

if handled right can do much to shove the wrenching issue of what to do about the nation's millions that are here without papers, and are here to stay, off the nation's political table. There's absolutely no risk, only gain, for Obama in taking the point
on immigration reform to try and make that happen.

Hirshs arg is just that PC cant set the agenda. Our uniqueness evidence proves immigrations already at the top of the docket, which is where Obamas persuasive powers are vital.
Bernstein 1-28

*Jonathan Bernstein. Assistant Professor of Political Science at UTSA, 1/28/13, On immigration, Obama should opt for a persuasive vagueness,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/01/28/onimmigration-obama-should-opt-for-a-persuasive-vagueness/]
Ezra Klein

made an excellent point about Barack Obama and immigration reform today: Republicans will fight most anything Obama proposesThis is a frustrating fact of life for the Obama administration and perhaps even a sick commentary on
how our political system works but it is, nevertheless, a fact: Their involvement polarizes issues. And its not unique to them: Presidential involvement in general polarizes issues. By staying out, at least for now, the Obama administration is making it easier for Republicans to stay in. The political scientist Richard Neustadt said that the

power of the presidency really just meant the power to

persuade . But by that he didnt really mean winning debate-style arguments. Yes, that can happen, but usually presidents persuade by bargaining
by capitalizing

on all the things presidents can do to convince others that

they should do what the president wants them to do. In this instance, if Klein is correct and Im pretty sure he is the way for Obama to persuade is to be as vague about the new bipartisan Senate proposal as he can, at least in public. At the same time, the White House may need to push for specific provisions behind the scenes . And the dance is probably more complicated than that, because its not just presidents who polarize, after all. A full-throated embrace of the bipartisan deal by the usual suspect liberal groups could easy scare off Republican support; on the other hand, if
they oppose the deal, it could make it hard for mainstream liberals to support it. Assuming that the administration both wants the bipartisan package to be the basis for a bill that passes but that the president also has preferences on details that are up for grabs he may have strong preferences on how liberal groups react. And yet the

only, yes,

president cannot force them to do what he wants; he can persuade them . In doing so, he may call upon whatever trust they have in their past history
with them. After all, each

together , or he may be bargaining

group involved has other things they want

from the Obama Administration . All of which is only to say that the correct steps for the president are usually difficult to find. The president needs the cooperation of all sorts of people (not just Members of Congress) who dont have to do what he wants; then again, no one else in the American political system has more potential ways to influence (persuade) others. And from the outside , not only is it sometimes hard to know what the president should be doing to persuade but its not
even always obvious who needs persuading (Members of Congress? Which ones? Interest groups? Again, which ones? Parts of the bureaucracy?).

Issues tradeoff for Obama if the thesis of the link is true, it precludes action of immigration
Walsh 12

[Ken covers the White House and politics for U.S. News. Setting Clear Priorities Will Be Key for Obama, 12/20, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-WalshsWashington/2012/12/20/setting-clear-priorities-will-be-key-for-obama]
And there is an axiom in Washington: Congress, the bureaucracy, the media, and other power centers can

do justice to only one or two issues at a time. Phil Schiliro, Obama's former liaison to Congress, said Obama has "always had a personal commitment" to gun control, for example. But Schiliro told the New York Times, "Given the crisis he faced when he first took office, there's only so much capacity in the system to move his agenda ." So Obama might be wise to limit his goals now and avoid overburdening the system , or he could face major setbacks that would limit his power
and credibility

for the remainder of his presidency.

PCs real best scholarship

Beckman and Kumar 11

[Matthew N. Beckmann and Vimal Kumar 11, Profs Department of Political Science, @ University of California Irvine "How Presidents Push, When Presidents Win" Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3 SAGE]

Before developing presidents lobbying options for building winning coalitions on Capitol Hill, it is

instructive to consider cases where the president has no political capital and no viable lobbying options. In such circumstances of imposed passivity
(beyond offering a proposal),

a presidents fate is clear : his proposals are subject to pivotal a president lacking political capital proposes to change some far-off status quo, that is, one on the opposite side of the median or otherwise pivotal voter, a (Condorcet) winner always exists, and it coincides with the pivots predisposition (Brady and Volden, 1998; Krehbiel, 1998) (see also Black (1948) and Downs (1957)). Considering that there tends to be substantial ideological distance between presidents and pivotal voters, positive presidential inuence without lobbying, then, is not much inuence at all. As with all lobbyists, presidents looking to push legislation must do so indirectly by pushing the lawmakers whom they need to pass it. Or, as Richard Nesustadt artfully explained: The essence of a Presidents persuasive task, with congressmen and everybody else, is to induce them to believe that what he wants of them is what their own appraisal of their own responsibilities requires them to do in their interest, not hisPersuasion
voters preferences. So if deals in the coin of self-interest with men who have some freedom to reject what they nd counterfeit. (Neustadt, 1990: 40) Fortunately for contemporary presidents, todays White

House affords its occupants an unrivaled supply of

persuasive carrots and sticks . Beyond the ofces unique visibility and prestige, among both citizens and their representatives in Congress, presidents may also sway lawmakers by using their discretion in budgeting and/or
rulemaking, unique fundraising and campaigning capacity, control over executive and judicial nominations, veto power, or numerous other options under the chief executives control. Plainly, when

it comes to the arm-twisting, browbeating, and horse-trading that so often characterizes legislative battles, modern presidents are uniquely well equipped for the ght. In the following we employ the omnibus concept of presidential political capital to capture this conception of presidents positive power as persuasive bargaining. Speci- cally, we dene presidents political capital as the class of tactics White House ofcials employ to induce changes in lawmakers behavior. Importantly, this conception of presidents positive power as persuasive bargaining not only meshes with previous scholarship on lobbying (see, e.g., Austen-Smith and Wright (1994), Groseclose and Snyder (1996),
Krehbiel (1998: ch. 7), and Snyder (1991)), but

also presidential practice . For example, Goodwin recounts how

President Lyndon Johnson routinely allocated rewards to cooperative members: The rewards themselves (and the withholding of rewards) . . . might be something as unobtrusive as receiving an invitation to join the President in a walk around the White House grounds, knowing that pictures of the event would be sent to hometown newspapers . . . [or something as pointed as] public works projects, military bases, educational research grants, poverty projects, appointments of local men to national commissions, the granting of pardons, and more. (Goodwin, 1991: 237) Of course,

presidential political capital is a scarce commodity with a oating value . Even a favorably situated president enjoys only a nite supply of political capital ; he can only promise or pressure so much . What is more, this capital ebbs

and ows as realities and/or perceptions change . So, similarly to Edwards (1989), we believe presidents bargaining resources cannot fundamentally alter legislators predispositions, but rather operate at the margins of US lawmaking, however important those margins may be (see also Bond and Fleisher
(1990), Peterson (1990), Kingdon (1989), Jones (1994), and Rudalevige (2002)). Indeed, our aim is to explicate those margins and show how

presidents may systematically inuence them.

AT//PC Bad / Dickerson

Non-unique hes pushing now
HT 6-13

[The Hindustan Times. 6/13/13 ln//GBS-JV]

Obama has gently pushed the bill from behind the scenes for months, fearing his open support would swell the ranks of conservatives who see the bill as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants and who are determined to kill it. But as the legislation faced a crucial test vote in the Senate, Obama waded into the fray, leveraging the political capital on the issue he won during last year's election campaign, particularly among Hispanic voters. "This week, the Senate will consider a common-sense, bipartisan bill that is the best chance we've had in years to fix our broken immigration system," Obama said at an event at the White House. The president also sought to disarm conservative Republicans -- even some who support immigration reform -- who argue that the bill should not be passed without tough new border security measures.

Obama cant pick a fight on immigration that would kill the deal our ev comparative
Foley 1-15

*Elise is a writer @ Huff Post Politics. Obama Gears Up For Immigration Reform Push In Second Term, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/obamaimmigration-reform_n_2463388.html]
Obama has repeatedly said he will push hard for immigration reform in his second term, and administration officials have said that other contentious legislative initiatives -- including gun control and the debt ceiling -- won't be allowed to get in the way. At least at first glance, he seems to have politics on his side. GOP lawmakers are entering -- or, in some
cases, re-entering -- the immigration debate in the wake of disastrous results for their party's presidential nominee with Latino voters, who support reform by large measures. Based

on those new political realities, "it would be a suicidal impulse for Republicans in Congress to continue to block [reform]," David Axelrod, a longtime adviser to the president, told The Huffington Post. Now there's the question of how Obama gets there. While confrontation might work with Republicans on other issues
-- the debt ceiling, for example -- the consensus is that the GOP is serious enough about reform that

the president can, and must, play the role of broker and statesman to get a deal . It starts with a lesson from
his first term. Republicans have demanded that the border be secured first, before other elements of immigration reform. Yet the administration has been by many measures the strictest ever on immigration enforcement, and devotes massive sums to policing the borders. The White House has met many of the desired metrics for border security, although there is always more to be done, but Republicans are still calling for more before they will consider reform. Enforcing the border, but not sufficiently touting its record of doing so, the White House has learned, won't be enough to win over Republicans. In a briefing with The Huffington Post, a senior administration official said the White House believes it has met enforcement goals and must now move to a comprehensive solution. The

administration is highly skeptical of claims from Republicans that immigration reform can or should be done in a piecemeal fashion. Going down that road, the White House worries, could result in passage of the less politically complicated pieces, such as an enforcement mechanism and high-skilled worker visas, while leaving out more contentious items such as a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. "Enforcement is certainly part of the picture," the official said. "But if you go back and look at the 2006
and 2007 bills, if you go back and look at John McCain's 10-point 'This is what I've got to get done before I'm prepared to talk about immigration,' and then you look at what we're actually doing, it's like 'check, check, check.' We're there. The border is as secure as it's been in a generation or two, so it's really time." One key in the second term, advocates say, will be convincing skeptics such as Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas that the Obama administration held up its end of the bargain by proving a commitment to enforcement. The

White House also needs to convince GOP lawmakers that there's support from their constituents for immigration reform, which could be aided by conservative evangelical leaders and members of the business
community who are pushing for a bill. Immigrant advocates want more targeted deportations that focus on criminals, while opponents of comprehensive immigration reform say there's too little enforcement and not enough assurances that reform wouldn't be followed by another

wave of unauthorized immigration. The Obama administration has made some progress on both fronts, but some advocates worry that the president hasn't done enough to emphasize it. The latest deportation figures were released in the ultimate Friday news dump: mid-afternoon Friday on Dec. 21, a prime travel time four days before Christmas. Last week, the enforcement-is-working argument was bolstered by a report from the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, which found that the government is pouring more money into its immigration agencies than the other federal law-enforcement efforts combined. There are some clear metrics to point to on the border in particular, and Doris Meissner, an author of the report and a former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, said she hopes putting out more information can add to the immigration debate. "I've been surprised, frankly, that the administration hasn't done more to lay out its record," she said, adding the administration has kept many of its metrics under wraps. There are already lawmakers working on a broad agreement. Eight senators, coined the gang of eight, are working on a bipartisan immigration bill. It's still in its early stages, but nonmembers of the "gang," such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) are also talking about reform. It's still unclear what exact role the he does

president will play, but sources say plan to lead on the issue. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, said the White House seems sensitive to the fact that Republicans and Democrats need to work out the issue in Congress -no one is expecting a fiscal cliff-style arrangement jammed by leadership -- while keeping the president heavily involved.

Wins dont spill over prioritization is key

Schultz 1-22

*David. Prof at the Hamline Univ School of Business. Obamas Dwindling Pr ospects in a second term The Minneapolis Post, 1/22/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Four more years for Obama. Now what?

What does Barack Obama do in his second term and what can he accomplish? Simply put, his options are limited and the prospects for major success quite limited. Presidential power is the power to persuade , as Richard Neustadt famously stated. Many factors determine presidential power and the ability to influence including personality (as James David Barber argued), attitude toward power, margin of victory, public support, support in Congress, and ones sense of narrative or purpose. Additionally, presidential power is temporal , often greatest when one is first elected , and it is contextual, affected by competing items on an agenda. All of these factors affect the political power or capital of a president. Presidential power
also

is a finite and

generally

decreasing product . The first hundred days in office so marked forever by FDRs first 100 in 1933 are usually a honeymoon period, during which presidents often get what they want. FDR gets the first New Deal, Ronald Reagan gets Kemp-Roth, George Bush in 2001 gets his tax cuts. Presidents lose political capital, support But, over time, presidents lose political capital. Presidents get distracted by world and domestic events, they lose support in Congress or among the American public, or they turn into lame ducks. This is the problem Obama now faces. Obama had a lot of political capital when sworn in as president in 2009. He won a decisive victory for change with strong approval ratings and had
majorities in Congress with eventually a filibuster margin in the Senate, when Al Franken finally took office in July. Obama used his political capital to secure a stimulus bill and then pass the Affordable Care Act. He eventually got rid of Dont Ask, Dont Tell and secured many other victories. But elections.

Obama was a lousy salesman, and he lost what little control of Congress that he had in the 2010

Presidents think PC is real our link is true in practice

Marshall et al 11

[Bryan W, Miami University BRANDON C. PRINS University of Tennessee & Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy Power or Posturing? Policy Availability and Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 3 (September)
We argue that the more important effect of Congress occurs because presidents

anticipate how the use of force may affect the larger congressional environment in which they inevitably have to operate (Brul, Marshall, and Prins 2010). It may be true that presidents consider the chances that Congress will react to a specific use of force with countervailing tools, but even more importantly they anticipate the likelihood that a foreign conflict may damage (or advantage) their political fortunes elsewherein essence, the presidential calculus to use force factors in how such actions might shape their ability to achieve legislative priorities . To be clear,
presidents can and do choose to use force and press for legislative initiatives in Congress. Taking unilateral actions in foreign policy does not

preclude the president from working the legislative process on Capitol Hill. However, political

capital is finite so spending resources in one area lessens what the president can bring to bear in other areas. That is, presidents consider
the congressional environment in their decision to use force because their success at promoting policy change in either foreign or domestic affairs is largely determined by their relationship with Congress. Presidents

do not make such decisions devoid of calculations regarding congressional preferences and behavior or how such decisions may influence their ability to achieve legislative objectives. This is true in large part because presidential behavior is motivated by multiple goals that are intimately tied to Congress. Presidents place a premium on passing legislative initiatives. The
passage of policy is integral to their goals of reelection and enhancing their place in history (Canes-Wrone 2001; Moe 1985). Therefore, presidents seek to build and protect their relationship with Congress.

Obamas Velcro only blame will stick

Nicholas and Hook 10

[Peter Nicholas and Janet Hook, Tribune Washington Bureau, Obama the Velcro president, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/nation/la-na-velcropresidency-20100730]
If Ronald Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack Obama is made of Velcro. Through two terms, Reagan eluded much of the responsibility for recession and foreign policy scandal. In less than two years, Obama has become ensnared in blame. Hoping to better insulate Obama, White House aides have sought to give other Cabinet officials a higher profile and additional public exposure. They are also crafting new ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public. But Obama remains the colossus of his administration to a point where trouble anywhere in the world is often his to solve. The president is on the hook to repair the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, stabilize Afghanistan, help fix Greece's ailing economy and do right by Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official fired as a result of a misleading fragment of videotape. What's not sticking to Obama is a legislative track record that his recent predecessors might envy. Political dividends from passage of a healthcare overhaul or a financial regulatory bill have been fleeting. Instead, voters are measuring
his presidency by a more immediate yardstick: Is he creating enough jobs? So far the verdict is no, and that has taken a toll on Obama's approval ratings. Only 46% approve of Obama's job performance, compared with 47% who disapprove, according to Gallup's daily tracking poll. "I think the accomplishments are very significant,

but I think most people would look at this and say, 'What was the plan for jobs?' " said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "The agenda he's pushed here has been a very important agenda, but it hasn't translated into dinner table conversations."

Political capital is finite

Marshall et al 11

Bryan W, Miami University BRANDON C. PRINS University of Tennessee & Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy Power or Posturing? Policy Availability and Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 3 (September)
We argue that the more important effect of Congress occurs because presidents

anticipate how the use of force may affect the larger congressional environment in which they inevitably have to operate (Brul, Marshall, and Prins 2010). It may be true that presidents consider the chances that Congress will react to a specific use of force with countervailing tools, but even more importantly they anticipate the likelihood that a foreign conflict may damage (or advantage) their political fortunes elsewherein essence, the presidential calculus to use force factors in how such actions might shape their ability to achieve legislative priorities. To be clear, presidents can
and do choose to use force and press for legislative initiatives in Congress. Taking unilateral actions in foreign policy does not preclude the president from working the legislative process on Capitol Hill. However, political

capital is finite so spending resources in one area lessens what the president can bring to bear in other areas. That is, presidents consider the congressional
environment in their decision to use force because their success at promoting policy change in either foreign or domestic affairs is largely determined by their relationship with Congress. Presidents

do not make such decisions devoid of calculations

regarding congressional preferences and behavior or how such decisions may influence their ability to achieve legislative objectives. This is true in large part because presidential behavior is motivated by multiple goals that are intimately tied to Congress. Presidents place a premium on passing legislative initiatives. The passage of policy is
integral to their goals of reelection and enhancing their place in history (Canes-Wrone 2001; Moe 1985). Therefore, presidents seek to build and protect their relationship with Congress.

Political capital in the context of immigration means pushing from behind that ensures passage and doesnt generate opposition
Pace 3-27

*Julie. Politics for the AP. Obama: Immigration Bill could Pass by Summer The Times Union, 3/27/13 ln//Cal-JV]
President Barack Obama

pressed for swift action on a sweeping immigration bill Wednesday, saying last-minute obstacles are "resolvable " and predicting Congress could pass historic legislation by the end of the summer. In

back-to-back interviews with Spanish-language television networks, Obama repeatedly voiced confidence in a bipartisan Senate group that appears to be on the cusp of unveiling a draft bill. And he said that while he is still prepared to step in with his own bill if talks break down, he doesn't expect that step to be necessary. "If we have a bill introduced at the beginning of next month as these senators indicate it will be, then I'm confident that we can get it done certainly before the end of the summer," Obama told Telemundo. While overhauling the nation's patchwork immigration laws

has ceded the negotiations almost entirely to Congress. He and his advisers have calculated that a bill crafted by Capitol Hill stands a better chance of winning Republican support than one overtly influenced by the president. In his interviews Wednesday, Obama
tried to stay out of the prickly policy issues that remain unfinished in the Senate talks, though he said a split between business and labor on wages for new low-skilled workers was unlikely to "doom" the legislation. "This is a resolvable issue," he said. The president also spoke Wednesday with Univision. His interviews followed a citizenship ceremony conducted Monday at the White House where he pressed Congress to "finish the job" on immigration, an issue that has vexed Washington for years. The president made little progress in overhauling the nation's fractured immigration laws in his first term, but he redoubled his efforts after winning re-election. The November contest also spurred some Republicans to drop their opposition to immigration reform, given that Hispanics overwhelmingly backed Obama. In

is a top second term priority

for the president, he

an effort to keep Republicans at the negotiation table, Obama has stayed relatively quiet on immigration over the last month. He
rolled out his immigration principles during a January rally in Las Vegas and made an impassioned call for overhauling the nation's laws during his early February State of the Union address, then purposely handed off the effort to lawmakers. The

president has, however, privately called members of the Senate working group, and the administration is providing technical support to the lawmakers. The Gang of Eight is expected to unveil its draft bill when Congress returns from a two-week recess the week of April 8. Obama and the Senate group are in agreement on some core principles, including a pathway to citizenship for
most of the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, revamping the legal immigration system and holding businesses to tougher standards on verifying their workers are in the country legally. But they're

at odds over key issues. The Senate group wants the president has also sidestepped the contentious guest-worker issue, which contributed to derailing immigration talks in 2007. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO have reached significant agreements on a new visa program that would bring up to 200,000 lower-skilled workers to the country each year. But they reached a stalemate Friday over wages for the workers, with the labor union pushing for higher wages than the chamber has agreed to so far . Since then, talks have resumed and negotiators are "back on the right track ," Ana Avendano, a lead AFL-CIO negotiator, said
citizenship pathway to be contingent on securing the border, something Obama opposes. The Wednesday. Avendano declined to offer specifics but said the chamber had moved off what she termed its insistence on "poverty-level wages" for the new workers. "We're very hopeful that we're moving," Avendano told reporters after a briefing for congressional staff on temporaryworker programs. While

Obama tries to keep the pressure on lawmakers this week, four members of the Senate immigration group toured Arizona's border with Mexico to inspect the conditions there. Arizona's Republican Sens. John
McCain and Jeff Flake were joined by Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado for the border tour.

More evidence Obamas involvement makes passage more likely because of Latino support
Garrett 2-21

*M. Politics for the National Journal. The Hidden Obstacles to Legal Immigration Reform The National Journal Online, 2/21/13 factiva//GBS-JV]
This isnt a fail-safe border-security plan, but it is the bare minimum Republicans can accept and it still may not be enough (we wont know until lawmakers start voting). But its absence from the White House draft conspicuously informs Republicans that the White House is pushing legalization, and the fight to come will be on many fronts one of them over the GOPs ability to push enforcement while embracing but not delaying reform. The White House knows it has the upper hand politically and intends to dare Republicans to slow immigration reform over any issue. Informally, the White House has signaled to the Senate working group that it has until late March to finalize its bill or President Obama will spring his. As one top administration official told me: The only thing that prevents the GOP from getting into a much worse hole with Latinos is a bill with a path to citizenship on the presidents desk. Anything else and they have killed immigration reform again . And Obama is by far the most popular player in this game in the Latino community. The last thing Republicans want to do is vote down a bill with the presidents name on it.

Capitals key history proves that immigration reform dies without a strong presidential push
Brownstein 1-31

[Ronald, National Journal, 1/31/13, On Immigration, What Obama Can Learn From Bush's Failed Efforts, www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/onimmigration-what-obama-can-learn-from-bush-s-failed-efforts-20130131]
The prospects for major immigration reform are now the brightest in years, but for key players in Washington, a shadow still looms: the ghost of 2006. That was the last time the stars were aligned for a
breakthrough. Immigration reform that included a path to citizenship for those in the United States illegally had the support of President Bush, a broad labor-business-faith coalition, and a bipartisan Senate majority. Yet that

armada ultimately splintered against the stony refusal of House Republican leaders to consider a bill opposed by a majority of their majority. Any of that sound familiar? Already many of the same dynamics are developing, with President Obama stamping immigration reform as a top priority , a bipartisan Senate coalition reassembling, a broad outside alliance of support groups coalescingand most House Republicans rejecting anything that hints at amnesty for illegal immigrants. Yet the contrasts between now and 2006, particularly in the political climate, are also significant. Understanding both the similarities and the differences will be critical for reform advocates if they are to avoid replicating the disappointment they suffered under Bush. Presidential interest was then, as it is now, critical in elevating immigration reform . Since his days as Texas governor, Bush had courted Hispanics, andeven during the 2000
GOP presidential primary campaignhe strikingly defended illegal immigrants as moms and dads trying to make a better life for their children. Together with his political architect, Karl Rove, Bush saw comprehensive reform that coupled a path to citizenship with tougher enforcement as an opportunity to consolidate the beachhead that allowed him to capture more than 40 percent of Hispanic voters in his 2004 reelection. But Bush

largely looked away when Republicans who controlled the House channeled that impulse in a very different direction. In December 2005, they passed an enforcement-only bill drafted by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, that, for the first time, designated all
undocumented immigrants as felons. (Previously, illegal presence in the U.S. had been a civil, not criminal, violation.) Initially, debate in the GOP-controlled Senate drifted. Majority Leader Bill Frist, considering a 2008 presidential bid, pushed his own enforcement-only bill. But amid the backdrop of huge public rallies against Sensenbrenners proposal, Sen. Arlen Specter unexpectedly joined with three other Republicans and all eight Judiciary Committee Democrats in late March to approve a comprehensive plan, including a path to citizenship, that followed a blueprint negotiated by Sens. Edward Kennedy and John McCain. When broader Senate agreement teetered over the terms of legalization, Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez devised a compromise that divided illegal immigrants into three categories, requiring those here less than two years to leave but allowing those with deeper roots to eventually earn citizenship by paying fines and learning English. After Bush finally delivered a national address on immigration, a bill embodying that plan cleared the Senate with 62 votes, including support from 23 Republicans. House Republicans immediately signaled their disinterest by refusing to appoint a conference committee and instead scheduled hearings in border communities to highlight security lapses. Border security reigned supreme, recalls Ron Bonjean, the communications director for then-Speaker Dennis Hastert. I remember being in a meeting with the leadership where pollsters

came in and said border security was the key to our reelection. Even in

2006, something like the Senate plan likely could have attracted 218 votes in the Housebut not a majority of Republicans. Faced with a collision between his two political imperativescourting Hispanics and mobilizing conservatives Bush blinked , allowing House leaders to replace the Senate bill with enforcement-only legislation, which he
signed that fall. These choices began the GOPs slide among Hispanics that continues unabated: Hispanic support for Republica n House candidates plummeted from 44 percent in 2004 to just 29 percent in 2006, presaging Mitt Romneys disastrous 27 percent showing among those voters in 2012. That slippage is one of the two most important differences in the political environment around immigration between 2006 and today. Back then, as Bonjean notes, hardly any House Republicans argued that the GOP needed to pass a plan attractive to minorities. But many GOP leaders now see that as self-preservation. The

political imperative has shifted the tectonic plates, says Frank Sharry, a key player in the 2006 debate who remains central as executive director of
Americas Voice, which backs full citizenship for immigrants. Immigration was viewed as a wedge issue for Republicans in 2006. Now its viewed as a wedge issue for Democrats. The Gang of Eight proposal released this week makes it likely that, as in 2006,

the Senate will eventually pass a bipartisan immigration bill. Once again, there are probably 218 House votes for such a plan, but not a majority of the majority Republicans. That raises another key difference from 2006: Hastert faced little pressure to consider the Senate bill, because Bush bit his tongue when the speaker buried it . If House Republicans shelve another bipartisan Senate plan in 2013, they should expect
more much

public heat,

Political Capital Theorys True

Capitals real and vital to legislative success
Schier 9

*Prof Poli Sci at Carleton. Understanding the Obama Presidency The Forum, Vol 7 N1. 2009. Ebsco]
presidents informal power is situationally derived and highly variable. Informal power is a function of the political capital presidents amass and deplete as they operate in office. Paul Light defines several components of political capital: party support of the president in Congress, public approval of the presidential conduct of his job, the Presidents electoral margin and patronage appointments (Light 1983, 15). Richard Neustadts concept of a presidents professional reputation likewise figures into his political capital. Neustadt
defines this as the impressions in the Washington community about the skill and will with which he puts *his formal powers+ to use (Neustadt 1990, 185). In In additional to formal powers, a

the wake of 9/11, George W. Bushs political capital surged, and both the public and Washington elites granted him a broad ability to prosecute the war on terror. By the later stages of Bushs troubled second term, beset by a lengthy and unpopular occupation of Iraq and an aggressive Democratic Congress, he found that his political capital had shrunk. Obamas informal powers will prove variable, not stable, as is always the case for presidents. Nevertheless, he entered office with a formidable store of political capital. His solid electoral victory means he initially will receive high public support and strong backing from fellow Congressional partisans, a combination that will allow him much leeway in his presidential appointments and with his policy agenda. Obama probably enjoys the prospect of a
happier honeymoon during his first year than did George W. Bush, who entered office amidst continuing controversy over the 2000 election outcome. Presidents usually employ power to disrupt the political order they inherit in order to reshape it according to their own agendas. Stephen Skowronek argues that presidents disrupt systems, reshape political landscapes, and pass to successors leadership challenges that are different from the ones just faced (Skowronek 1997, 6). Given

their limited time in office and the hostile political alignments often present in Washington policymaking networks and among the electorate, presidents must force political change if they are to enact their agendas. In recent decades, Washington power structures have
become more entrenched and elaborate (Drucker 1995) while presidential powers through increased use of executive orders and legislative delegation (Howell 2003) have also grown. The

presidency has more powers in the early 21st century but also faces more entrenched coalitions of interests, lawmakers, and bureaucrats whose agendas often differ from that of the president. This is an invitation for an energetic president and that seems to describe Barack Obama to engage in major ongoing battles to impose his preferences.

Presidents think PC is real

Marshall et al 11

[Bryan W, Miami University BRANDON C. PRINS University of Tennessee & Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy Power or Posturing? Policy Availability and Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 3 (September)
We argue that the more important effect of Congress occurs because presidents

anticipate how the use of force may affect the larger congressional environment in which they inevitably have to operate (Brul, Marshall, and Prins 2010). It may be true that presidents consider the chances that Congress will react to a specific use of force with countervailing tools, but even more importantly they anticipate the likelihood that a foreign conflict may damage (or advantage) their political fortunes elsewherein essence, the presidential calculus to use force factors in how such actions might shape their ability to achieve legislative priorities . To be clear,
presidents can and do choose to use force and press for legislative initiatives in Congress. Taking unilateral actions in foreign policy does not preclude the president from working the legislative process on Capitol Hill. However, political

capital is finite so spending resources in one area lessens what the president can bring to bear in other areas. That is, presidents consider
the congressional environment in their decision to use force because their success at promoting policy change in either foreign or domestic

affairs is largely determined by their relationship with Congress. Presidents

do not make such decisions devoid of calculations regarding congressional preferences and behavior or how such decisions may influence their ability to achieve legislative objectives. This is true in large part because presidential behavior is motivated by multiple goals that are intimately tied to Congress. Presidents place a premium on passing legislative initiatives. The
passage of policy is integral to their goals of reelection and enhancing their place in history (Canes-Wrone 2001; Moe 1985). Therefore, presidents seek to build and protect their relationship with Congress.

Best studies support our scholarship

Relyea 11

[Harold C. Relyea 11, Specialist in American National Government with the Congressional. Research Service, Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 1953-2004 By Matthew N. Beckmann, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Volume 41, Issue 4, pages 844845]
Matthew Beckmann of the University of California at Irvine provides an interesting empirical analysis of presidential leadership in lawmaking

for the period from the Eisenhower through the Bush II administrations. He notes that the key to a president's legislative leadership is strategy, not resolve (p. 2), and concludes that the greatest source of influence for postwar presidents comes in the legislative early game, not the legislative endgame (p. 2). Presidents who are strategically adept work to get specific issues on the congressional calendar and, then, maneuver to insure that certain proposals rise up as alternatives. Beckmann suggests that the best route for constructing winning coalitions consists of mobilizing leading allies, determining opponents, and circumventing endgame floor fights altogether, rather than the typical path of gathering support from centrist lawmakers (p. 2). In the end, he finds that presidents' legislative influence is real, often substantial, and,
to date, greatly underestimated (p. 3). The author's assessment is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 consists of his introductory
overview, as briefly summarized above. Chapter 2 presents a theory of positive presidential power, focusing on the Bush II administration's 2001 tax cut efforts in the Senate. Here, Beckmann

attributes the White House's success to its targeted strategy of lobbying and bargaining with allies, key opponents, and swing voters. He cautions that although this is only one
example, it represents what a president's aides can achieve when they maximize lobbying techniques for the purpose of advancing agendacentered and vote-centered strategies (p. 104). Reviewing the 1953-2004 record of what he considers to be key votes for presidential legislative success in Chapter 4, the author proposes a new method for evaluating the potential impact of presidents on these votes. The two most significant elements are (1) personal involvement of the president and (2) the extent of his influence at the earliest stages in the legislative process, at the point of fashioning legislation (p. 126). In Chapter 5, after testing

whether presidents' influence held up even after accounting for a myriad of rival explanations, including congressional composition, political context, and issue specifics, as well as simple random chance (p. 148), Beckmann asserts that the evidence showed presidents to be powerful, but not all powerful, players in federal policymaking. When the president decides that some particular policy initiative deserves his administration's backing, it is a great boon to the chances that a new law will supplant the old one. Yet also as predicted, this potential is constrained by Congress' pivotal voters, limited by political environment, and variable by issue. Furthermore, although the president's involvement greatly increases the likelihood that a winning congressional coalition will be assembled, it is no guarantee. Indeed, the nature of presidential leadership in lawmaking is that, while it generally helps win key votes and pass preferred laws, it may not in any particular case. (p. 149) In closing, the author observes that integral to appraising any president's legacy is examining how
effectively he recognizes and capitalizes on his office's potential but that equally as important as any policy outcome is the value of healthy, substantive debate in Congress, as well as the related one of pressuring members to clearly explain their positions on issues (p.161).

2NC Rubio Link

Rubio hates the plan
The Hill 12

[Cuban-American senators hit brick wall with Obama administration on Cuba policy, June 7th, 2012, http://thehill.com/blogs/globalaffairs/americas/231487-cuban-american-senators-hit-a-brick-wallwith-obama-administration-on-cuba-policy]
The Senate's two Cuban-Americans spent Thursday morning talking past the Obama administration's top official for the Americas on the issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba. Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were the only two senators who showed up for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subpanel hearing on freedom in Cuba. They called

the administration's relaxing of travel restrictions to Cuba naive and bashed the State Department's decision to grant visas to high-profile Cuban officials, including President Raul Castro's daughter Mariela. The Cuban people are no less deserving of America's support than the millions who were imprisoned and forgotten in Soviet gulags, Menendez said. I am compelled to ask again today as I have before why is there such an obvious double standard when it comes to Cuba? Rubio said Castro government officials are master manipulators of U.S. policy and public opinion. The two senators favor a hard-line stance against Cuba until regime change takes place. Critics of that policy argue that more than 50 years of U.S. sanctions have only enabled Castro brothers Fidel and Raul to consolidate their power while impoverishing the Cuban people.

Doing the plan anyway sends the signal Obama just wants to play politics angers Rubio and kills the deal
National Journal 13

("Obama Legacy on Immigration Reform Tied to Rubio, His Frenemy," 2013, www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/obama-legacy-onimmigration-reform-tied-to-rubio-his-frenemy-20130220)
At a time when one of Washingtons most common laments is that big deals never get made anymore, the

tension between Obama and Rubio is an obvious symptom of an increasingly polarized political environment. Ronald Reagan and Tip
ONeill, they are not. The Republican president and Democratic House speaker famously put aside their partisan backbiting for an occasional lunch or after-hours drink and reached a historic compromise on Social Security. Obama

and Rubio have never socialized one-on-one, but its possible they are building a new framework for the elusive grand bargain, in which
bright lines are drawn long before consensus is reached. I think the tension between these two important players shows this is a serious negotiation, Noorani added. At some point, they have to move behind closed doors and sit across the table from each other, and this is the precursor to that. Rubio and Obama have clashed over immigration policy since last year, when the senator began promoting a proposal that would allow illegal immigrants in college or the military to obtain legal status. The president pre-empted Rubio by issuing an executive order granting temporary visas to children brought to this country illegally. Rubio accused the president of enacting a shortsighted policy that would derail any efforts at comprehensive immigration reform. Since then, Rubio

has repeatedly questioned the presidents commitment to real reform. When the president gave a major speech on immigration in Last Vegas last month, Rubio accused him of overlooking border security at the risk of increasing the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. And when the White House plan was leaked over the weekend, Rubio immediately issued a scathing statement. This legislation is half-baked
and seriously flawed, he said. If actually proposed, the presidents bill would be dead on arrival in Congress, leaving us with unsecured borders and a broken legal immigration system for years to come. One of Rubios complaints was that the president would allow illegal immigrants to jump in front of people who have applied legally, even though the president has repeatedly said they should go to the back of the line. Rubio also said the White House plan fails to tighten border security, even though it calls for more patrols. Rubio

is so worried about coming off his conservative perch that there is a knee-jerk reaction to anything the president does, and sometimes its hyperbolic and factually inaccurate, said Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. There is a risk of creating artificial schisms just because of the rights distaste for anything Obama does. It would be tremendously disappointing if that meant they

couldnt get it over the finish line. The common line of attack from Republicans that Obama doesnt want a deal because then his party cant use immigration as a wedge issue flies in the face of the presidents
obvious interest in legacy-building during his second term. Still, Rubios allies insist that if the president was truly interested in an immigration overhaul, he would have called the senator long before Tuesday. They frequently point to an amendment Obama sponsored as a senator as a poison pill that killed an immigration bill in 2007. This

president has played politics before on immigration, and theres a lot of suspicion within the Republican ranks, said Republican consultant Ana Navarro. I think its incumbent
upon him, after campaigning on immigration, speaking on it at his inauguration and in the state of the Union, to issue the invitation to Rubio. On Tuesday, the president did just that, placing phone calls to Rubio and other Republican senators working on an immigration plan and depriving them of one of their chief complaints -- at least for one day.

Rubios key to the deal **Also says Rubios vote isnt a sure thing and hes willing to horse-trade with his support of CIR
Trygstad and Drucker 13

*David and Kyle. Rubio Must Sell Immigration Changes to GOP, Grass Roots Roll Call, 1/30/13 ln //GBS-JV]
The fate of an immigration overhaul rests almost exclusively with Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican whose star power with conservatives is crucial to moving a bill through Congress. President Barack Obama retains veto power, and Democrats hold the Senate floor. But no comprehensive immigration changes are likely to pass Congress without the healthy support ofHouse Republicans. And Floridas junior senator, perhaps more than any other Republican serving in Washington today, has the political credibility and communication skills to sell such complicated, sensitive legislation to skeptical conservative members, grass-roots voters and influential media
commentators. Rubios position is all the more unique because congressional Democrats and Obama need him, too, and appear to realize his importance to the legislative endgame. Republicans warn that Obama and congressional Democrats

could sink Washingtons immigration policy rewrite by attaching controversial social provisions or watering down the border enforcement and security measures included in the bipartisan Senate framework that Rubio helped negotiate. The Florida lawmaker has said hell pull his support from any bill if that occurs, and Republicans say comprehensive policy changes will fail to garner meaningful GOP support without Rubios backing. If Rubio signals any mistrust or misgivings, the whole thing collapses , GOP pollster Brock McCleary said.

Ext. Rubio Key

Careful compromise now - plan triggers a massive fight with the GOP, and lets the hard right claim Obama wants to kill immigration causes 2005 all over again thats National Journal That kills Rubios credibility and any chance of a deal
National Journal 4-16,

("Immigration Reform Isn't Hurting Marco Rubio's Bottom Line," 2013, www.nationaljournal.com/politics/immigration-reform-isn-thurting-marco-rubio-s-bottom-line-20130416)
Rubio has been performing a remarkable balancing act in recent months, embarking on a one-man media blitz to tout immigration reform (he did seven talk shows on Sunday) without letting the issue totally define him. His
response to President Obamas State of the Union speech will be remembered more for his thirst he reached off camera for a water bottle in the middle of his remarksthan it will be for his brief reference to the immigration system. His leadership PAC leveraged publicity over his thirst-quenching maneuver to sell Rubio-branded water bottles and raised $250,000. Rubio has also drawn attention this year for supporting Sen. Rand Pauls filibuster of the presidents CIA appointment, voting against budget deals with President Obama and opposing his gun-control proposals across the board. His speech last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference didnt even mention immigration and was notable for its defense of the partys platform. We dont need a new idea. There is an idea, the idea is called America, and it still works, he declared. The

senator has worked diligently to maintain his credibility with conservatives by pressing for tighter border security in the immigration bill, going out of his way to emphasize disagreements with liberals and demanding a series of public hearings. It puts in place effective enforcement mechanisms unlike
anything weve ever had in the history of this country before, he said Sunday on NBCs Meet the Press. When other senators were crowing that they were close to a deal two weeks ago, Rubio said declarations of success were premature and emphasized he would not support any agreement that didnt meet his conservative standards. He was playing hard to get before, but he definitely wanted to be got, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Reform, which opposes allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. A

lot of his maneuvering over the past few months has been theater so he could preserve his ability to sell amnesty to conservatives. Rubio dismissed the idea that he was playing politics on Meet the Press, saying, I quite frankly have avoided making the political calculus on this issue. Not only has Rubio yet to pay a steep political price among conservatives, his changed position on immigration has drawn few complaints from liberals who see the charismatic Cuban-American
senator as crucial to passing legislation through a gridlocked Congress. During a nationally televised debate in his 2010 campaign, Rubio said, Earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty. Asked about that remark on Meet the Press, Rubio responded: What I said throughout my campaign was that I was against a blanket amnesty, and this is not blanket amnesty. While

Rubio has carefully navigated the issue, its too soon to declare that he has avoided any major political repercussions. Once the bill is unveiled and people and interest groups get hold of the details, he is likely to face criticism from all sides of the issue. He is also likely to get the most credit.

Rubios influence is key to keep the GOP on board

Dickerson 4-18

*John. Politics for TalkingPointsMemo. Rubio Rising: Will immigration reform make Marco Rubio look presidential? 4/18/13 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/04/marco_rubio_hel ping_to_pass_immigration_reform_if_the_florida_senator_helps.html//GBS-JV]
On Sunday, Rubio appeared on seven news shows, setting a new standard, but the most important pitch will be on CCTV in the conservative club house. Rubio's Florida senator is a

main task has been as an envoy to the Republican conservative wing . The trusted voice on this issue because of his heritage, but also because of his conservative voting record and relationship with Tea Party activists. Rubio has a chance to sell Senate conservatives in a way that Sen. Lindsey Graham never could.
Thats because

members know that Rubio can help give

them cover in the wider conservative world in a way Graham can't. In this role, Rubio talks to conservatives but it also means speaking for them in negotiations with Democrats and Republican squishes. In the coming
days, we'll see if Rubio is able to maintain that balance. He has already had to knock down false reports about free cellphones being given to illegal immigrants. In

his debates with conservative luminaries, even if he hasn't emerged victorious, he's kept the relationship steady. "I disagree with major parts of this bill," said talk show host Mark Levin, " but you can't deny [Rubio] has integrity. Rubio doesnt need to convince everyone; he simply needs to convince enough people to hold a deal together . Can he sell a new definition of amnesty, one of the most potent words in politics? Rubio argues that the bill is not amnesty because the pathway to citizenship is more onerous than it is under current law. Perhaps equally difficult will be convincing conservatives that the broader security
requirements and enforcement mechanisms in the bill will stick when they are in the hands of bureaucrats who they don't trust and who have let them down before. "He

has been great at selling the summary [of the bill]," says one veteran Senate staffer, " now he's got to sell the [legislative] language ."

Rubios capital is key

Grant 4-18

*David. Staffer for the MN Post. Marco Rubio crafts conservative argument for immigration reform. Will it sell? Minneapolis Post, 4/18/13 ln//GBS -JV]
As the bill makes its way through the committee and floor debate that Rubio has sworn to protect, youre going to see more senators piling on" to oppose the bill, Mr. Krikorian says. Rubio will need to sway not only some of those senators, but also powerful outside groups
bill as inflicting pain on American workers. such as Numbers USA, a low-immigration advocacy organization that views the

2NC Delay Link

Time is key to passage introducing the plan clogs the agenda and derails compromise
Bolton 3-4

[Alex. Politics for the Hill. Pressure builds on Senate group to unveil immigration reform specifics The Hill, 3/4/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A bipartisan

Senate group working on immigration reform plans to set a timeline for unveiling legislation, as it feels subtle pressure from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to act . Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a lead negotiator of the ad hoc group on immigration reform, says he and his colleagues realize the clock is ticking. They hope to soon have a timeline for unveiling legislation. We know time is of the essence . Sometime in the next
few weeks we will have a definite timeline. We got a couple of very big issues to resolve, McCain told The Hill. A Democratic source familiar with the talks said

the group may unveil the bill itself before the end of the month . Either way, time is

running short . Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), McCains negotiating partner, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill sometime in There are only three weeks left until Congress leaves for a two-week Easter recess on March 22. Lawmakers and groups advocating for reform say McCain, Schumer and their partners, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (RS.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), need to show substantial progress before the end of the month. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has turned over authorship of immigration reform to the group but his patience is limited. He is eager to move shortly after the committee marks up a series of gun-violence
March. bills this month. Leahy put pressure on Schumer and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to speed up their talks over expanding background checks for private gun sales when he scheduled a legislative markup this past week. The chairman delayed the session to give Schumer more time but the message was clear: time is in short supply. The same is true of immigration reform. I think April theyre looking at and

is probably the markup month then to the floor in either May or June, said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress. Kelley said Leahy wants to see real progress from Schumer, McCain and Rubio before the recess. Leahys really committed to getting this done and hes going to watch it carefully and hes going to want to keep measuring progress. You may
not get the final grade but youll get an interim report before the recess. I would expect theyre going to want to see real progress, she said. I

dont think his patience will be endless, a Democratic aide said of Leahy. One of the biggest challenges in

the immigration negotiations is how to handle future flows of immigrant workers . Controversy over a guest-worker program derailed comprehensive reform when the Senate last debated it in 2007. I think the problem for immigration reform will be about future flow, access to future labor, said Graham. The reason
you have 11 million illegal workers is that lot of employers cant find labor, so we got to address that.

More evidence speeds key

Bolton 3-4

*Alex. Politics for the Hill. Pressure builds on Senate group to unveil immigration reform specifics The Hill, 3/4/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A bipartisan

Senate group working on immigration reform plans to set a timeline for unveiling legislation, as it feels subtle pressure from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to act . Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a lead negotiator of the ad hoc group on immigration reform, says he and his colleagues realize the clock is ticking. They hope to soon have a timeline for unveiling legislation. We know time is of the essence . Sometime in the next
few weeks we will have a definite timeline. We got a couple of very big issues to resolve, McCain told The Hill. A Democratic source familiar with the talks said

the group may unveil the bill itself before the end of the month . Either way, time is

running short . Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), McCains negotiating partner, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill sometime in There are only three weeks left until Congress leaves for a two-week Easter recess on March 22. Lawmakers and groups advocating for reform say McCain, Schumer and their partners, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (RMarch.

S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.),

need to show substantial progress before the end of the month. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has turned over authorship of immigration reform to the group but his patience is limited. He is eager to move shortly after the committee marks up a series of gun-violence
bills this month. Leahy put pressure on Schumer and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to speed up their talks over expanding background checks for private gun sales when he scheduled a legislative markup this past week. The chairman delayed the session to give Schumer more time but the message was clear: time is in short supply. The same is true of immigration reform. I think April theyre looking at and

is probably the markup month then to the floor in either May or June, said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress. Kelley said Leahy wants to see real progress from Schumer, McCain and Rubio before the recess. Leahys really committed to getting this done and hes going to watch it carefully and hes going to want to keep measuring progress. You may
not get the final grade but youll get an interim report before the recess. I would expect theyre going to want to see real progress, she said. I

dont think his patience will be endless, a Democratic aide said of Leahy. One of the biggest challenges in

the immigration negotiations is how to handle future flows of immigrant workers . Controversy over a guest-worker program derailed comprehensive reform when the Senate last debated it in 2007. I think the problem for immigration reform will be about future flow, access to future labor, said Graham. The reason
you have 11 million illegal workers is that lot of employers cant find labor, so we got to address that.

2NC Focus Link

Even if capital eventually bounces back, Obamas got a small window to pass immigration
OBrien 4-8

*Michael. Politics for NBC. Budget, immigration, gun control: Congress returns to debate cornerstones of Obama agenda NBC, 4/8/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Presidents typically have a short window of opportunity
in their second terms to ink major accomplishments, and

the

next few weeks will offer President Barack Obama a key test of his ability to do just that. Congress returns from its recess Monday to begin work on central components of Obamas second-term agenda. Their work over the
next two months could begin to cement, just four months into Obamas second term, the presidents political legacy. A grand fiscal deal,

immigration reform and tougher gun laws topped Obamas second term agenda when he outlined them during a Dec. 30 appearance on NBCs Meet the Press. All three of those priorities have, so far, eluded Obama over the past few months; whether the president can manage a victory on any of these issues could be decided in coming weeks .

Obamas set his agenda to get immigration through new fights derail it
Zeleny 1-24.

*Jeff, NYT political correspondent, For Obama, am ambitious agenda faces ticking clock IHT -- lexis]
The State of the Union address that Mr. Obama will deliver to Congress on Feb. 12 will offer the most definitive road map yet for how the White House will

set priorities in his second term as well as how it intends to avoid becoming mired in a heated
''There's no doubt you want to get off to a

debate over one contentious topic to the detriment of the full agenda.
week. He

strong start, and we've got a pretty big dance card,'' said David Plouffe, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama who is leaving the White House this

ticked through a list of agenda items that included guns, immigration and fiscal issues, but he disputed the suggestion that one item would overtake the others. ''We clearly have this moment where we can get immigration done ,'' Mr. Plouffe added. ''If we don't get it done, then shame on us. We've got to seize this opportunity.''

More evidence prioritizing the plan above immigration is a brick wall kills the deal
Harder 2-6

Amy Harder, National Journal, 2/6/13, In Washington, Energy and Climate Issues Get Shoved in the Closet, www.nationaljournal.com/columns/power-play/in-washingtonenergy-and-climate-issues-get-shoved-in-the-closet-20130206
At a news conference where TV cameras in the back were nearly stacked on top of each other, an influential bipartisan

group of five senators introduced legislation late last month to overhaul the nations immigration system. The room was so crowded that no open seats or standing room could be found. A week later, one senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, was standing at the podium in the same room to unveil her energy-policy blueprint. There were several open seats and just a few
cameras. At least one reporter was there to ask the senator about her position on President Obamas choice for Defense secretary, former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel. Im

doing energy right now, Murkowski responded. Im focused on that. Almost everyone else

on Capitol Hill is focused on something else . Aside from the broad fiscal issues, Congress and the president are galvanizing around immigration reform. Four years ago, the White House prioritized health care reform above comprehensive climate-change legislation. The former will go down in history as one of Obamas most significant accomplishments. The latter is in the perpetual position of second fiddle. To everything,

Murkowski interjected fervently when asked by National Journal Daily whether energy and climate policy was second to other policies in Washingtons pecking order. Murkowski, ranking member of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she hoped the Super Bowl blackout would help the public understand the importance of energy policy. This issue of immigration: Why are we all focused on that? Well, its because the Republicans lost the election because in part we did not have the Hispanic
community behind us, Murkowski said this week. What is it that brings about that motivation? Maybe it could be something like a gap in the Super Bowl causes the focus on energy that we need to have. I can only hope. It will take more than hope. Elections have consequences, but so far the only kind of electoral consequence climate and energy policy has instigated is one that helped some lawmakers who supported cap-and-trade legislation to lose their seats in the 2010 midterm elections. For

the pendulum to swing the other wayfor lawmakers to lose their seats over not acting on climate and energy policyseems almost unfathomable right now. Billions of dollars are invested in the fossil-fuel power plants, refineries, and pipelines that the country depends
on today. The companies that own this infrastructure have a business interest in keeping things the way they are. Immigration reform doesnt face such formidable interests invested in the status quo. They *businesses] have employeesreal, visible peoplewho they value and who they want to make legal as soon as possible, said Chris Miller, who until earlier this year was the top energy and environment adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. On

energy and climate-change policy, Miller added, Youre probably never going to have anything like the fence in the Southwest or the border-control issue that pushes action and debate on immigration, because
climate-change impacts will likely continue to be more abstract in the public's mind until those impacts are so crystal-clear its too late for us to do anything. Another, tactical reason helps build momentum on immigration and not on other issues. Obama

can capitalize on immigration as it becomes more of a wedge issue within the GOP. On energy and climate policy, Obama faces a unified Republican Party. The president has cracked the code on how to push his agenda items through . He
learned from his victories on the payroll tax and the fiscal cliff that the key is to stake out the political high ground on issues that poll in his favor while exploiting the divisions within the GOP, said a former Republican leadership aide who would speak only on the condition of anonymity. With

this in mind, the next logical place for him to go is immigration. Unlike issues like energy or tax reform where the GOP is united, he can claim a big win on immigration reform while striking a political blow to Republicans.

2NC Democrats Link

Democrats hate the plan they think economic engagement steals America jobs Perez-Rocha 12 [Manuel Prez Rocha is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C, Don't Expand NAFTA, July 26th, 2012, http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta]
With Canada and Mexico joining the TPP, the agreement is looking more and more like a substitute for the FTAA. So it is not surprising that opposition to the TPP is growing as quickly as it did against that former
attempt to expand the neoliberal model throughout the Western hemisphere. The intense secrecy of the TPP negotiations is not helping the Obama administration make its case. In their statement, North American unions call on our

governments to work with us to include in the TPP provisions to ensure strong worker protections, a healthy environment, safe food and products, and the ability to regulate financial and other markets to avoid future global economic crises. But the truth is that only big business is partaking in consultations, with 600 lobbyists having exclusive passwords to online versions of the negotiating text. A majority of Democratic representatives
(132 out of 191)

have expressed that they are troubled

that important policy decisions are being made without full input from Congress . They have written to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to urge him and his staff to engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the wide-ranging issues involved, and to ensure there is ample
opportunity for Congress to have input on critical policies that will have broad ramifications for years to come." In their letter, the

representatives also challenge the lack of transparency of the treaty negotiation process, and the failure of negotiators to meaningfully consult with states on the far-reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local laws, even when binding on our states,
is of grave concern to us. U.S. Senators, for their part, have also sent a letter complaining of the lack of congressional access to the negotiations. What openness and transparency can we in Canada and Mexico expect when the decision to join the TPP, under humiliating conditions, was made without any public consultation? NAFTA turns 20 years old in 2014. Instead of expanding it through the TPP we must learn from NAFTAs shortcomings, starting with the historic lack of consultation with unions and producers in the three member countries. It is necessary to correct the imbalances in NAFTA, which as the North American union statement explains enhanced corporate power at the expense of workers and the environment. In particular, we need to categorically reject the investor-state dispute settlement process that has proven so costly, in real terms and with respect to our democratic options in Canada and Mexico. The unions statement of solidarity provides a strong foundation for

the growing trinational opposition to the TPP

in Leesburg, Virginia, and beyond.

Democrat dissent kills the deal

Mooney 2-6

Alex Mooney, CNN White House Producer, 2/6/13, Unions could again be key to immigration reform, www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/politics/immigration-reform-unions
It should come as no surprise that prominent union leaders are among the first group President Barack Obama courts as he seeks support for overhauling immigration policy. It was organized labor that helped ensure defeat of a bipartisan effort to reform the nation's immigration laws five years ago. At that time, the AFL-CIO and other prominent union groups came out against the initiative, fearing a proposal for a temporary guest worker program for seasonal workers would weaken union membership and bargaining clout. That led to a handful of liberalleaning Democrats to vote against the bill, including Sens. Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin and Debbie Stabenow. Mindful that a potential split in the Democratic coalition this time around could again prove fatal to the passage of an immigration bill, Obama met on Tuesday with more than a dozen labor leaders.

Ext. Democrats Key

Democrats are key their retreat is the only scenario for failure
Hirschfeld 3-22

*Julie. Politics for Bloomberg Business Week. Guest Worker Visas a Sticking Point o n Immigration Rewrite. Bloomberg, 3/22/13 ln//GBS-JV]
With Senate Republicans and Democrats moving closer to an agreement to grant a chance at U.S. citizenship to 11 million undocumented immigrants, a long- simmering dispute between organized labor and the business lobby risks sapping the measures momentum . The two constituencies are at odds over a new program to provide U.S. work visas to low-skilled foreign workers, placing pressure on lawmakers poised for a compromise.
Unions are pressing for a limited visa system that guarantees better wages for future immigrant workers, while businesses seek a broader program more responsive to their hiring needs. Its

the thornier side of what is otherwise a broadening consensus

in

both parties around an immigration plan, whose centerpiece is a path to U.S. citizenship for undocumented immigrants. A bipartisan group of eight senators is nearing a deal to bolster border security and workplace verification while revamping the legal immigration system. Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a member of the group, called

the guest-worker issue one of the more difficult parts of the negotiations. Im not going to be part of a bill that doesnt create a process whereby people can come to this country temporarily in the future if we need them, Rubio said yesterday. Theres no secret that the broader labor movement, with some exceptions, would rather not even have an immigration bill. Political Consequences The disagreement carries significant political consequences for Republicans and Democrats alike, essentially making them choose between their strongest constituencies -- organized labor for Democrats and big business for
Republicans -- and achievement of an overriding policy goal that both parties increasingly see as an electoral imperative. Hispanics accounted for 10 percent of voters in the 2012 presidential election. President Barack Obama won 71 percent of their votes, and just 27 percent backed Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who had proposed self-deportation for undocumented immigrants. Since then, a growing chorus of Republicans has publicly backed legal status for undocumented immigrants. Meanwhile, a group of Republican officials who unveiled a top-tobottom review this week called for the party to back comprehensive immigration reform or see its appeal shrink. It is in neither partys interest for one group within a party to stop this, because it is bad for the economy if we dont have immigration reform, former Mississippi Governor and Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour said this week, referring to labor unions objections to a guest-worker program. Worker Program Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat co- chairing an immigration task force with Barbour at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, said

it is ultimately up to Obama to persuade Democrats not to abandon

the bill if the immigrant-worker program doesnt match the unions agenda. If we dont get guest-worker provisions that are exactly in line with what labor wants, we cant hold up the bill because of that, Rendell said. Weve got to do the best we can to preserve and protect the interests of organized labor, but in the end you cant always get what you want. Obama, he added, has his work cut out for him.

Even if some passage is inevitable, democrats are key to a compromise on visas thats key
Palmer 3-21

*Anna. Politics for Politico. GOP: Unions to Blame if Immigration Reform Fails Politico, 3/21/13 ln//GBS-JV]
An immigration reform bill hasnt even been unveiled, but key

Republican lawmakers are already singling out unions as the reason why a deal could fail. The GOP offensive taps into long-simmering disagreement between the business community and unions over how to handle visas for low-skilled workers, which was one key reason why comprehensive immigration reform failed in 2007, the last time the issue was debated seriously in Washington. Sen. Marco Rubio told POLITICO the guest worker program is key to his supporting immigration reform. I dont think its any secret that in the past, unions killed immigration reform , Sen. Marco Rubio said. I think because of pressure from some of their members, theyve at least publicly changed their stance on this. But I dont think they are doing cartwheels over this. Republicans are walking

a fine line on immigration reform, trying not to alienate their base while hoping to attract millions of Latino voters that supported Democrats in the 2012 election. An immigration package without a guest worker program is almost guaranteed to fail . Im not going to be a part of a bill that doesnt create a process so people can come
temporarily to work if we need them, Rubio said. They cant undercut American workers, but if we dont have a system for foreign workers to come temporarily when we need them, were going to have an illegal immigration problem again. Unions take issue with Rubios position that they arent working in good faith to find a compromise for how visas for low-skilled workers should be regulated. AFL-CIOs Ana Avendao said that Republicans trying to cast unions as the reason for immigration reform to fail reek of desperation. It is their last g asp of trying to rewrite the rules of future flow to undermine the wages of local workers, Avendao said, arguing that constituents and the Latino population wouldnt be swayed by Rubios argument that a plan for low-wage workers held up citizenship for 11 million people. But Rubio is hardly alone. Other

Republican leaders on immigration reform like Rep. Raul Labrador are also sounding the alarm against unions. An
amendment that President Barack Obama backed in 2007 would have stripped out the guest worker provision and was one of the issues that thwarted immigration reform happening last time. Republican opposition to immigration reform at the time was well-documented. Its the labor unions Theyre

who do not want a guest worker program thats viable, thats functional, the Idaho Republican said. fighting right now in the Senate to make the guest worker program so unwieldy, so expensive that no one will use it. He added: Theres no way that a Republican would vote for immigration without a workable guest worker program. I think the unions know that, and if you see any break apart in this immigration reform thing that were doing,
its going to be because the unions and the Democratic senators are unwilling to do what the American people want because they are willing to put the labor unions ahead of the American people.

Impacts

Ext. Visa Provision Key

The guestworker provision is key to any meaningful immigration reform even if some immigration legislation is inevitable, only political capital ensures a substantial change, which means theres uniqueness for the DA in the context of our impacts
Nowrasteh 3-6

*Alex. Immigration at CATO. Why A Guest Worker Program Is Crucial For Immigration Reform 3/6/13 Real Clear Politics //GBS-JV]
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO reached a tentative agreement to support increasing lawful migration through a guest-worker program for lower-skilled migrants. The details are obscure, but this agreement is an essential first step for successful immigration reform a step so far ignored by the Obama administration. Without a guest-worker program, quite simply, immigration reform will fail. Overwhelmingly, immigrants come to the United States because they want jobs, and American businesses have jobs to give. Legalizing the unauthorized migrants already here is a sound policy, but without a legal channel for workers to come, others will continue to enter the country illegally. Policymakers seem to forget that there is recent evidence to
this effect. Ronald Reagan instituted an amnesty in 1986, but unauthorized immigration continued unabated. Increased border and immigration enforcement and it did increase couldnt stem the tide. It is foolish to expect legalization and enforcement alone to stop unauthorized immigration. The demand is too strong on both sides of the labor equation. We need reforms that adapt to that reality. Why is President

Obama ignoring a guest-worker visa program? Because unions one of the presidents most valued constituencies have historically opposed guest workers. A 2007 immigration reform effort largely failed because of union efforts to kill it. Late in the game, Senate Democrats amended the bill to end its guest-worker program after five years. The amendment passed 49-48 with then-Sen. Obama, ominously, voting in favor. As a result, Republicans and business interests that supported increased lawful immigration withdrew their support, and the reform effort collapsed.

Turns Case General

CIRs key to Latin American relations
Shifter 12

[Michael is the President of Inter-American Dialogue. Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America, April, IAD Policy Report, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
Some enduring problems stand squarely in the way of partnership and effective cooperation . The inability of Washington to reform its broken immigration system is a constant source of friction between the United States and nearly every other country in the Americas. Yet US officials rarely refer to immigration as a foreign policy issue. Domestic policy debates on this issue disregard the United States hemispheric agenda as well as the interests of other nations.

More evidence
Gittelson 9

(Citation: 23 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 115 2009 THE CENTRISTS AGAINST THE IDEOLOGUES: WHAT ARE THE FALSEHOODS THAT DIVIDE AMERICANS ON THE ISSUE OF COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM Robert Gittelson has been a garment manufacturer in the Los Angeles area for over twenty-five years. His wife, Patricia Gittelson, is an immigration attorney with offices in Van Nuys and Oxnard, California. Robert also works closely with Patricia on the administrative side of her immigration practice. Throughout his career, Mr. Gittelson has developed practical, first-hand experience in dealing with the immigration issues that are challenging our country today. )
In the alternative, should we fail to pass CIR, and instead opt to deport or force attrition on these millions of economic refugees through an enforcement-only approach to our current undocumented immigrant difficulties, what would be the net result? Forgetting for now the devastating effect on our own economy, and the worldwide reproach and loss of moral authority that we would frankly deserve should we act so callously and thoughtlessly, there is another important political imperative to our passing CIR that affects our national security, and the security and political stability of our neighbors in our hemisphere. That is the very real threat of communism and/or socialism. First of all, the primary reason why millions of undocumented economic refugees migrated to the United States is because the economies of their home countries were unable to support them. They escaped extreme poverty and oppression, and risked literally everything
they had, including their lives and their freedom, to come to this country to try to work hard and support themselves and their families.

Deporting our illegal immigrant population back to primarily Latin America would boost the communist and socialist movements in that part of our hemisphere, and if the anti-immigrationists only understood that fact, they might rethink their "line in the sand" position on what they insist on calling 'amnesty. Communism thrives where hope is lost. The economies of Latin American nations are struggling to barely reach a level of meager subsistence for the population that has remained at home; Mexico, for example, has already lost 14% of their able-bodied workers to U.S. migration.3" Without the billions of dollars in remissions from these nations' expatriates working in the United States that go back to help support their remaining family members, the economies of many of these countries, most of whom are in fact our allies, would certainly collapse, or at least deteriorate to dangerously unstable levels. The addition of millions of unemployed and frustrated deported people who would go to the end of the theoretical unemployment lines of these already devastated economies would surely cause massive unrest and anti-American sentiment. The issue of Comprehensive Immigration Reform is

not simply a domestic issue. In

our modern global economy, everything that we do, as the leaders of that global economy, affects the entire world, and most especially our region of the world. If we were to naively initiate actions that would lead to the destabilization of the Mexican and many Central and South American governments, while at the same time causing serious harm to our own economy (but I digress ... ), it would most assuredly lead to disastrous economic and political consequences. By the way, I'm not simply
theorizing here. In point of fact, over the past few years, eight countries in Latin America have elected leftist leaders. Just last year, Guatemala swore in their first leftist president in more than fifty years, Alvaro Colom.3" He joins a growing list. Additional countries besides Guatemala, Venezuela,32 and Nicaragua33 that have sworn in extreme left wing leaders in Latin America recently include Brazil,34 Argentina,3 5 Bolivia,36 Ecuador,37 and Uruguay.3s This phenomenon is not simply a coincidence; it is a trend. The political infrastructure of Mexico is under extreme pressure from the left.39 Do we really want a leftist movement on our southern border? If

our political enemies such as the communists Chavez in Venezuela and Ortega in Nicaragua are calling the shots in Latin America, what kind of cooperation can we expect in our battle to secure our southern border?

Turns Energy
Skilled workers key to energy
Lavelle 8

Marianne Lavelle, energy editor for National Geographic Digital Media, has spent more than two decades covering environment, business, and energy. A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry, March 13, http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortagein-the-nuclear-industry
The reason for the hurry: Big

energy construction will be booming in the next decade, concentrated in the Southnot only nuclear generators but coal plants, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil refineries, and electricity transmission lines. All projects need skilled craft workers, and they are in drastically short supply . The utility Southern Co. estimates that existing energy facilities already are short 20,000 workers in the Southeast. That shortfall will balloon to 40,000 by 2011 because of the new construction. Pay is inching up and hours are increasing for workers who are certified craftsmen. Fluor
says skilled workers at the Oak Grove coal project are putting in 60-hour weeks instead of the well-into-overtime 50-hour weeks that had been planned. Looking ahead, the

nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the skilled-labor shortage. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. Not only were no nuke plants getting built, but workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operation tended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years. But in the next five years, just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance, up to 19,600 nuclear workers35 percent of the workforcewill reach retirement age. "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising average age of workers in the electric industry are a growing concern," likely to push up the cost of
nuclear power plant construction, said Standard & Poor's Rating Services in a recent report.

Turns Hegemony
Reforms key to heg
Nye 12

Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University. Immigration and American Power, December 10, Project Syndicate, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reformto-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s--nye
CAMBRIDGE The United States is a nation of immigrants. Except for a small number of Native Americans, everyone is originally from somewhere else, and even recent immigrants can rise to top economic and political roles. President Franklin Roosevelt once famously addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its ancestors as fellow immigrants.

In recent years, however, US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant, and the issue played an important role in the Republican Partys presidential nomination battle in 2012. But Barack Obamas re-election demonstrated the electoral power of Latino voters, who rejected Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by a 3-1 majority, as did Asian-Americans. As a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform will be on the agenda at the beginning of Obamas second term. Successful reform will be an important step in preventing the decline of American power . Fears
about the impact of immigration on national values and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenth-century Know Nothing movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were singled out for exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, immigration in general slowed for the next four decades. During the twentieth century, the US recorded its highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 14.7%, in 1910. A century later, according to the 2010 census, 13% of the American population is foreign born. But, despite being a nation of immigrants, more Americans are skeptical about immigration than are sympathetic to it. Various opinion polls show either a plurality or a majority favoring less immigration. The recession exacerbated such views: in 2009, one-half of the US public favored allowing fewer immigrants, up from 39% in 2008. Both the number of immigrants and their origin have caused concerns about immigrations effects on American culture. Demographers portray a country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim majority. Hispanics will comprise 25% of the population, with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14% and 8%, respectively. But mass communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to master the English language and accept a degree of assimilation. Modern media help new immigrants to learn more about their new country beforehand than immigrants did a century ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest immigrants are assimilating at least as quickly as their predecessors. While too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long term, immigration strengthens

US power. It is estimated that at least 83 countries and territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level needed to keep their population constant. Whereas most developed countries will experience a shortage of people as the century progresses, America is one of the few that may avoid demographic decline and maintain its share of world population. For example, to maintain its current population size, Japan would have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50
years, which is difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the Census Bureau projects that the US population will grow by 49% over the next four decades. Today,

the US is the worlds third most populous country; 50 years from now it is still likely to be third (after only China and India). This is highly relevant to economic power : whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the older generation, immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US. In addition, though
studies suggest that the short-term economic benefits of immigration are relatively small, and that unskilled workers may suffer from competition, skilled immigrants

can be important to particular sectors and to long-term growth . There is a strong correlation between the number of visas for skilled applicants and patents filed in the US. At the beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of Silicon Valleys technology businesses, which accounted for $17.8 billion in sales; and, in 2005, immigrants had helped to start one-quarter of all US technology start-ups during the previous decade. Immigrants or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies. Equally important are immigrations benefits for Americas soft power. The fact that people want to come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants upward

mobility is attractive to people in other countries. The US is a magnet , and many people can envisage themselves as Americans, in part because so many successful Americans look like them. Moreover, connections between immigrants and their families and friends back home help to convey accurate and positive information about the US. Likewise, because the presence of many cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries, it helps to broaden Americans attitudes and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both . Singapores former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an astute observer of both the US and China, argues that China will not surpass the US as the leading power of the twenty-first century, precisely because the US attracts the best and brightest from the rest of the world and
melds them into a diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from domestically, but, in Lees view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the US. That is a view that Americans should take to heart. If

Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his second term, he will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.

Turns Navy
Effective immigration reforms key to naval power
Council on Competitiveness 9

* Mobilizing a World Class Energy Workforce December -http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/CoC__Pillar_6_Handout_-_Mobilizing_a_World-Class_Energy_Workforce,_Dec09.pdf]

America currently lacks an energy workforce of sufficient size and capabilities to meet the needs of a
sustainable, secure energy system.1 With increasing demand come abundant job opportunities in both traditional and emerging energy industries. Unfortunately, U.S. workers are neither aware nor sufficiently prepared to take them. Moreover, with an aging population and the retirement of the baby boomers well under way, there

is an inadequate pipeline of replacement workers, technicians and managers to succeed them. The United States stands to lose half of its electric power industry workforce within the next five to ten years due to retirement. Americas oil and gas workforce averages 50 years in age; half are likely to retire soon. Workers in these conventional energy sector jobs, from power plant operators to transmission line and pipeline workers, are retiring at a much faster rate than they are being replaced. The introduction of any new energy technologies will not compensate for this workforce shortage. For example, in the nuclear industry, the fact that there has been no new construction of a nuclear facility in the United States in over 30 years has led to the atrophy of skills, the loss of technicians, the dearth of American students in nuclear engineering and a national security risk for the primarily nuclear-powered U.S. Navy. 2 The
development, installation and maintenance of new technologies require skills at all levels of educational training. Many of these jobs, such as building new power plants, cannot be exported and will remain in the United States. So-called green collar jobs could fill this gap over time and provide for significant domestic employment growth, but capitalizing on this opportunity will require government being proactive in developing programs to provide the necessary skills. Government should provide a 21st century education to match the 21st century job opportunities, requirements and needs. There is growing global competition for scientific and engineering talent today, and the U.S. pipeline of students is slowing.3 The private sector, where the overwhelming majority of careers will be, knows best the current opportunities that are not being met. Executives

cite the lack of scientific, engineering and skilled talent as among the most serious challenges facing their businesses today.4 They know what skills will be
required and can assist in developing the workforce of the future by working closely with educational institutions as well as within their own organizations.

Skilled Labor Impact 1st Line

CIRs key to STEM worker infusion
Jones 13

(Richard M. Jones Government Relations Division American Institute of Physics, Immigration Reform Would Enhance STEM Workforce FYI: The AIP Bulletin of Science Policy News, Number 20 - January 31, 2013, American Institute of Physics)
Momentum is increasing on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to change the way in which visas would be provided to recent college graduates and professionals in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields. There have been three significant events this week related to the reform of immigration law, all of which are intended to strengthen the STEM workforce in the United States. During a January 29 speech on immigration, President Obama stated the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. Stressing
that by doing so we can strengthen our economy and strengthen our countrys future, he said: Theres another economic reason why we need reform. Its not just about the folks who come here illegally and have the effect they have on our economy. Its also about the folks who try to come here legally but have a hard time doing so, and the effect that has on our economy. Right now, there are brilliant students from all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities. Theyre earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer science. But once they finish school, once they earn that diploma, theres a good chance theyll have to leave our country. T hink about that. Intel

was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Instagram was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Right now in one of those classrooms, theres a student wrestling with how to turn their big idea - their Intel or Instagram - into a big business. Were giving them all the skills they need to figure that out, but then were going to turn around and tell them to start that business and create those jobs in China or India or Mexico or someplace else? Thats not how you grow new industries in America. Thats how you give new industries to our competitors. Thats why we need comprehensive immigration reform. The White House released a Fact Sheet regarding the Presidents proposal that includes the following: Staple green cards to advanced STEM diplomas.
The proposal encourages foreign graduate students educated in the United States to stay here and contribute to our economy by stapling a green card to the diplomas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) PhD and Masters Degree graduates from qualified U.S. universities who have found employment in the United States. It also requires employers to pay a fee that will support education and training to grow the next generation of American workers in STEM careers. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines a green card as follows: "A

Green Card holder (permanent resident) is someone who has been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis. As proof of that status, a person is granted a permanent resident card, commonly called a Green Card." Also in the Presidents proposal: Create a new visa category for employees of federal national security science and technology laboratories. The proposal creates a new visa category for a limited
number of highly-skilled and specialized immigrants to work in federal science and technology laboratories on critical national security needs after being in the United States for two years and passing rigorous national security and criminal background checks.

Ext. Skilled Labor IL

The deals key to skilled labor and innovation
Mobarak 2-12

*Mushfiq. Prof Econ Yale School Management. Immigration and Innovation The New York Times, 2/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
The United States economy has a comparative advantage in science and innovation. The country of Apple,
Google, Facebook, Ford, General Motors, Boeing, Microsoft and FedEx thrives by creating new products and introducing entirely new markets. The American economy is innovation-driven, and such innovation requires, first and foremost, people with good ideas and skilled workers who can transform those ideas into marketable products. Where does all this talent that our economy is built on originate? Are

we the innovation leaders because we have a monopoly on talent in the world? The basic data suggest otherwise. American secondary school students consistently rank toward the bottom among their
counterparts in other countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in tests measuring science and mathematics aptitude. The

United States has sustained its primary position as developer of new scientific knowledge and product innovations, despite the deficiencies in math and science training, with the immigration of skilled workers . Talented people across the world are attracted to the institutions that the United States has carefully cultivated to support innovation. By any reasonable assessment, a clear majority of the worlds top universities are in the United States. These universities attract talent from all over the globe. Most engineering Ph.D.s granted at American universities now go to people born abroad. In a recently published paper, my colleagues and I show that these foreign-born doctoral students create new scientific knowledge and fuel innovation at science and engineering labs at American universities. In that paper, increases in the supply of foreign students subsequently result in significantly greater publications and citations from science and engineering departments in the United States. Many of those students remain in the country after graduation and contribute to the innovations produced by American companies. Such data on the contributions of foreign students to American innovation strongly support the spirit and the central provisions of immigration reform proposals offered by the White House and by Senators Orrin Hatch, Marco Rubio, Amy Klobuchar and Chris Coons.
(Three of the senators are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will take up the issue of comprehensive immigration reform at a hearing on Wednesday.) If

talented foreigners want to study and work in the United States, economic logic and the data suggest that we should welcome them. American companies working in the very sectors where our comparative advantage lies benefit from their presence. Such a policy also creates other rare but significant benefits for the future of the nation. A typical profile of a recent Nobel laureate is a United States citizen or someone trained or teaching at an American university, but who was born in a foreign country. One might be tempted to conclude from this narrative that our immigration system is working well, but this conclusion is premature and dangerous for two reasons. First, the United States is not the only country in the market for that talent. Three of the five most recent Nobel
laureates from Britain were not born there. Australian and British educators were overjoyed with the quality of their international student applicant pool when the United States instituted restrictions on student visas after 9/11. Other countries deliberately pursue immigration policies to spur innovation. Second,

its impossible to know the counterfactual : how much better off we would have been had our immigration policies been more welcoming to skilled people? American citizens like Bill
Gates, Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg made brave decisions to drop out of school and start some of the most successful companies in the history of the planet. As a former foreign doctoral student, I can attest that under current immigration policies, such decisions are not easy to make for foreign students. For noncitizens trying to create a foothold in this country, it is virtually impossible to take the risks that these remarkable people took.

With no clear path to citizenship, talented entrepreneurs who are foreign-born find

it very risky to start businesses . Their options are limited to taking a salaried position with an employer who could sponsor their visa, or to marry an American. Our policies could be revised to promote entrepreneurial risk-taking by the top talent regardless of their country of origin, because just one Microsoft, or a Google or a Facebook, can change the world. The blueprint offered by Senator Hatch and colleagues is full of sensible provisions, including work permits for spouses of H-1B workers. Talented people often meet and marry other educated, talented people, and

having those productive spouses sit at home is a dead-weight loss to the United States economy. Residents at any major university town in the country will recognize ads from over-qualified babysitters informally willing to look after your children. This

bill will receive predictable pushback with simplistic arguments from special interest groups worried about skilled migrants undercutting American wages. But as other research has shown, immigrants make a net positive contribution to the United States economy, as they create more jobs than they take away, and their presence increases income per worker in the United States. Arguments that skilled immigrants will displace American workers, and thereby prevent young Americans from pursuing degrees in science, fail to recognize that entrepreneurs and innovators start new companies and invent new products that employ more skilled workers. Do we really
believe that people like Sergey Brin or Albert Einstein took away more jobs than they created? Or that Facebook, Instagram or exciting new product lines from Google or Microsoft do not attract more young Americans to science If

skilled foreigners getting stuck to their visa sponsors in indentured low-wage work is a concern, then visa policies should be reformed to allow foreign-born entrepreneurs the flexibility to start their own businesses, not to pursue policies that keep
them from our shores. Indeed, the White Houses proposal for immigration reform includes such a provision for a start-up visa for foreignborn entrepreneurs. Another

counterargument to high-skilled immigration involves the concept of brain

drain worries that by attracting talent here, we are taking away the best and the brightest from other countries that have greater need for that talent. The fact is, these immigrants typically contribute more to their countries of origin than people who are prevented from leaving at all. This is because of the tremendously higher productivity of workers educated in the United States. Labor is the second largest export from Bangladesh, the country where I was born, and remittances
account for over 10 percent of our gross domestic product. I, like many other first-generation immigrants, have continued contributing to the development of my country of birth, by combining the skills I acquired in the United States with my context-specific knowledge to pursue research and policies that address some of the key public health and development challenges in Bangladesh. One project demonstrates, for example, that promoting internal (rural to urban) seasonal migration is a very cost-effective way to counter a recurring pre-harvest famine.

The internal migration strategy works because it creates a better match between where people are and where the complementary inputs (capital, jobs) are during certain seasons, and this leads to enhanced efficiency and productivity. Attracting talented people to the United States and allowing them to interact with the innovative universities and companies creates similar efficiency gains that can be a win-win for the source countries and for the United States.

More ev deal solves skilled labor and reverses the brain drain
Weihua 13

(Chen, US immigration reform a challenge for China, China Daily, 2 -8-2013)

The proposed immigration reform , which has sparked a heated debate across the United States, has not only raised hopes for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, it has also thrilled Chinese students now studying in American colleges and universities. According to the proposals put forward by some Democrat and Republican senators as well as President Barack Obama, the US will offer more work visas and green cards to high-level professionals and foreign students with advanced degrees, especially STEM students, that is, those in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington has been tightening its immigration policy since the Sept 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, making it more difficult for foreign professionals and students to find jobs and live in the US. But the policy has been criticized by many and described by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as "national suicide".

Deals key to High-Skilled Current items dont thump

Preston 1-12

[Julia Preston, Obama Will Seek Citizenship Path in One Fast Push, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/us/politics/obama-plans-to-push-congress-onimmigration-overhaul.html?_r=0]
Even while Mr. Obama has been focused on fiscal negotiations and gun control, overhauling immigration remains a priority for him this year, White House officials said. Top officials there have been quietly working on a broad proposal. Mr. Obama and lawmakers from both parties believe that the early months of

his second term offer

the best prospects for passing substantial legislation on the issue. Mr. Obama is expected to lay out his plan in the coming weeks, perhaps in his State of the Union address early next month, administration officials said. The
White House will argue that its solution for illegal immigrants is not an amnesty, as many critics insist, because it would include fines, the payment of back taxes and other hurdles for illegal immigrants who would obtain legal status, the officials said. The

presidents plan would also impose nationwide verification of legal status for all newly hired workers; add visas to relieve backlogs and allow highly skilled immigrants to stay; and create some form of guest-worker program
to bring in low-wage immigrants in the future. A bipartisan group of senators has also been meeting to write a comprehensive bill, with the goal of introducing legislation as early as March and holding a vote in the Senate before August. As

a sign of the keen interest in starting action on immigration, White House officials and Democratic leaders in the Senate have been negotiating over which of them will first introduce a bill, Senate aides said. This is so important now to both parties that neither the fiscal cliff nor guns will get in the way, said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Democrat who is a leader of the similar attempt at bipartisan legislation early in Mr. Obamas first term collapsed amid political divisions fueled by surging public wrath over illegal immigration in many states. But both supporters and opponents say conditions are significantly different now. Memories of the results of the November election are still fresh here. Latinos, the nations fastestbipartisan discussions. A growing electorate, turned out in record numbers and cast 71 percent of their ballots for Mr. Obama. Many Latinos said they were put off by Republicans harsh language and policies against illegal immigrants. After Speaker John A. Boehner, said

the election, a host of Republicans, starting with it was time for the party to find a more positive, practical approach to

immigration. Many party leaders say electoral demographics are compelling them to move beyond policies based only on tough enforcement. Supporters of comprehensive changes say that the elections were nothing less than a mandate in their favor, and that they are still optimistic that Mr. Obama is prepared to lead the fight. Republicans must demonstrate a reasoned approach
to start to rebuild their relationship with Latino voters, said Clarissa Martinez de Castro, the director of immigration pol icy at the National Council of La Raza, a Latino organization. Democrats must demonstrate they can deliver on a promise. Since the election, Mr. Obama

has repeatedly pledged to act on immigration this year. In his weekly radio address on Saturday, he again referred to the
urgency of fixing the immigration system, saying it was one of the difficult missions the country must take on.

More ev they deals key to retain the best & brightest

ADS 2-10

[Arizona Daily Sun 2-10-13. azdailysun.com/news/opinion/editorial/cooperation-onimmigration-reform-only-way-forward/article_c5b261e3-e267-566f-a2353de051bdce57.html]

And what does reform look like? Both the bipartisan Senate package and President Obama's plan start with even more border security and better enforcement of the federal employment verification system and temporary visas that are overstayed. These are just as important to border security as any 20-foot-high fence -- would-be migrants who have heard they cannot find work and who know they will be tracked down once their visas expire will think twice before leaving Mexico for Arizona. and citizenship that likely will be at least 10 years doesn't sound like amnesty to us. The

LET SCIENCE GRADUATES STAY

For

those illegals already here, a system of registration, payment of fines, the requirement to learn English, and a waiting period for green cards

devil, of course, is in the details, but the principles of reform should be clear: Bring millions of undocumented aliens out of the shadows, allow them to work legally and pay taxes, and bring them into the mainstream of American culture. Flagstaff, as a university city, has a stake in the part of the reform package that calls for an immediate increase in the number H-1B visas for foreign workers skilled in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). NAU is attracting hundreds of foreign students in those fields, some of whom would gladly stay past graduation if they could obtain visas. Based on the number of foreign-born U.S citizens who start businesses, obtain patents and even win Nobel Prizes, this is just the kind of immigration reform that Flagstaff, a self-declared STEM city, needs.

More ev
Redorbit 8

(Science, Tech, and Space News Agency, "Aerospace Industry Faces Coming Worker Shortage", 3-4,

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1281235/aerospace_industry_faces_coming_ worker_shortage/) Kerwin

As the large baby boom generation retires over the next decade, the aerospace and defense industries will be particularly hard hit, and industry officials worry there are not enough qualified young Americans to take the place of these retiring Cold War scientists and engineers. As of last year, nearly 60 percent of U.S. aerospace workers were 45 or older, according to an Associated Press report. The problem could carry national security implications, and significantly reduce the number of commercial product developments that begin with military technology. Although there are two-and-a-half times the number of engineering, math and computer science
graduates as there were 40 years ago, there is also more competition for these graduates. Defense companies must now compete with leading technology companies such as Google, Microsoft and Verizon. "Its about choices," said Rich Hartnett, director of global staffing at Boeing Co., in an Associated Press interview. "There are so many more options today with a proliferation in the kinds of degrees and career paths that people can follow." But despite the industrys efforts to emphasize the appeal and growing importance of careers involved in national defense, Aerospace Industries Association Chief Executive Marion Blakey is concerned the U.S. could be facing a "wake-up call," similar to the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik, the worlds first satellite. Blakey said Chinas

recent success in shooting down one of its own satellites last year, combined with the upcoming retirement of the U.S. space shuttle fleet, demonstrate that the U.S. can no longer afford to take its technological and military superiority for granted. Blakey formerly served as head of the Federal Aviation Administration. In addition to fierce competition for a limited number of technical experts from all corners of corporate America, contractors working on classified government projects are further held back due to restrictions on hiring foreigners or offshoring work to other countries. "The ability to attract and retain individuals with technical skills is a lifeblood issue for us," said Ian Ziskin, corporate vice president and chief human resources and administrative officer for Los Angelesbased Northrop Grumman Corp. Ziskin told AP that he estimates roughly half of Northrop Grummans 122,000 workers will be eligible to retire in the next five to 10 years. Similar trends exist at Lockheed Martin Corp., of Bethesda, Md., which could lose up to half of its 140,000 workers to retirement over the next decade.

Biotech Impact
Reforms key to biotech
Schuster 2-17

(Dr. Sheldon President @ Keck Graduate Institute, Immigration Reform Could Lead to Great Things, Including Better Science and Better Science Education 02/17/2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sheldon-schuster/immigration-reform-could_b_2706832.html)
These students and young researchers not only do amazing things while they're here but their ideas and their drive enhances the quality of education for all of our students and the quality of life for all of our citizens. There

can be a multiplying effect to innovation when international knowledge and ideas gain their own traction in homegrown academic institutions and industries. German rocket scientists who came to work in the U.S. in the wake of World War II were not solely responsible for landing Neil Armstrong on the moon. But they were the core from which a great international community of scholars and engineers were able to take NASA to astounding heights. The input of international students teaches all of our students how to integrate ideas that may vary greatly from their own and how to approach problems from a global perspective -- two skills that are required for success in the life science industry and that we need if we are to continue to remain the world leader in the rapidly advancing biotechnologies , such as individualized human genome sequencing. Reforming our immigration system so that more young professionals like these have the option to work in the United States not only boosts the national economy and strengthens the biotech hubs here in Southern California, which are so important to my state's economy, it also improves the quality of U.S. academic institutions, and, ultimately, is likely to hasten the pace of scientific discovery and innovation. It will certainly go a long way toward keeping the U.S. and its academic institutions at the center of such discovery and innovation.

Key to GM foods
Martino-Catt and Sachs 8

[Susan J. Martino-Catt, Monsanto Company Member of Plant Physiology Editorial Board, Eric S. Sachs Monsanto Company Member of ASPB Education Foundation Board of Directors, Editor's Choice Series: The Next Generation of Biotech Crops, Plant Physiology 147:3-5 (2008)]
Crop genetic modification using traditional methods has been essential for improving food quality and abundance; however, farmers globally are steadily increasing the area planted to crops improved with modern biotechnology. Breakthroughs in science and genetics have expanded the toolbox of genes available for reducing biotic stressors, such as weeds, pests, and disease, which reduce agricultural productivity. Today, plant scientists are
leveraging traditional and modern approaches in tandem to increase crop yields, quality, and economic returns, while reducing the

The current need to accelerate agricultural productivity on a global scale has never been greater or more urgent. At the same time, the need to implement more sustainable approaches to conserve natural resources and preserve native habitats is also of paramount importance. The challenge for the agricultural sector is to: (1) deliver twice as much food in 2050 as is produced today (Food and Agricultural Organization of the World Health Organization, 2002Go); (2) reduce environmental impacts by producing more from each unit of land, water, and energy invested in crop production (Raven, 2008Go); (3) adapt cropping systems to climate changes that threaten crop productivity and food security on local and global levels; and (4) encourage the development of new technologies that deliver economic returns for all farmers, small and large. These are important and
environmental consequences associated with the consumption of natural resources, such as water, land, and fertilizer, for agriculture.

challenging goals, and are much more so when real or perceived risks lead to regulatory and policy actions that may slow the adoption of new technology. Optimistically, the adoption of rational approaches for introducing new agricultural and food technologies should lead to more widespread use that in turn will help address the agricultural challenges and also increase the acceptance of modern agricultural biotechnology (Raven, 2008Go). In the 12 years since commercialization of the first genetically modified (GM) crop in
1996, farmers have planted more than 690 million hectares (1.7 billion acres; James, 2007Go) without a single confirmed incidence of health or environmental harm (Food and Agricultural Organization of the World Health Organization, 2004Go; National Academy of Sciences, 2004Go). In the latest International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications report, planting of biotech crops in 2007 reached a new record of 114.3 million hectares (282.4 million acres) planted in 23 countries, representing a 12.3% increase in acreage from the previous year (James, 2007Go). Farmer benefits associated with planting of GM crops include reduced use of pesticides and insecticides (Brookes and Barfoot, 2007Go), increased safety for nontarget species (Marvier et al., 2007Go; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007Go), increased adoption of reduced/conservation tillage and soil conservation practices (Fawcett and Towry, 2002Go), reduced greenhouse gas

The first generation of biotech crops focused primarily on the single gene traits of herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. These traits were accomplished by the expression of a given bacterial gene in the crops. In the case of herbicide
emissions from agricultural practices (Brookes and Barfoot, 2007Go), as well as increased yields (Brookes and Barfoot, 2007Go). tolerance, expression of a glyphosate-resistant form of the gene CP4 EPSPS resulted in plants being tolerant to glyphosate (Padgette et al., 1995Go). Similarly, expression of an insecticidal protein from Bacillus thuringiensis in plants resulted in protection of the plants from damage due to insect feeding (Perlak et al., 1991Go). Both of these early biotech products had well-defined mechanisms of action that led to the desired phenotypes. Additional products soon came to market that coupled both herbicide tolerance and insect resistance in the same plants. As farmers adopt new products to maximize productivity and profitability on the farm, they are increasingly planting crops with "stacked traits" for management of insects and weeds and "pyramided traits" for management of insect resistance. The actual growth in combined trait products was 22% between 2006 and 2007, which is nearly twice the growth rate of overall planting of GM crops (James, 2007Go). The

next generation of biotech crops promises to include a broad range of products that will provide benefits to both farmers and consumers, and continue to meet the global agricultural challenges. These
products will most likely involve regulation of key endogenous plant pathways resulting in improved quantitative traits, such as yield, nitrogen use efficiency, and abiotic stress tolerance (e.g. drought, cold). These quantitative traits are known to typically be multigenic in nature, adding a new level of complexity in describing the mechanisms of action that underlie these phenotypes.

In addition to these types of traits, the first traits aimed at consumer benefits, such as healthier oils and enhanced nutritional content, will also be developed for commercialization. As with the first generation, successful delivery of the next
generation of biotech crops to market will depend on establishing their food, feed, and environmental safety. Scientific and regulatory authorities have acknowledged the potential risks associated with genetic modification of all kinds, including traditional cross-breeding, biotechnology, chemical mutagenesis, and seed radiation, yet have established a safety assessment framework only for biotechnology-derived crops designed to identify any potential food, feed, and environmental safety risks prior to commercial use. Importantly, it has been concluded that crops

developed through modern biotechnology do not pose significant risks over and above those associated with conventional plant breeding (National Academy of Sciences, 2004Go). The European Commission (2001)Go acknowledged that the greater regulatory scrutiny given to biotech crops and foods probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods. The current comparative safety assessment process has been repeatedly
endorsed as providing assurance of safety and nutritional quality by identifying similarities and differences between the new food or feed crop and a conventional counterpart with a history of safe use (Food and Drug Administration, 1992Go; Food and Agricultural Organization of the World Health Organization, 2002Go; Codex Alimentarius, 2003Go; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003Go; European Food Safety Authority, 2004Go; International Life Sciences Institute, 2004Go). Any differences are subjected to an extensive evaluation to determine whether there are any associated health or environmental risks, and, if so, whether the identified risks can be mitigated though preventative management. Biotech

crops undergo detailed phenotypic, agronomic, morphological, and

compositional analyses to identify potential harmful effects that could affect product safety. This process is a rigorous and robust assessment that is applicable to the next generation of biotech crops that potentially could include genetic changes that modulate the expression of one gene, several genes, or entire pathways. The safety assessment will characterize the nature of the inserted molecules, as well as their function and effect within the plant and the overall safety of the resulting crop. This

well-established and proven process will provide assurance of the safety of the next generation of biotech crops and help to reinforce rational approaches that enable the development and commercial use of new products that are critical to meeting agriculture's challenges. Alternatives extinction Trewavas 2k

(Anthony, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology University of Edinburgh, GM Is the Best Option We Have, AgBioWorld, 6-5, http://www.agbioworld.org/biotechinfo/articles/biotech-art/best_option.html)
There are some Western critics who oppose any solution to world problems involving technological progress. They denigrate this remarkable achievement. These luddite individuals found in some Aid organisations instead attempt to impose their primitivist western views on those countries where blindness and child death are common. This new form of Western cultural domination or neo-colonialism, because such it is, should be repelled by all those of good will. Those who stand to benefit in the third world will then be enabled to make their own choice freely about what they want for their own children. But these are foreign examples; global

warming is the problem that requires the UK to develop GM technology. 1998 was the warmest year in the last one thousand years. Many think global warming will simply
lead to a wetter climate and be benign. I do not. Excess rainfall in northern seas has been predicted to halt the Gulf Stream. In this situation, average UK temperatures would fall by 5 degrees centigrade and give us Moscow-like winters. There

are already worrying signs of salinity changes in the deep oceans. Agriculture would be seriously damaged and necessitate the rapid development of new crop varieties to secure our food supply. We would not have much warning. Recent detailed analyses of arctic ice cores has shown that the climate can switch between stable states in fractions of a decade. Even if the climate is only wetter and warmer new crop pests and rampant disease will be the consequence. GM technology can enable new crops to be constructed in months and to be in the fields within a few years. This is the unique benefit GM offers. The UK populace needs to much more positive about GM or we may pay a very heavy price. In 535A.D. a volcano near the present Krakatoa exploded with the force of 200 million Hiroshima A bombs. The dense cloud of dust so reduced the intensity of the sun that for at least two years thereafter, summer turned to winter and crops here and elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere failed completely. The population survived by hunting a rapidly vanishing population of edible animals. The after-effects continued for a decade and human history was changed irreversibly. But the planet recovered. Such examples of benign nature's wisdom, in full flood as it were, dwarf and make miniscule the tiny modifications we make upon our environment. There are apparently 100 such volcanoes round the world that could at any time unleash forces as great. And even smaller volcanic explosions change our climate and can easily threaten the security of our food supply. Our hold on this planet is tenuous. In the present day an equivalent 535A.D. explosion would destroy much of our civilisation. Only those with agricultural technology sufficiently advanced would have a chance at survival. Colliding asteroids are another problem that requires us to be forward-looking accepting that technological advance may be the only buffer between us and annihilation. When people say to me they do not need GM, I am astonished at their prescience, their ability to read a benign future in a crystal ball that I cannot. Now is the time to experiment; not when a holocaust is upon us and it is too late. GM is a technology whose time has come and just in the nick of time. With each billion that mankind has added to the planet have come technological advances to increase food supply. In the 18th century, the start of agricultural mechanisation;
in the 19th century knowledge of crop mineral requirements, the eventual Haber Bosch process for nitrogen reduction. In the 20th century plant genetics and breeding, and later the green revolution. Each time population growth has been sustained without enormous loss of life through starvation even though crisis often beckoned. For the 21st century, genetic

manipulation is our primary hope to maintain developing and complex technological civilisations. When the climate is changing in unpredictable ways, diversity in agricultural technology is a strength and a necessity not a luxury.
Diversity helps secure our food supply. We have heard much of the precautionary principle in recent years; my version of it is "be prepared".

Russian Bioweapons Impact

Expanding visas is key to Russian bioweapon security otherwise theres no check on pathogen engineering
Brumfiel 3

*Geoff. Physical Science for Nature. Russias Bioweapons Labs: Still Out in the Cold Nature, Vol 423. June 2003. Ebsco//GBS-JV]
Collaborations between Western researchers and former Soviet bioweapons scientists could benefit both parties. But mistrust and bureaucracy are getting in the way , says Geoff Brumfiel. In autumn 2001, three
American researchers sped down a deserted two-lane road that cuts through the forests south of Moscow. They were travelling to Obolensk, once a secret city and home to one of the former Soviet Union's largest bioweapons research complexes the State Research Center for Applied Microbiology. The researchers were part of a programme, funded by the

Pentagon, that aims to keep Russia's former bioweapons scientists gainfully employed on useful projects. Despite the dilapidated surroundings in Obolensk, the visitors
were enthused by the opportunities for collaboration. The crumbling concrete buildings "looked almost like a ghetto", recalls Rebecca Morton, a veterinary scientist at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. But after two weeks, she had hatched a plan to work with Obolensk researcher Vitaly Pavlov on endemic

Eurasian strains of Francisella tularensis. This bacterium causes tularaemia, a potentially fatal and extremely infectious disease that affects the liver, spleen, lungs and lymph nodes, which was studied at Obolensk because of its bioweapons potential. Morton's project, which would
study the surface proteins on different strains of the bacterium in an effort to develop strain-specific diagnostic tests, is exactly the sort of initiative that the programme is designed to support. But almost 18 months down the line, she is no nearer to getting the project under way.

Although her proposal has had positive peer review, the funding request is still winding its way through the Pentagon's bureaucracy. "I haven't spoken to Vitaly for a while, because I don't have much to tell him," says Morton. "It's a little embarrassing." Obstacle course Other researchers who hope to set up collaborations at the Obolensk centre and its sister facility, the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology, known as Vector, at Koltsovo near Novosibirsk in Siberia, are experiencing similar delays. Cultural differences, mistrust between Russia and the United States, and bureaucratic obstacles on both sides are all conspiring to stall promising avenues of research . After the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, US funds flowed rapidly to former nuclear scientists and rocket engineers, with the goal of preventing them from accepting lucrative offers from countries eager to acquire an arsenal of ballistic nuclear weapons. But bioweaponeers were left out in the cold.
network. "The The reason, according to Amy Smithson, a senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center a security-policy think-tank in Washington DC was that US officials lacked contacts inside the super-secret Soviet bioweapons

biological non-proliferation programme literally had to be started from scratch," she says. As a result, more than half of the staff at Obolensk and Vector melted away during the 1990s to where, no one knows
for sure. Obolensk and Vector were two research powerhouses in a network of facilities spread throughout the Soviet Union, known collectively as 'Biopreparat'. This network weaponized

diseases such as plague, anthrax, tularaemia, brucellosis and smallpox, behind the faade of a state-run pharmaceutical enterprise. Scientists at Obolensk and Vector even genetically engineered bacteria to resist antibiotics. In addition to the staff's expertise, the centres have containment labs for working on dangerous pathogens the provision of which is currently a limiting factor in US plans to ramp up biodefence research. With Russia now suffering epidemics of diseases such as tuberculosis and AIDS, it stands to benefit from projects that would redirect the expertise at Obolensk and Vector to these problems. " Russia is a time bomb right now," says Ann Harrington, who studies options for reducing the threat of bioweapons at the National Defense University in Washington DC. "It has an enormous need for facilities that can support public health, and that can monitor and identify disease." In her
former job as acting director of the US state department's Office of Proliferation Threat Reduction, Harrington helped to set up the programme that took Morton and her colleagues to Obolensk. The modus operandi of this scheme, funded by the US Department of Defense and administered by the US National Academies, is to build partnerships between Western academics and the former Soviet bioweapons establishment. A sister programme, run by the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC), a non-proliferation organization in Moscow funded in most part by the European Union, Japan and the United States, aims to pay for more extended visits by foreign scientists to former Soviet bioweapons labs (see 'Blazing the trail'). Take your partners Under the National Academies scheme, researchers are paid to travel to

Obolensk or Vector for up to two weeks in search of partnerships. If they find a Russian to work with, they draw up a proposal, which is reviewed by the US academies' National Research Council, and can win up to $10,000. The idea is that participants will then apply for further grants from the Pentagon, the ISTC or other non-proliferation bodies. Researchers selected for the first round of visits went to Russia in autumn 2001. "I had this idea that I could essentially extend my lab and also switch to interesting organisms that I wouldn't be able to study in the United States," says Konstantin Severinov, a microbiologist of Russian extraction who now works at Rutgers University in New Jersey. But so far, little progress has been made towards realizing the programme's potential. At a National Academies meeting in Washington DC last December, Severinov and Gregory Ebel, an immunologist with the New York State Department of Health in Slingerlands, expressed their frustration. Severinov, who studies viruses called phages that infect bacteria, said that his research

at Obolensk has slowed to a crawl, and Ebel explained that both US and Russian customs officials were blocking transport of even the most simple equipment. The problems have several causes, but many stem from the secretive culture of Biopreparat. For decades, the
network's scientists were cut off from the outside world, other Russian researchers and even each other. Unsurprisingly, they are not familiar with the grant writing, publication and peer review that underpins mainstream science. At higher levels, trust

continues to be an issue. Many senior managers at Obolensk and Vector are veterans from the Soviet era and have a deep mistrust of the United States. They have almost absolute authority over their labs determining what can flow to the West, and
having an obligation to the Russian state to protect classified research. "Scientists may be convicted for giving state secrets to foreigners," says Ken Alibek, who served as deputy director of Biopreparat for five years before defecting to the United States in 1992. As

a result of these attitudes, some US politicians complain that the Russian labs are simply trying to take cash handouts without opening themselves up to proper scrutiny. "We must ensure that the investment can be directly traced to an actual tangible reduction in military threats," the chair of the House of Representatives Armed Services
Committee, Duncan Hunter (Republican, California), said at a hearing in January. Suspicions about the new schemes are heightened by the experience of earlier non-proliferation programmes established in the former Soviet Union, which have been plagued by corruption: lab administrators have been known to take a cut from each research grant at their facility. Today, financial

checks are in place to prevent such abuses, but these also slow research. Following a congressional crackdown, for instance, there are now strict limits on how much of the funding can be spent by US researchers on projects in Russia. "We have some
money for travel," says Bruce Scharf, a veterinary scientist at the State University of New York's Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, who is setting up a project to study rabies at Vector under the National Academies programme. "But I'm not paid a cent." Closed borders Perhaps

the most serious problems are those caused by customs and immigration restrictions . Especially since the terrorist outrages of 11 September 2001, and the anthrax attacks that followed, the US customs service has enforced strict controls on the import of biological material. As a result, Scharf has been unable to get the rabies samples he is studying at Vector into the United States. Similarly tough regulations on both the US and Russian sides are preventing Sergey Morzunov, a Russian-born microbiologist at the University of Nevada at Reno, from sending even basic materials,
such as reagents for a DNA sequencing kit, to Vector. "The expiry date for my sequencing kit is May 2003, but it is still sitting on a shelf in the warehouse," Morzunov complains. New

immigration regulations have also stopped Russian partners in the programme from visiting the United States to build links with their new Western colleagues, adds Vladimir Volkov, deputy director of the Obolensk facility. "Getting a visa for a business trip to the States may now take over three months ," he says.

Russian bioweapons cause extinction

Maartens 6

(Dr. Willie, Ph.D. Business Economics and Management, Mapping Reality: A Critical Perspective on Science and Religion, p. 251-252) Kerwin
The scientists are the high priests of today and their beliefs, dogmas, et cetera, will influence the politicians, and the other decision-makers more than most. This situation might be the trigger to human extinction, and more horribly the extinct-tion of other innocent species as well. When human civilizations radio signals eventually reach the nearest star at the speed of light, our civilization might have extinguished itself by that time already. When it happens, it could happen very, very quickly. You just have to contemplate the mass of biological weapons that the former USSR has developed, and stored on an Island in the Aral Sea to become extremely scared. Super strains of Anthrax, that can even survive an atomic explosion, is but one of the known deadly agents.

Climate Impact
Skilled workers solve warming
Herman and Smith, 10

(Richard T. Herman is the founder of Richard T. Herman & Associates, an immigration and business law firm in Cleveland, Ohio which serves a global clientele in over 10 languages. He is the co-founder of a chapter of TiE, a global network of entrepreneurs started in 1992 in Silicon Valley. He has appeared on National Public Radio, FOX News, and various affiliates of NBC, CBS, and ABC. He has also been quoted in such publications as USA Today,InformationWeek, PCWorld, ComputerWorld, CIO, Site Selection and National Lawyers Weekly, Robert L. Smith is a veteran journalist who covers international cultures and immigration issues for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohios largest newspaper. Bob grew up in Cleveland, where he lives with his wife, Cleveland Orchestra violinist Chul-In Park, and their two children, Jae, 5, and Sun-Hee, 3. He has written extensively about immigration issues and has interviewed people at all points of the immigrant experience, from undocumented field workers to hugely successful entrepreneurs, Parts of this paper were excerpted from the book Immigrant Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs are Driving the New Economy (and how they will save the American worker) (John Wiley & Sons, 2009) by Richard T. Herman & Robert L. Smith. Available wherever books are sold, Why Immigrants Can Drive the Green Economy, Immigation Policy Center, http://immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/why-immigrants-can-drive-greeneconomy)
Raymond Spencer, an Australian-born entrepreneur based in Chicago, has a window on the futureand a gusto for investing after founding a high-technology consulting company that sold for more than $1 billion in 2006. I have investments in maybe 10 start-ups, all of which fall within a broad umbrella of a green theme, he said. And its interesting, the vast majority are either led by immigrants or have key technical people who are immigrants. It should come as no surprise that immigrants

will help drive the green revolution. Americas young scientists and engineers, especially the ones drawn to emerging industries like alternative energy, tend to speak with an accent. The 2000 Census found that immigrants, while accounting for 12 percent of the population, made up nearly half of the all scientists and engineers with doctorate degrees. Their importance will only grow. Nearly 70 percent of the men and women who entered the fields of science and engineering from 1995 to 2006 were immigrants. Yet, the connection between immigration and the development and commercialization of alternative energy technology is rarely discussed. Policymakers envision millions of new jobs as the nation pursues renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power, and builds a smart grid to tap it. But Dan Arvizu, the leading expert on solar power and the director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy in Golden, Colorado, warns that much of the clean-technology talent lies overseas, in nations that began pursuing alternative energy sources decades ago. Expanding our own clean-tech industry will require working closely with foreign nations and foreign-born scientists, he said. Immigration restrictions are making collaboration difficult. His labs efforts to work with a Chinese energy lab, for example, were stalled due to U.S. immigration barriers. We cant get researchers over
here, Arvizu, the son of a once-undocumented immigrant from Mexico, said in an interview in March 2009, his voice tinged with dismay. It makes no sense to me. We need a much more enlightened approach. Dr. Zhao Gang, the Vice Director of the Renewable Energy and New Energy International Cooperation Planning Office of the Ministry of Science and Technology in China, says that America needs that enlightenment fast. The Chinese government continues to impress upon the Obama administration that immigration restrictions are creating

major impediments to U.S.-China collaboration on clean energy development, he said during a recent speech in Cleveland. So whats the problem? Some of it can be attributed to national security restrictions that impede international collaboration on clean energy. But Arvizu places greater weight on immigration barriers, suggesting that national secrecy is less important in the fast-paced world of green-tech development. We

are innovating so fast here, what we do today is often outdated tomorrow. Finding solutions to alternative energy is a complex, global problem that requires global teamwork, he said. We need an immigration system that prioritizes the attraction and retention of scarce, high-end talent needed to invent and commercialize alternative energy technology and other emerging technologies. One idea we floated by Arvizu was a new immigrant Energy Scientist Visa, providing fast-track green cards for Ph.D.s with the most promising energy research, as reviewed by a panel of top U.S. scientists. Arvizu enthusiastically responded, Wow, thats a brilliant idea. As the recent submission of the Startup Visa Act bill suggests, theres really no shortage of good ideas of leveraging immigration to jumpstart the economy. The challenge is getting the American people to understand that high-skill immigration creates jobs, that the current system is broken, and that action is required now. Suffering an Antiquated System While unlimited H1-B visas are available to foreign workers at U.S. government and university research labs, the antiquated green-card system creates a disincentive for immigrant researchers who seek a more permanent stay and status in the U.S. Anyone coming to America from a foreign land experiences the U.S. immigration system. They seldom forget the experience. This vast bureaucracy, with tentacles reaching into myriad federal agencies, wields enormous power over the lives of people
trying to follow its directives. Federal immigration authorities decide if a persecuted family can escape Congo, if a prospective college student from Germany will start the school year on time in Cleveland, or if a Honduran family separated for years will be reunited in Miami. U.S. immigration law dictates who can enter America and how long they can stay. Congress can enact new immigration policies as it deems fitand it did so in 1986 and in 1990. But the foundation of the system remains the Federal Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1965 and 1952. The 1965 act diversified America by opening immigration to new parts of the world, but it also levied restrictions that soon become dated and counterproductive. In a manufacturing era, the act made family reunification an overarching goal, while paying relatively little attention to the migration of highly skilled workers. In fact, it imposed rigid nationality quotas on skilled immigrants. The result, critics say, is a dinosaur of a system ill-equipped to deal with the demands of a fast-changing, global economy. *CONTINUED+ Our immigration laws discriminate pretty heavily against highly talented scientists and engineers who want to come to this country and be part of our technological establishment, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a Congressional panel in May 2009. Of particular concern to employers and economists are two sets of quotas: one that limits the number of visas available to skilled workers, and another that limits the visas available to a nationality. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) issues about 1 million green cards per year. Also known as immigrant visas, green cards bestow permanent residency, or the right to live and work permanently in America. A green card puts one on the path to citizenship. In a typical year, the vast majority of green cards go to people sponsored by a family member already here. There is no limit to the numbers of green cards that can be issued to the spouses, parents, and unmarried children of naturalized U.S. citizens. America accepts far fewer people whose main reason for coming is to practice a profession, to pursue science, or to start a companyeven if that person possesses extraordinary ability. The government is restricted by law to issuing 140,000 employment or skill-based green cards each year to applicants and their immediate family members. Thats about 15 percent of the immigrant visa pool. A chunk of green cards are set aside for religious workers and wealthy investors, so the United States actually offers 120,000 employment-based green cards each year. Within the employment visa categories, known as EB visas, are several subcategories that acknowledge skill levels. For example, 40,000 visas are designated for persons of extraordinary ability outstanding professors, researchers, and multinational executives. Another 40,000 visas are designated for professionals with advanced academic degrees whose work will serve U.S. national interests. And another 10,000 visas are available for wealthy people who commit to investing in a U.S. enterprise and creating jobs. So, out of 1 million green cards issued in an average year, 90,000, or about 9 percent, are reserved for persons with advanced degrees, exceptional skills, or capital to create jobs. Put another way, about 9 percent of immigrant visas are reserved for high-skill immigrantsthe people driving the New Economy. Its a scant amount in the context of a U.S. labor force of 154 million people. Should those exceptional immigrants hail from a nation whose workers are in high demandfor example, India and China they face delays imposed by a nationality quota system. The 1965 immigration law sets per-country limits on employment visas. People from any one nation cannot use more than 7 percent of the visas available that year. This means that workers from large sending countries are forced to wait, sometimes more than 8 years, because their visa allotment has been oversubscribed by their fellow citizens. The 7 percent quota applies equally to every nation on Earth, regardless of its size or the potential number of immigrants it sends to America. For example, Malawi, which has a population of 10.5 million people, is allocated the same amount of employment visas as India, which has a population of over 1 billion. In any given year, only 5,600 green cards are reserved for Indians with advanced academic degrees or extraordinary ability, the same number available to nationals of Malawi. Congress has sought to circumvent the quotas and respond to industry demandsespecially in high technologywith guest worker visas like the H1-B, a source of some controversy. The H-1B is a temporary visa for a professional offered a job by a U.S. company that agrees to pay the prevailing market wage. Only 65,000 regular H-1B visas are available each year, a quota set in the early 1990s and temporarily increased to 195,000 from 2001 to 2003. Many employers say the cap is set too low to meet their needs, especially as they seek to staff engineering and software positions. Some lawmakers would like to help them with a higher quota. These skilled immigrants often come to America as students, then go to work in growing industries. A 2008 study by the National Foundation for American Policy found that for each worker hired on an H-1B visa, at least five new jobs were created. But many labor groups argue that the cap is already set too high. Only a bachelors degree is required to qualify for this visa, and critics charge the H-1B visas crowd skilled Americans out of the workplace, suppress wages, and make it easier for employers to outsource jobs to low-cost countries like India. Even immigrant advocates

criticize the H-1B as a second-class visa that produces an anxious life. Tied to their employers, the guest workers cannot switch jobs unless their new employer is willing to sponsor their visa, and their spouses are not allowed to work. The three-year visa can be renewed once. But after six years, the visa holder must go home unless he or she is able to get a green-card sponsor. The

national-origin quotas, coupled with a limit of 90,000 immigrant visas reserved for highly skilled professionals or investors, helps to explain why so many talented immigrantsmany of them H-1B visa holderswait in vain for permission to live and work in America. Many are now leaving the U.S., or simply not coming to study or work on an H1B. After revealing the high-skill visa backlog in 2007, Vivek Wadhwa and his researchers at Duke University began to
examine the impact. With the support of the Kauffman Foundation, they surveyed about 1,200 Chinese and Indian professionals who had studied or worked in America and returned home. The returnees were an impressive bunch, overwhelmingly young, smart, and ambitious, as described in the March 2009 report, Americas Loss is the Worlds Gain. Nearly 90 percent held masters or doctorate degrees. Many said they expected to start their own companies. Homesickness was common among the immigrants who went back, and many expressed frustration with the U.S. immigration system. But even more said the home country suddenly offered good jobs and bright career prospects. That is the new reality that demands a response, Wadhwa argues. Foreign-born mathematicians, engineers, and chemists can now find worldclass companies in Bangalore, Beijing, Tel Aviv, Seoul, and Singapore. With high-tech opportunities blossoming elsewhere, and anti-immigrant attitudes hardening in America, Wadhwa said his adopted homeland faces a crisis. The United States is no longer the only place where talented people can put their skills to work, he writes. It can no longer expect them to endure the indignities and inefficiencies o f an indifferent immigration system, and it must now actively compete to attract these people with good jobs, security and other amenities. The competition is heating up. In an earlier study, Wadhwa pointed out that most high-skilled immigrants obtained their primary education before coming to America, meaning that the United States inherited the benefits of schooling that was paid for elsewhere. Some countries are looking to recoup that investment and attract their diasporas back home. Alberta, Canada, sensing an opportunity to snatch talent from America, is sending recruiting teams to U.S. cities to lure disgruntled foreign professional workers on temporary H-1B visas. The province is offering expedited permanent-residency cards and quicker pathways to entrepreneurship. Many researchers believe these immigrant-attraction strategies will show results. The reality of the global economy is that employers and their capital will follow the talentwherever that talent is permitted to work and flourish, Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, wrote in 2007. While members of Congress often talk about protecting American jobs, those who persist in pursuing restriction on hiring skilled foreign nationals unfortunately are inhibiting creation and innovation in the United States. In 2007, Microsoft opened up a research and devel opment facility in Vancouver, Canada, just over the border from its Seattle headquarters. Microsoft defended its decision by citing U.S. immigration restrictions on high-skilled talent. Perhaps no country understands better the role of foreign talent in creating jobs for its people than Singapore. In July 2008, Singapores Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, declared that Singapore must be open to foreign talent to achieve a critical mass for innovation and entrepreneurship. Even with the global recession in full swing, Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng announced that restricting the entry of high-skill immigrants would be short sighted and could ultimately lead to more job losses for Singaporeans. America loses more than innovation if newly minted graduates go elsewhere; it loses tax dollars. A 2009 report by the respected Technology Policy Institute found that immigration restrictions cost billions in lost opportunity, taxes, and wages. The institute concluded that legislation considered by Congress to loosen green-card and H-1B visa restrictions could reduce the federal deficit on the order of $100 billion across 10 years. In short, fantastic opportunities are being lost as high-skill immigrants are steered elsewhere. We need to polish our welcome. For starters, Wadhwa argues, the United States could reduce the huge backlog of visa requests simply by making more visas available to skilled immigrants and by accelerating the processing times. His is one voice in a growing chorus that hopes to wrest the spotlight from illegal immigration and illuminate the larger wave, its potential, and the consequences of inaction. But the academic studies, while critically important, do not seem to cut through the noise and connect with the American people. The American people are not demanding high-skill immigration reform. They dont see it as a job-creation opportunity. The word immigrant almost automatically summons an angry response that immigrants take jobs. Something else is needed. Time for a New Narrative Stories connect us to each other. Drawing from the same well of human aspiration, triumph and failure, our personal stories create an emotional bond that transforms strangers into familiar faces. As America once again struggles with the question of whether and how to welcome the immigrant stranger, the telling of new immigrant stories is needed to help heal the chasm between us and them, and between our personal immigrant past and our nations immigrant present and future. During this Great Recession, with unemployment near 10%, the immigration narrative also needs to offer hope for Americanshope that tomorrow will be better. Hope today comes in the form of good old American jobs. We have been told that maybe 4 million blue and white-collar jobs may be created by advances in alternative energy technology, and that wind, solar, thermal, and other sources of energy will move us closer to energy independence, greater national security and a healthier planet. But so far, we havent been that interested in asking the question, who will create and commercialize this new green technology? Much

like the role that immigrants played, in partnership with American-born colleagues, in the information technology revolution and the elevation of Silicon Valley to almost mythical status, immigrants are now emerging as key drivers of Americas quest for world-class clean energy technology. A glance at recent research on the contributions of immigrants supports the expectation that immigrants are helping to lead the green economy and other emerging industries: Immigrants are nearly twice as likely as native-born Americans to start a business. Immigrants are filing patents at twice the rate of the American-born. Immigrants founded more than half of the high-tech companies in Silicon Valley. Immigrants are much more likely to earn an advanced degree than the native-born. (Continued. (Feel Free to ask for the deleted text)
Throughout Michigan and the Midwest, civic and union leaders cheered the made-in-America strategy. U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan told the national media that a company founded by immigrants was moving the country in the right direction. We need a twentyfirst century manufacturing strategy in this country, she said. Companies like A1234 are not only creating quality, good-paying jobs in

Michigan, but are insuring that we do not move from a dependence on foreign oil to a dependence on foreign technology. John Dingell, a member of Congress from Michigan, called the A123-Chrysler partnership momentous on two levels. The future of this country is dependent upon addressing two vital challengesstopping the spread of global warming, and creating the next generation of manufacturing jobs here in the United States, he said. This project gets us closer to achieving both of those goals.

Economic Growth Impact 1st Line

Immigration reforms key to the economy our evidence is reverse-causal
Oakford et al 3-20

[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-granting-legal-statusand-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
But legal status

and citizenship are also about the economic health of the nation as a whole. As our study road map to citizenship for the unauthorized will bring about significant economic gains in terms of growth, earnings, tax revenues, and jobs all of which will not occur in
demonstrates, legal status and a

the absence of immigration reform

or with reform that creates a permanent sub-citizen class of residents. We also show that

the timing of reform matters: The sooner we provide legal status and citizenship, th e greater the economic benefits are for the nation. The logic behind these economic gains is straightforward. As discussed below, legal status and citizenship enable undocumented immigrants to produce and earn significantly more than they do when they are on the economic sidelines. The resulting productivity and wage gains ripple through the economy because immigrants are not just workersthey are also consumers and taxpayers. They will spend their increased earnings on the purchase of food, clothing, housing, cars, and computers. That spending, in turn, will stimulate demand in the economy for more products and services, which creates jobs and expands the economy. This paper analyzes the 10-year economic impact of immigration
reform under three scenarios. The first scenario assumes that legal status and citizenship are both accorded to the undocumented in 2013. The second scenario assumes that the unauthorized are provided legal status in 2013 and are able to earn citizenship five years thereafter. The third scenario assumes that the unauthorized are granted legal status starting in 2013 but that they are not provided a means to earn citizenshipat least within the 10-year timeframe of our analysis. Under

the first scenarioin which undocumented immigrants are granted legal status and citizenship in 2013U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, would grow by an additional $1.4 trillion cumulatively over the 10 years between 2013 and 2022. Whats more, Americans would earn an
additional $791 billion in personal income over the same time periodand the economy would create, on average, an additional 203,000 jobs per year. Within five years of the reform, unauthorized immigrants would be earning 25.1 percent more than they currently do and $659 billion more from 2013 to 2022. This means that they would also be contributing significantly more in federal, state, and local taxes. Over 10 years, that additional tax revenue would sum to $184 billion$116 billion to the federal government and $68 billion to state and local governments.

Under the second scenarioin which undocumented immigrants are granted legal status in 2013 and citizenship five years thereafterthe 10-year cumulative increase in U.S. GDP would be $1.1 trillion,
and the annual increases in the incomes of Americans would sum to $618 billion. On average over the 10 years, this immigration reform would create 159,000 jobs per year. Given the delay in acquiring citizenship relative to the first scenario, it would take 10 years instead of five for the incomes of the unauthorized to increase 25.1 percent. Over the 10-year period, they would earn $515 billion more and pay an additional $144 billion in taxes$91 billion to the federal government and $53 billion to state and local governments. Finally,

under the third scenarioin which undocumented immigrants are granted legal status starting in 2013 but are not eligible for citizenship within 10 yearsthe cumulative gain in U.S. GDP between 2013 and 2022 would still be a significantbut comparatively more modest$832 billion. The annual increases in the incomes of Americans would sum to $470 billion
over the 10-year period, and the economy would add an average of 121,000 more jobs per year. The income of the unauthorized would be 15.1 percent higher within five years. Because of their increased earnings, undocumented immigrants would pay an additional $109 billion in taxes over the 10-year period$69 billion to the federal government and $40 billion to state and local governments. These immigration reform

unauthorized immigrants are currently earning far less than their potential , paying much less in taxes, and contributing significantly less to the U.S. economy than they potentially could. They also make clear that Americans stand to gain more from an immigration reform policy of legalization and citizenship than they do from one of legalization aloneor from no reform at all. Finally, the magnitude of potential economic gains depends significantly on how quickly reforms are implemented. The sooner that legal status and citizenship are granted to the unauthorized, the greater the gains will be for the U.S. economy.
scenarios illustrate that

Ext. Growth IL
The best studies support our scholarship CIR boosts growth
Oakford et al 3-20

[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-granting-legal-statusand-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
Numerous studies and government data sets have shown that positive economic outcomes are highly correlated with legal status and citizenship. Large and detailed government datasetssuch as the U.S. Census Bureaus American Community Survey and Current Population Surveyhave documented, for example, that U.S. citizens have average incomes that are 40 percent greater or more than the average incomes of noncitizen immigrants, both those here legally and the unauthorized. Within the immigrant community, economic outcomes also vary by legal status. A study done by George Borjas and Marta Tienda found that prior to 1986 Mexican immigrant men legally in the United States earned 6 percent more than unauthorized Mexican male immigrants. Research suggests that
undocumented immigrants are further underground today than they were in 1986and that they experience an even wider wage gap. Katherine Donato and Blake Sisk, for example, found that between 2003 and 2009, the

average hourly wage of Mexican immigrants legally in the United States was 28.3 percent greater than it was for undocumented Mexican immigrants. In addition, a U.S. Department of Labor studybased on a carefully constructed and large longitudinal survey of the nearly 3 million unauthorized immigrants who were granted legal status and given a road map to citizenship under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986found that these previously undocumented immigrants experienced a 15.1 percent increase in their average inflation-adjusted wages within five years of gaining legal
status. Studies have also reported that citizenship provides an added economic boost above and beyond the gains from legalization. Manuel Pastor and Justin Scoggins, for instance, found that even

when controlling for a range of factors such as educational attainment and national origin, naturalized immigrants earned 11 percent more than legal noncitizens. There are several reasons why legalization and citizenship both raise the incomes of immigrants and improve economic outcomes. Providing a road map to citizenship to undocumented immigrants gives them legal protections that raise their wages. It also promotes investment in the education and training of immigrants that eventually pays off in the form of higher wages and output; grants access to a broader range of higher-paying jobs; encourages labor mobility which increases the returns on the labor skills of immigrants by improving the efficiency of the labor market such that the skillsets of immigrants more closely match the jobs that they perform; and makes it more possible for immigrants to start businesses and create jobs. Each of these reasons is explained in more detail below.

Reverse causal ev immigration rescues the economy otherwise collapse inevitable

Gittelson 3-26

(Robert, president, Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, 03/26/13, Immigration reform: Future flow must meet economic need The Hill)
For me and my colleagues in the Conservatives for Comprehensive pragmatic, and just immigration reform that respects the rule of law; secures

Immigration Reform coalition, we want to see a fair, our borders, our businesses, and our visa

process; ensures fairness to taxpayers; protects the unity of the immediate family; and especially respects the Godgiven dignity
of every person. Furthermore, we strongly feel that our nation has a moral imperative to assure that any immigration reform establishes a path

toward earned legalization and eventual citizenship for those that are currently undocumented, and can qualify for this program. However, at the end of the day, we

also want to see a reform of our legal immigration system that will actually work to solve the problems inherent in the broken immigration system that have led us to the dysfunctional situation that America is mired in today.
Therefore, it is with some measure of frustration that we find ourselves at a stalemate on the very important issue of "future flow." Make no mistake, one of the main reasons why we now have 11,000,000 undocumented individuals in this country today, is because the legal immigration system that we currently have, did not sufficiently address the issue of future flow when it was enacted in 1986. Other than the issues of a legalization of the undocumented, and the various security and enforcement issues mentioned above, nothing will ensure a successful immigration overhaul more than getting this aspect of an immigration solution correct.

Without a sufficient supply of future immigrant workers, we will not be able to achieve

the economic expansion that will be mandatory to balance our future budgets, or to save our future entitlement programs. Those are hard facts, but they represent an accurate assessment of the reality of our fiscal requirements in the 21st century.

CIRs key to legal protections solves growth

Oakford et al 3-20

[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-granting-legal-statusand-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
Legalization allows the newly authorized to invoke the numerous employment rights that they previously could not benefit frombut were in most cases entitled todue to their constant fear of being deported. Providing unauthorized workers with legal status increases their bargaining power relative to their employers, which in turn lowers the likelihood of worker exploitation and suppressed wages. This means that newly legal immigrants will be better equipped to contest an unlawful termination of employment, to negotiate for fair compensation or a promotion, and to file a complaint if they believe they are being mistreated or abused. Citizenship provides even greater protections than legalization. Citizens, for example, cannot be deported, while immigrants who are legal residents are still subject to deportation under certain circumstances.

CIRs also key to education

Oakford et al 3-20

[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants

3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-granting-legal-statusand-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]

Legal status and a road map to citizenship both provide a guarantee of long-term membership in American society and cause noncitizen immigrants to invest in their English language skills and in other forms of education and training that raise their productivity. Research shows that legal status and a road map to citizenship both create the opportunity and incentive for workers to invest in their labor-market skills at a greater rate than they otherwise would: Nearly 45 percent of the wage increases experienced by newly legalized immigrants is due to upgrades in their human capital. Similarly, a Department of Labor study of newly legalized immigrants found that they had significantly improved their English language skills and educational attainment within five years of gaining legal status and a road map to citizenship.

Access to better jobs

Oakford et al 3-20

[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-granting-legal-statusand-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
Undocumented immigrants are not legally living in the country, nor are they legally permitted to work here. Expensive federal- and state-level employer sanctions on the hiring of undocumented workers further restrict their access to fairly compensated and legal work opportunities because employers are
reluctant to hire immigrants. If they do hire immigrants, they may use the threat of these sanctions to justify paying immigrants lower wages than they are due. Legal

noncitizen immigrants also suffer from restricted job access due to lack of citizenship. Many jobsincluding many public-sector jobs, as well as high-paying private-sector jobsare either available only to citizens or require security clearances that noncitizens cannot obtain. In addition, employers often prefer citizens to noncitizensa form of discrimination that is sometimes permissible under U.S. labor laws. Even where it is unlawful to discriminate, some employers may hire citizens over noncitizens for a variety of reasons , including: To ensure that they are not violating the law by mistakenly hiring undocumented immigrants Because they may believe that citizens are better employees than noncitizens Because they would prefer to hire a conational rather than a noncitizen.

Key to labor mobility

Oakford et al 3-20

[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants

3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-granting-legal-statusand-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]

Legalization, investment in education and training, and access to better jobs leads to greater returns on the labor skills and education of undocumented immigrants. The undocumented also experience increasing returns from the improved labor-market mobility that follows legalization. Prior to legalization, unauthorized immigrants are subject to deportation if they are apprehended and, thereforeregardless of their skillsthey tend to pursue employment in low-paying occupations, such as farming, child care, and cleaning services, where their legal status is less likely to be discovered. Thus, unauthorized workers do not receive the same market returns on their
skills that comparable but legal workers receive. Prior to legalization, a high school diploma does not result in a statistically significant wage premium over those without this education. After legalization, however, having

a high school diploma or education beyond high school results in an 11 percent wage premium. In other words, the returns on the labor skills of the legalized improve in part because workers move to sectors where their skills and education are both valued and relevant to the work being conducted. Hence, legalization and citizenship improve the efficiency of the labor market by ensuring that people are working in fields where their skillsets and training are being used to the fullest extent.

Entrepreneurship
Oakford et al 3-20

[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-granting-legal-statusand-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
Legal status and citizenship facilitate noncitizen-immigrant entrepreneurship by providing access to licenses, permits, insurance, and credit to start businesses and create jobs. Despite the legal obstacles to entrepreneurship that noncitizens currently face, the U.S. economy benefits significantly from immigrant innovators. Immigrantsboth legal and unauthorizedare more likely to own a business and start a new business than are nonimmigrants. Immigration reform that untethers the creative potential of immigrant entrepreneurs therefore promotes economic growth, higher incomes, and more job opportunities.

It solves long-term growth

Krudy 13

*Edward. Politics for Reuters. Analysis: Immigration Reform could Boost US Economic Growth Reuters, 1/29/13 ln//GBS-JV]
The sluggish U.S. economy could get a lift if President Barack Obama and a bipartisan group of senators succeed in what could be the biggest overhaul of the nation's immigration system since the 1980s. Relaxed immigration rules could encourage entrepreneurship , increase demand for housing, raise tax revenues and help reduce the budget deficit, economists said. By helping more immigrants enter the country legally and allowing many illegal
immigrants to remain, the United States could help offset a slowing birth rate and put itself in a stronger demographic position than aging Europe, Japan and China. " Numerous

industries in the U nited S tates can't find the workers they need, right

now even in a bad economy , to fill their orders and expand their production as the market demands," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration specialist at the libertarian Cato Institute. The emerging consensus among economists is that immigration provides a net benefit. It increases demand and productivity, helps drive innovation and lowers prices, although there is little agreement on the size of the impact on
economic growth. President Barack Obama plans to launch his second-term push for a U.S. immigration overhaul during a visit to Nevada on Tuesday and will make it a high priority to win congressional approval of a reform package this year, the White House said. The chances of major reforms gained momentum on Monday when a bipartisan group of senators agreed on a framework that could eventually give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens. Their proposals would also include means to keep and attract workers with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This would be aimed both at foreign students attending American universities where they are earning advanced degrees and high-tech workers abroad. An estimated 40 percent of scientists in the United States are immigrants and studies show immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses, said Nowrasteh. Boosting

legal migration and legalizing existing workers could add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next 10 years, estimates Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a specialist in immigration policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. That's an annual increase of 0.8 percentage points to the economic growth rate, currently stuck at about 2 percent . REPUBLICANS' HISPANIC PUSH Other economists say the potential benefit to growth is much lower. Richard Freeman, an
economist at Harvard, believes most of the benefits to the economy from illegal immigrants already in the United States has already been recorded and legalizing their status would produce only incremental benefits. While opposition to reform lingers on both sides of the political spectrum and any controversial legislation can easily meet a quick end in a divided Washington, the chances of substantial change seem to be rising. Top Republicans such as Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana are not mincing words about the party's need to appeal to the Hispanic community and foreign-born voters who were turned off by Republican candidate Mitt Romney's tough talk in last year's presidential campaign. A previous Obama plan, unveiled in May 2011, included the creation of a guest-worker program to meet agricultural labor needs and something similar is expected to be in his new proposal. The senators also indicated they would support a limited program that would allow companies in certain sectors to import guest workers if Americans were not available to fill some positions. An

additional boost to growth could come from rising wages for newly legalized workers and higher productivity from the arrival of more highly skilled workers from abroad. Increased tax revenues would help federal and state authorities plug
budget deficits although the benefit to government revenues will be at least partially offset by the payment of benefits to those who gain legal status. In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that proposed immigration reform in that year would have generated $48 billion in revenue from 2008 to 2017, while costing $23 billion in health and welfare payments. There is also unlikely to be much of a saving on enforcement from the senators' plan because they envisage tougher border security to prevent further illegal immigration and a crackdown on those overstaying visas. One way to bump up revenue, according to a report co-authored by University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri, would be to institute a cap-and-trade visa system. Peri estimated it could generate up to $1.2 billion annually. Under such a system, the government would auction a certain number of visas employers could trade in a secondary market. "A more efficient, more transparent and more flexible immigration system would help firms expand, contribute to more job creation in the United States, and slow the movement of operations abroad," according to a draft report, soon to be published as part of a study by the Hamilton Project, a think tank. There was no immediate sign that either the Obama or the senators' plan would include such a system. The long-term argument for immigration is a demographic one. Many developed nations are seeing their populations age, adding to the burden of pension and healthcare costs on wageearners. Immigration in the United States would need to double to keep the working-age population stable at its current 67 percent of total population, according to George Magnus, a senior independent economic adviser at UBS in London, While Magnus says a change of that magnitude may prove too politically sensitive, the

focus should be on attracting highly skilled and entrepreneurial

immigrants in the way Canada and Australia do by operating a points system for immigrants rather than focusing mainly on family
connections. "The trick is to shift the balance of migration towards those with education (and) skills," he added. HARD ROAD Academics at

major universities such as Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology often lament that many of their top foreign graduates end up returning to their home countries because visas are hard to get.
"We have so much talent that is sitting here in the universities," said William Kerr, a professor at Harvard Business School. "I find it very difficult to swallow that we then make it so hard for them to stay." The last big amnesty for illegal immigrants was in 1986 when President Ronald Reagan legalized about 3 million already in the country. Numerous studies have shown that subsequently their wages rose significantly. Research on how immigration affects overall wages is inconclusive. George Borjas at Harvard says immigration has created a small net decrease in overall wages for those born in the United States, concentrated among the low-skilled, while Giovani Peri at UC Davis found that immigration boosts native wages over the long run. Hinojosa-Ojeda

stresses that any reform needs to make it easier for guest workers to enter the country to avoid a new build-up of illegal workers. "If we don't create a mechanism that can basically bring in 300,000 to 400,000 new workers a year into a variety of labor markets and needs, we could be setting ourselves up for that again," said Hinojosa-Ojeda. Nowrasteh at Cato also believes an expanded guest worker program would stem illegal immigration and allow industries to overcome labor shortages. He found that harsher regulations in recent years in Arizona were adversely affecting agricultural production, increasing
financial burdens on business and even negatively impacting the state's struggling real estate market. Some large companies have fallen foul of

tougher enforcement regulations. Restaurant chain Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc fired roughly 500 staff in 2010 and 2011 after undocumented workers were found on its payrolls. Putting the chill on other employers, it is now subject of an ongoing federal criminal investigation into its hiring. " The

current system doesn't seem to work for anyone ," Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said.

Competitiveness IL
Brain drain now CIR key to reverse the trend
Castro 4-6

*Julian. Mayor of San Antonio, TX. Hey Congress: Get Immigration Reform Done! Politico, 4/6/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Every year, as

competition increases across the globe, American companies throw up their hands and watch e ngineers, nurses and entrepreneurs, who were trained in American universities, leave in frustration only to invent new products, heal the sick and bring new innovations to other countries. Now is the time for Congress to make sure their groundbreaking and job-creating efforts happen here . Americans deserve a system that works, one thats both efficient and accountable and that puts the undocumented immigrants already here whether they live in Virginia, North Carolina, Utah or Texas on a path to earned citizenship. Its the right thing to do, and its in our nations and our economys best interests.

Immigration deal saves the economy our ev reverse-causal

Roberts 2-11

*Cokie and Steven. Immigration Reform Key to Averting Economic Suicide 2/11/13 http://www.stardem.com/opinion/columns/article_44df8220-74b8-11e2-b769-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=story //GBS-JV]
But legal

immigrants are more important to the country's economic future and deserve equal attention. The current strictures that inhibit investors, inventors and entrepreneurs from settling in the United States might be the single most wrongheaded and self-defeating policy followed by the entire federal government. And that's saying something. Every serious study shows that immigrants are job makers, not job takers. The nativists who resisted newcomers throughout our history have always been wrong, and they're wrong today. Immigrants are far more likely than homegrown workers to start businesses and secure patents . The Kauffman Foundation concludes that 52 percent of Silicon Valley startups were "immigrant-founded," and that list includes Google and Yahoo, Intel and Instagram. Instead of welcoming these economic dynamos, we're driving them away. "Right now," the president said recently in Nevada, "there are brilliant students from all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities. They're earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer science. But once they finish school, once they earn that diploma, there's a good chance they'll have to leave our country. Think about that." We
have, and it's sickening. Countries like Australia, Germany and Canada are taking advantage of our idiocy by enticing these brilliant students with offers of rapid residency and citizenship. Other grads are simply going home, to China, India and the Philippines, where a rising middle class is making life a lot more comfortable than it was a generation ago. "When

America turns away a potential investor, entrepreneur or job creator, that person does not simply cease to exist," warns the R Street Institute, a probusiness think tank. "She returns to her own country and starts a business that competes directly with American companies. And she hires citizens of her own country instead of Americans." It gets worse. American companies are being forced to follow that departing talent and shift operations to other countries. Microsoft points out that while it now spends 83 percent of its research budget in the U.S., "companies across our industry cannot continue to focus R&D jobs in this country if we cannot fill them here." Unless the law changes, "there is a growing possibility that unfilled jobs will migrate over time" to countries that are far friendlier to immigrant workers. Fortunately, smart lawmakers in both parties are confronting the issue. Currently only 65,000 work permits, called H-1B visas, are available annually for foreign-born grads, and they are snapped up quickly in most years. A bipartisan measure, the Immigration Innovation Act, or "I-Squared," would raise that cap considerably, to 300,000 in years of rapid economic growth. Moreover, visa holders would find it easier to change jobs and their spouses would be allowed to work, a critical factor in retaining young, two-professional families. Obtaining a green card and permanent residency
presents an even tougher obstacle course than getting a work visa. That's especially true for immigrants from populous countries such as China

and India, because employment-related permits are subject to strict national quotas. I-Squared

would end those quotas, expand the total number of green cards and create new exceptions for "outstanding professors and researchers." The bill shrewdly recognizes the political pressures to produce more homegrown science and engineering whizzes, so it
would impose a fee on applicants for H-1B visas and use the revenue to support local educational efforts in those fields. The I-Squared legislation makes total sense. So does another initiative, also bipartisan, that would create a new visa category for immigrants willing to invest in startup companies. But, then, these ideas have made sense for years and nothing has happened. The craziness has to end now. As a separate bill or as part of a larger immigration package, Congress must act, and soon. Even Mitt Romney and President Obama agreed on this issue during the campaign. We

desperately need those "brilliant students" the president talks about to stay and work, to think and create, here in America. Driving them away amounts to economic suicide .

Vital to growth and competitiveness

Palomarez 3-16

[Javier Palomarez, Forbes, 3/6/13, The Pent Up Entrepreneurship That Immigration Reform Would Unleash, www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/06/the-pent-upentrepreneurship-that-immigration-reform-would-unleash/print/]
The main difference between now and 2007 is that today

the role of immigrants and their many contributions to the American economy have been central in the countrys national conversation on the issue. Never before have Latinos been so central to the election of a U.S. President as in 2012. New evidence about the economic importance of immigration reform, coupled with the new political realities presented by the election, have given reform a higher likelihood of passing. As the President & CEO of the countrys largest Hispanic business association, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC),
which advocates for the interests of over 3 million Hispanic owned businesses, I have noticed that nearly every meeting I hold with corporate leaders now involves a discussion of how and when immigration reform will pass. The USHCC has long seen comprehensive immigration

reform as an economic imperative, and now the wider business community seems to be sharing our approach. It is no longer a question of whether it will pass. Out of countless conversations with business leaders in virtually every sector and every state, a consensus has emerged: our broken and outdated immigration system hinders our economys growth and puts Americas global leadership in jeopardy . Innovation drives the American economy, and without good ideas and skilled workers, our country wont be able to transform industries or to lead world markets as effectively as it has done for decades. Consider some figures: Immigrant-owned firms
generate an estimated $775 billion in annual revenue, $125 billion in payroll and about $100 billion in income. A study conducted by the New American Economy found that over 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or children of immigrants. Leading

brands, like Google, Kohls, eBay, Pfizer, and AT&T, were founded by immigrants. Researchers at the Kauffman Foundation released a study late last year showing that from 2006 to 2012, one in four engineering and technology companies started in the U.S. had at least one foreign-born founder in Silicon Valley it was almost half of new companies. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented workers currently in the U.S. Imagine what small business growth in the U.S. would look like if they were provided legal status, if they had an opportunity for citizenship. Without fear of deportation or prosecution, imagine the pent up entrepreneurship that could be unleashed. After all, these are people who are clearly entrepreneurial in spirit to have come here and risk all in the first place. Immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses as native-born Americans, and statistics show that most job growth comes from small businesses. While
immigrants are both critically-important consumers and producers, they boost the economic well-being of native-born Americans as well. Scholars at the Brookings Institution recently described the relationship of these two groups of workers as complementary. This is because lower-skilled immigrants largely take farming and other manual, low-paid jobs that native-born workers dont usually want. For example, when Alabama passed HB 56, an immigration law in 2012 aimed at forcing self-deportation, the state lost roughly $11 billion in economic productivity

Immigration reform would also address another important angle in the debate the need to entice high-skilled immigrants. Higher-skilled immigrants provide talent that high-tech companies often cannot locate domestically. High-tech leaders recently organized a nationwide virtual march for immigration reform to pressure policymakers to remove barriers that prevent them from recruiting the workers they need. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, fixing immigration makes sound fiscal sense. Economist Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda
as crops were left to wither and jobs were lost. calculated in 2010 that comprehensive immigration reform would add $1.5 trillion to the countrys GDP over 10 years and add $66 billion in tax revenue enough to fully fund the Small Business Administration and the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce for over two years. As

Congress continues to wring its hands and debate the issue, lawmakers must understand what both businesses and workers already know: The

American economy needs comprehensive immigration reform.

AT//Employer Abuse Turn

Doesnt cause employee abuse
Nowrasteh 3-6

*Alex. Immigration at CATO. Why A Guest Worker Program Is Crucial For Immigration Reform 3/6/13 Real Clear Politics //GBS-JV]
At the time, the leaders of the

AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, and other unions all wrote letters opposing the guest-worker program. James P. Hoffa of the Teamsters opposed a guest-worker program because it would *force+ workers to toil in a truly temporary status with a high risk of exploitation and abuse by those seeking cheap labor . But the employer abuse issue is a straw man . There is a rather simple remedy: visa portability, which would allow guest workers to easily switch jobs. The ability to quit a job without the legal risk of deportation would give guest workers the ability to effectively enforce their own labor standards: They could depart an abusive employer without fear of deportation.

AT//Overburdens Health Care

The new bill constrains immigrant health care access in the near term
Moody 4-10

*Chris. Politics for TalkingPointsMemo. Rubio seeks to assure GOP that immigration overhaul will create toughest enforcement laws in U.S. history
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rubio-seeks-convince-gop-immigration-overhaul-create-toughest-093049158--election.html 4/10/13

//GBS-JV]
If passed,

the law ultimately would cost billions of dollars in new spending for border security measures, while creating a visa-exit system to track when people overstay their visa and a program that would enforce workplace compliance laws. There also is language in the bill that would prohibit those currently in the country illegally to receive government-subsidized health insurance benefits tied to the 2010 federal health care law for up to 15 years .

AT//Rector (CIR Hurts Growth)

Rector concludes high skilled immigrants generate growth
Rector 7

[Robert. Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at Heritage. And Christine Kim. Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the US Taxpayer Heritage Special Report #14, 5/22/7 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-low-skillimmigrants-to-the-us-taxpayer //GBS-JV]
Finally, it is important to remember that, in contrast to low-skill immigrants, immigrants

with a college degree become

positive fiscal contributors from the outset; the taxes they pay will exceed the benefits their families receive. Unlike low-skill immigrants, high-skill immigrants will not produce a generation of sharp fiscal losses, and their children are far more likely to do well in school and be strong fiscal contributors themselves when compared to the children of low-skill immigrants.

The 2007 study from which all your math originates is a joke disregard every claim made in their evidence
Nowrasteh 4-4

*Alex. Economist Analyst for CATO. Heritage Immigration Study Fatally Flawed 4/4/13 http://www.cato.org/blog/heritage-immigration-study-fatally-flawed //GBS-JV]
There are indications that The Heritage Foundation may soon release an updated version of its 2007 report, The

Fiscal Cost of LowSkill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer, by Robert Rector. That 2007 reports flawed methodology produced a grossly exaggerated cost to federal taxpayers of legalizing unauthorized immigrants while undercounting or discounting their positive tax and economic contributions greatly affecting the 2007 immigration reform debate. Before releasing its updated report, I urge the Heritage Foundation to avoid the same serious errors that so undermined Mr. Rectors 2007 study. Here is a list of some of its major errors: Count individuals, not households .[1] Heritage counts household use of
government benefits, not individual immigrant use. Many unauthorized immigrants are married to U.S. citizens and have U.S. citizen children who live in the same households. Counting

the fiscal costs of those native-born U.S. citizens massively overstates the fiscal costs of immigration. Employ dynamic scoring rather than static scoring . [2]
Heritages report relies on static scoring rather than dynamic scoring, making the same mistake in evaluating the impact of increased immigration on welfare costs that the Joint Committee on Taxation makes when scoring the impact of tax cuts. Instead, Heritage should use dynamic scoring techniques to evaluate the fiscal effects of immigration reform. For example, Heritage should assume that wages and gross domestic product are altered considerably because of immigration policy reforms. In contrast to that economic reality, immigrant wages, gross domestic product, and government welfare programs are unrealistically static in Mr. Rectors

study. His study largely ignores the wage increases experienced by immigrants and their descendants over the course of their working lives, how those wages would alter after legalization, and the huge gains in education amongst the second and third generation of Hispanics.[3] Heritage is devoted to dynamic scoring in other policy areas it should be so devoted to it here too.[4] Factor in known indirect fiscal effects .[5] The consensus among economists is that the economic gains from immigration vastly outweigh the costs.[6] In 2007, Mr. Rector incorrectly noted that, there is little evidence to suggest that low-skill immigrants increase the incomes of non-immigrants. Immigrants boost the supply and demand sides of the American economy, increasing productivity through labor and capital market complementarities with a net positive impact on American wages.[7] Heritage should adjust its estimates to take account of the positive spill-overs of low-skilled immigration. Assume that wages for legalized immigrants would increase dramatically .[8] Heritage did not assume large wage gains for unauthorized immigrants after legalization. In the wake of
the 1986 Reagan amnesty, wages for legalized immigrants increased sometimes by as much as 15 percent because legal workers are more productive and can command higher wages than illegal workers. Heritage

should adopt similar wage increases to

estimate the economic effects of immigration reform if it were to happen today.[9] Assume realistic levels of welfare use .[10] Vast numbers of immigrants will return to their home countries before collecting entitlements,[11] the chilling effect whereby immigrants are afraid of using welfare reduces their usage of it, and immigrants use less welfare across the board. [12] 100 native-born adults eligible
for Medicaid will cost the taxpayers about $98,000 a year. A comparable number of poor non-citizen immigrants cost approximately $57,000 a year a 42 percent lower bill than for natives. For children, citizens cost $67,000 and non-citizens cost $22,700 a year a whopping 66 percent lower cost. Heritage should adjust its estimates of future immigrant welfare use downward. [13]

Use latest legislation as

benchmark .[14] The current immigration plan, if rumors are to be believed, would stretch a path to citizenship out for 13 years.[15] Most welfare benefits will be inaccessible until then, so Heritages report must take that timeline into account. Remittances do not decrease long term consumption .[16] Remittances sent home by immigrants will eventually return to the U.S. economy in the form of increased exports or capital account surpluses. Heritage should recognize this aspect of economic reality rather than assuming remittances are merely a short-term economic cost. Factor in immigration enforcement costs .[17] Heritage did not compare costs of legalization and guest workers to the costs of the policy status quo
workers out of the U.S. would adversely affect income and profitability.[18] or increases in enforcement. The government spends nearly $18,000 per illegal immigrant apprehension while the economic distortions caused by forcing millions of consumers, renters, and

Use transparent methodology .[19] Heritages methodology should replicate that of the National Research Councils authoritative and highly praised
even by immigration restrictionists study entitled The New Americans.[20] That study is the benchmark against which all efforts at generational fiscal accounting including Heritages 2007 report are measured. If Heritage deviates from their methods, it should explain its

Dont count citizen spouses .[22] Heritage counted U.S.-born spouses of unauthorized immigrants as fiscal costs. Counting the net immigrant fiscal impact means counting immigrants and perhaps their children at most,[23] not native-born spouses who would be on the entitlement roles regardless of whether they married an immigrant or a native-born American. Suggest changes to the welfare state . Heritage has elsewhere called low-skill migrant workers a net positive and a leading cause of economic growth*24+ and accurately reported that *t+he consensus of the vast majority of economists is that the broad economic gains from openness to trade and immigration far outweigh the isolated cases of economic loss.*25+ Instead of arguing against low-skill immigration, Mr. Rector should instead suggest reforms that would, in the words of Catos late Chairman Bill Niskanen, build a wall
methodology in a clear and accessible way that states why they altered practice.[21] around the welfare state, not around the country.*26+ It is imperative that the economic costs and benefits of increased immigration be studied using proper methods and the most recent data. A previous report by the Heritage Foundation in 2006 entitled, The Real Problem with Immigration and the Real Solution, by Tim Kane and Kirk Johnson roundly rejected the negative economic assessments of Mr. Rectors 2007 study.[27] Not only does Mr. Rector not speak for the broad conservative movement; it appears that economists who have worked for the Heritage Foundation also disagree with Mr. Rectors conclusions. For decades, the Heritage Foundation has been an influential intellectual force in conservative circles. Its economic analyses have been predicated on consideration of the dynamic effects of policy changes as opposed to static effects. Unfortunately, Mr. Rectors

past work has not been consistent in this regard, employing the same static scoring conservatives have traditionally distrusted in other policy areas. Many conservatives rely on the Heritage Foundation for accurate research about immigrations impact on the economy. Before releasing another study assessing the net fiscal impacts of immigration reform, Heritage should correct the errors outlined above to guarantee the most accurate information on this important topic is available.

The deals key to skilled workers comparatively bigger internal link to growth
Basu 2-6

Basu 2/6, Rekha Basu is a staff writer. (Immigration reform has plenty of positives, (http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20130206/OPINION02/302060026/Immig ration-reform-has-plenty-positives-, 2/6/2013) Kerwin
Its starting to look as if meaningful

immigration reform finally has a chance of becoming law. If it does, it could bring to an end one of the countrys most self-defeating standoffs. It wont necessarily be because

politicians suddenly found God or awoke to the value of immigrants. More likely it

will be out of pragmatic self-interest. The Latino voting population is growing rapidly, and immigration reform is very important to its members. Senate Republicans know what it could mean for them that Democrat Barack Obama trounced Republican Mitt Romney among Hispanics, 71 percent to 27 percent in November. But regardless of why our broken immigration system ultimately gets fixed, the implications for Americas future are boundless if it does. From a community standpoint, it will mean an end to a two-tiered society in which 11 million people dont even exist on paper. The meat packer, the construction worker, the people who mow our lawns, clean our homes or care for our kids wont need to be paid under the table or by using fake documents. The roads will be safer as people who arent legally eligible to drive get licenses and insurance. More license fees mean more money for strapped public services. Neighborhoods will become more stable, as people who couldnt get bank loans or credit cards or Social Security numbers are eligible to buy instead of rent. People not forced underground can play more active roles in
their childrens schools, in neighborhood and civic organizations. As crime victims, they will be freer to call police on criminals who might prey on others. It will be harder for employers and managers to exploit, rape, withhold wages from, and force overtime on workers, because workers wont be silenced by their immigration status.

And there are the economic benefits. New jobs will be created and filled, new patents will be granted and employers will be better able to fill medical, engineering, computer and other high-tech jobs for which there is a skills shortage. That will allow U.S. companies to stay productive. This isnt just conjecture. High-skilled immigrants contribute more than their share as inventors, employers and consumers. Studies show immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to get patents on new inventions or processes. Immigrants from India, for example, are only 1 percent of the U.S. population, yet one-third of the engineers in Silicon Valley. And 71 percent of Indians in America have a bachelors degree compared to 28 percent of the overall U.S. population. One in four high-tech start-ups is started by an immigrant. In fact, for every 100 H1B visas (temporary visas for high-skilled immigrants), 183 American jobs are created. But there arent enough visas. With the right kind of immigration reform, there wont be a 25-or-more year wait for a permanent residence visa (for Indian professionals, the wait can be up to 70 years), or a yearly limit of 140,000, or a 25,000 cap per country. The line to become a citizen will move faster. Families will not be separated for decades, with those here sending half their paychecks back to members who cant legally join them. More money will stay in this economy. The skills of many graduates of our top universities wont be lost when they are forced to leave the country. More people are not just employees but customers for businesses. On the downside, its possible that some U.S. workers will be competing with immigrants for low-wage jobs. Then again, if employers cant pay people less for being undocumented, then the playing field will be more level. But studies also find that American workers dont want the jobs undocumented immigrants have taken, or dont want to move to underpopulated areas for them, as immigrants do. Before this can happen, the White House and Congress
need to reach agreement on some issues. Meanwhile, expect an uptick in immigrant-bashing and baseless claims and stereotypes.

Turns economy/competitiveness
Hinojosa-Ojeda 12

[Founding Director of the North American Integration and Development Center at UCLA Ral Hinojosa-Ojeda, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Cato Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1 Winter 2012]
The historical experience of legalization under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act indicates that c omprehensive i mmigration r eform would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue. Even though IRCA was implemented during a period that included a recession and high
unemployment (199091), it still helped raise wages and spurred increases in educational, home, and small business investments by newly legalized immigrants. Taking

the experience of IRCA as a starting point, we estimate that c omprehensive

i mmigration r eform would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product (GDP)

over 10 years. 1 This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current vicious cycle where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on already low wages, and toward a virtuous cycle of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward
pressure on wages.

India Relations Impact 1st Line

Deal solves US-India relations --- builds trade relationships
LAT 12

(The LA Times, 11/19/12. Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform, p. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigration-reformeagerly-awaited-by-source-countries.html)
" C omprehensive

i mmigration r eform will see expansion of skilled labor visas," predicted B. Lindsay Lowell, director

of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. A former research chief for the congressionally appointed Commission on Immigration Reform, Lowell said he expects to see at

least a fivefold increase in the number of highly skilled labor visas that would provide "a significant shot in the arm for India and China." There is widespread consensus among economists and academics that skilled migration fosters new trade and business relationships between countries and enhances links to the global economy, Lowell said. "Countries like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad from their expats with the possibility of brain drain, and I think they still see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus than not," he
said.

Key to every existential threat

Armitage et al 10

[Richard is the President of Armitage International and former Deputy Secretary of State. R. Nicholas Burns is a Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for New American Security. Natural Allies: A Blueprint for the Future of U.S.-India Relations, October, Center for New American Security, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Burns%20-%20Natural%20Allies.pdf]
A strengthened U.S.-India strategic partnership is thus imperative in this new era. The transformation of U.S. ties with New Delhi over the past 10 years, led by Presidents Clinton and Bush, stands as one of the most significant triumphs of recent American foreign policy. It has also been a bipartisan success. In the last
several years alone, the United States and India have completed a landmark civil nuclear cooperation agreement, enhanced military ties, expanded defense trade, increased bilateral trade and investment and deepened their global political cooperation. Many

prominent Indians and Americans, however, now fear this rapid expansion of ties has stalled. Past projects remain incomplete, few new ideas have been embraced by both sides, and the forward momentum that characterized recent cooperation has subsided. The Obama administration has taken significant steps to break
through this inertia, including with its Strategic Dialogue this spring and President Obamas planned state visit to India in November 2010. Yet there remains a sense among observers in both countries that this critical relationship is falling short of its promise. We believe it

is critical to rejuvenate the U.S.- India partnership and put U.S. relations with India on a more solid foundation. The relationship requires a bold leap forward. The United States should establish a vision for what it seeks in the relationship
and give concrete meaning to the phrase strategic partnership. A nonpartisan working group of experts met at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) over the past eight months to review the main pillars of the U.S.-India relationship and we articulate here a specific agenda of action. In order to chart a more ambitious U.S.-India strategic partnership, we believe that the United States should commit, publicly and explicitly, to work with India in support of its permanent membership in an enlarged U.N. Security Council; seek a broad expansion of bilateral trade and investment, beginning with a Bilateral Investment Treaty; greatly expand the security relationship and boost defense trade; support Indian membership in key export control organizations, a step toward integrating India into global nonproliferation efforts; and liberalize U.S. export controls, including the removal of Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) subsidiaries from the U.S. Entity List. These and the other actions outlined in this report will require India to make a number of commitments and policy changes, including taking rapid action to fully implement the Civil Nuclear Agreement; raising its caps on foreign investment; reducing barriers to defense and other forms of trade; enhancing its rules for protecting patents and other intellectual property; further harmonizing its export control lists with multilateral regimes; and seeking closer cooperation with the United States and like-minded partners in international organizations, including the United Nations. The U.S. relationship with India should be rooted in shared interests and values and should not be simply transactional or limited to

occasional collaboration. Indias rise to global power is, we believe, in Americas strategic interest. As a result, the United States should not only seek a closer relationship with India, but actively assist its further emergence as a great power. U.S.

interests in a closer relationship with India include: Ensuring a stable Asian and global balance of power. Strengthening an open global trad[e]ing system. Protecting and preserving access to the global commons (air, sea, space, and cyber realms). Countering terrorism and violent extremism. Ensuring access to secure global energy resources. Bolstering the international nonproliferation regime. Promoting democracy and human rights. Fostering greater stability, security and economic prosperity in South Asia, including in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. A strong U.S.-India strategic partnership will prove indispensable to the regions continued peace and prosperity. Both India and the United States have a vital interest in maintaining a stable balance of power in Asia. Neither seeks containment of China, but the likelihood of a peaceful Chinese rise increases if it ascends in a region where the great democratic powers are also strong. Growing U.S.-India strategic ties will ensure that Asia will not have a vacuum of power and will make it easier for both Washington and New Delhi to have productive relations with Beijing. In addition, a strengthened relationship with India, a natural democratic partner, will signal that the United States remains committed to a strong and enduring presence in Asia. The need for closer U.S.-India cooperation goes well beyond regional concerns. In light of its rise, India will play an increasingly vital role in addressing virtually all major global challenges. Now is the time to transform a series of bilateral achievements into a lasting regional and global partnership.

Ext. India Relations IL

Visa policy is dragging down US-India relations now only CIR can reaffirm our alliance with India
Zee News 12

*Krishna, Hillary to discuss visa fee hike in NY, October 1st, 2012, http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/krishna-hillary-to-discuss-visa-fee-hike-inny_802978.html]
New York: The

issue of US visa fee hike, which has hurt several Indian IT firms, is expected to come up for discussion when External Affairs Minister SM Krishna meets US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton here on Monday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session. India has "consistently" taken up the issue of the visa fee hike with the US and the issue will figure in talks between Krishna and Clinton, official sources said. The US had raised visa fee in 2010 to
fund its enhanced costs on securing border with Mexico under the Border Security Act. Some of the top Indian companies TCS, Infosys, Wipro and Mahindra Satyam were affected by the US action and India is expected to soon seek consultations with the US at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on the issue. The sources said that young

Indian professionals working in the US have been the "cornerstone" of India-US relations and are a pillar in the improved bilateral relations that has brought the two countries closer. Hiking visa fees or limiting the number of work visas available to Indian companies is tantamount to "undermining that pillar and growth in India-US relations," they added. "Raising visa fees and putting other barriers is not in consonance with the forward thinking of growing bilateral ties," the
sources said. This will be the third bilateral meeting between Krishna and Clinton this year. They had previously met in India in April and again in June in Washington. The sources said that the two countries have a fairly elaborate agenda and the visa issue is one of the issues in a broader relationship. Krishna will also address the 67th session of the UN General Assembly today.

part of the world are essential to the peace and prosperity of the world.

h-1bs are key to indian relations.

Economic Times 09
*Oct. 19, India to ask US for more H-1B visas, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/services/travel/visa-power/Indiato-ask-US-for-more-H-1B-visas/articleshow/5137427.cms]

India is likely to ask the United States to raise the cap on visas for skilled workers at the bilateral trade forum
meeting to be held in New Delhi later this month, a government official told ET. India may also push for a special mechanism for Indian professionals travelling to the US for short-term assignments arising out of contractual obligations. The

issue of a more liberal and

simple US visa regime for professionals will be high on Indias agenda at the bilateral meeting to be chaired by
Indian commerce minister Anand Sharma and the US trade representative Ron Kirk, the official said. H-1B visas, which are non-immigrant US visas for skilled professionals, given for up to six years, are highly popular with Indian IT companies such as Infosys, Wipro, TCS and Satyam, which usually corner a big chunk of such visas issued by the US. The subsidiaries of these companies in the US usually employ H-1B visa professionals to deliver services at customers location. The

number of world-wide H-1B visas issued to professionals was reduced by more than half to 65,000 per year about two years back. This has affected the functioning of Indian companies in the US, especially ones in the IT sector, the official said. He added that India was keen on taking up with the new US government the issue of a possible increase in the cap on such visas . Although, this year, the
entire quota of 65,000 H-1B visas has not yet been utilised because of the on-going global economic slow down, the official pointed out that it was a temporary phase and the demand for US work visas would soar the moment the global economy began to look up.

Visa restrictions destroy US-India cooperation.

Nalapat 10

(M.D., Professor of Geopolitics Manipal University, Vice Chair Manipal Advanced Research Group, and Peace Chair UNESCO, Outside View: Obama and India, UPI, 116, Lexis)
Today, thanks to Hillary Clinton, these

irritants are back. Indian scientists, including people such as Goverdhan Mehta who is a member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences, are once again being denied visas to enter the United States. Those working in

aerospace, physics and chemistry find it next to impossible to visit the United States even to attend a conference. This has created anger among India's scientists, who are now dismissive of Singh's claim that there has been a qualitative improvement in U.S.-India high-tech cooperation. Of course, a few cosmetic
measures have been permitted by Clinton and Obama, such as the sending of a small NASA payload aboard India's recent mission to the moon.

Ext. India Relations Impact

US/India relations are key to prevent South Asian nuclear war Schaffer 2, (Teresita Director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Security, Washington Quarterly, p. Lexis)
Washington's increased interest in India since the late 1990s reflects India's economic expansion and position as Asia's newest rising power. New Delhi, for its part, is adjusting to the end of the Cold War. As a result, both giant democracies see that they can benefit by closer cooperation. For Washington, the advantages include a wider network of friends in Asia at a time when the region is changing rapidly, as well as a stronger position from which to help calm possible future nuclear tensions in the region. Enhanced trade and investment benefit both countries and are a prerequisite for improved U.S. relations with India. For
India, the country's ambition to assume a stronger leadership role in the world and to maintain an economy that lifts its people out of poverty depends critically on good relations with the United States.

Controls all Asian escalation

Tellis 5,

[Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment, 11/16/2005 (Ashley, Testimony before the House Committee on International Relations, http://carnegieendowment.org/2005/11/17/u.s.-india-global-partnershiphow-significant-for-american-interests/5417) Kerwin
If I am permitted to digress a bit, let me say parenthetically, that advancing

the growth of Indian power, as the Administration currently intends, is not directed, as many critics have alleged, at containing China. I do not believe that a policy of containing China is either feasible or necessary at this point in time. (India too, currently, has no interest in becoming part of any coalition aimed at containing China.) Rather, the Administrations strategy of assisting India to become a major world power in the twentyfirst century is directed, first and foremost, towards constructing a stable geopolitical order in Asia that is conducive to peace and prosperity. There is little doubt today that the Asian continent is poised to become the new
center of gravity in international politics. Although lower growth in the labor force, reduced export performance, diminishing returns to capital, changes in demographic structure, and the maturation of the economy all suggest that national growth rates in several key Asian statesin particular Japan, South Korea, and possibly Chinaare likely to decline in comparison to the latter half of the Cold War period, the spurt in Indian growth rates, coupled with the relatively high though still marginally declining growth

rates in China, will propel Asias share of the global economy to some 43% by 2025, thus making the continent the largest single locus of economic power worldwide. An Asia that hosts economic power of such magnitude, along with its strong and growing connectivity to the American economy, will become an arena vital to the United States in much the same way that Europe was the grand prize during the Cold War. In such circumstances, the Administrations policy of developing a new global partnership with India represents a considered effort at shaping the emerging Asian environment to suit American interests in the twenty-first century. Even as the United States focuses on developing good relations with all the major Asian states, it is eminently reasonable for Washington not only to invest additional resources in strengthening the continents democratic powers but also to deepen the bilateral relationship enjoyed with each of these countrieson the assumption that the proliferation of strong democratic states in Asia represents the best insurance against intra-continental instability as well as threats that may emerge against the United States and its regional presence. Strengthening New Delhi and transforming U.S-Indian ties, therefore, has everything to do with American confidence in Indian democracy and the conviction that its growing strength, tempered by its liberal values, brings only benefits for Asian stability and American security. As Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns succinctly stated in his testimony before

this Committee, By cooperating with India now, we accelerate the arrival of the benefits that Indias rise brings to the region and the world.

Agriculture Impact 1st Line

Ag industrys collapsing now---immigrations key to revive it
Serrano 12

[Alfonso Serrano 12, Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws, Time, 9-21-12, http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitterharvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-on-immigration-laws/]
The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex web of local and state anti-immigration laws account for acute labor shortages. With the harvest season in full bloom, stringent

immigration laws have forced waves of undocumented immigrants to flee certain states for more-hospitable areas. In their wake, thousands of acres of crops have been left to rot in the fields, as farmers have struggled to compensate for labor shortages with domestic help. The enforcement of immigration policy has devastated the skilled-labor source that weve depended on for 20 or 30 years, said Ralph Broetje during a recent teleconference organized by the National Immigration Forum, adding that last year Washington farmers part of an $8 billion agriculture industry were forced to leave 10% of their crops rotting on vines and trees. Its getting worse each year, says Broetje, and its going to end up putting some growers out of business if Congress doesnt step up and do immigration reform. (MORE: Why Undocumented Workers Are Good for the Economy) Roughly 70% of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture industry are undocumented. No U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented immigrants. But acute labor shortages brought on by
anti-immigration measures threaten

to heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of stiff foreign competition. Nationwide, labor shortages will result in losses of up to $9 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Key to small farms Gual 10 (Frank, Farm job, anyone?, Associated Content, p. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5877166/farm_job_anyone.html 10/17/10)
Those calling for tougher immigration laws and the UFW claim that farmers have become accustomed to hiring undocumented workers who are willing to work for little, and now make up half the farm labor force.

Legal immigrants make up a quarter of the farm labor. Those Americans who do get hired to do farm work often disappear quickly. Farm work is often offered in remote locations which city dwellers find difficult to get to, and one solution would be to provide transportation from central cities with high unemployment to outlying farms. Another possibility would be to use prisoners incarcerated for minor offenses. A shortage of farm labor will cause food prices to rise at a time when many people are out of work and may be receiving government assistance. It
will also increase our dependence on imported food, which may not be up to FDA standards and could cause health problems, as has already happened. Another

effect of the farm labor shortage will be the continued disappearance of small family farms, which will either be abandoned or bought by large conglomerates whose management is far removed from the local community.

Prevents extinction Altieri 8 [Professor of agroecology @ University of California, Berkeley. [Miguel Altieri (President, Sociedad Cientifica LatinoAmericana de Agroecologia (SOCLA), Small farms as a planetary ecological asset: Five key reasons why we should support the revitalization of small farms in the Global South, Food First, Posted May 9th, 2008, pg. http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2115]

The Via Campesina has long argued that farmers need land to produce food for their own communities and for their country and for this reason has advocated for genuine agrarian reforms to access and control land, water, agrobiodiversity, etc, which are

of central

importance for communities to be able to meet growing food demands. The Via Campesina believes that in order to protect livelihoods, jobs, people's food security and health, as well as the environment, food production has to remain in the hands of small- scale sustainable farmers and cannot be left under the control of large agribusiness companies or supermarket chains. Only by changing the export-led, free-trade based, industrial agriculture model of large farms can the downward spiral of poverty, low wages, rural-urban migration, hunger and environmental degradation be halted. Social rural movements embrace the concept of food sovereignty as an alternative to the neo-liberal approach that puts its faith in inequitable international trade to solve the worlds food problem. Instead, food sovereignty focuses on local autonomy, local markets, local production-consumption cycles, energy and technological sovereignty and farmer to farmer networks. This global movement, the Via Campesina, has recently brought their message to the North, partly to gain the support of foundations and consumers, as political pressure from a wealthier public that increasingly
depends on unique food products from the South marketed via organic, fair trade, or slow food channels could marshal the sufficient political will to curb the expansion of biofuels, transgenic crops and agro-exports, and put an end to subsidies to industrial farming and dumping practices that hurt small farmers in the South. But can these arguments really captivate the attention and support of northern consumers and philanthropists? Or is there a need for a different argumentone that emphasizes that the very quality of life and food security of the populations in the North depends not only on the food products, but in the ecological services provided by small farms of the South. In fact, it is herein argued that the functions performed by small

farming systems still prevalent in Africa, Asia and Latin Americain the post-peak oil era that humanity is enteringcomprise an ecological asset for humankind and planetary survival . In fact, in an era of escalating fuel and food costs, climate change, environmental degradation, GMO pollution and corporate- dominated food systems, small, biodiverse, agroecologically managed farms in the Global South are the only viable form of agriculture that will feed the world under the new ecological and economic scenario. There are at last five reasons why it is in the interest of Northern consumers to support the cause and struggle of small farmers in the South: 1. Small farmers are key for the worlds food security While 91% of the planets 1.5 billion
hectares of agricultural land are increasingly being devoted to agro-export crops, biofuels and transgenic soybean to feed cars and cattle,

millions of small farmers in the Global South still produce the majority of staple crops needed to feed the planets rural
and urban populations. In Latin America, about 17 million peasant production units occupying close to 60.5 million hectares, or 34.5% of the total cultivated land with average farm sizes of about 1.8 hectares, produce 51% of the maize, 77% of the beans, and 61% of the potatoes for domestic consumption. Africa has approximately 33 million small farms, representing 80 percent of all farms in the region. Despite the fact that Africa now imports huge amounts of cereals, the majority of African farmers (many of them women) who are smallholders with farms below 2 hectares, produce a significant amount of basic food crops with virtually no or little use of fertilizers and improved seed. In Asia, the majority of more than 200 million rice farmers, few farm more than 2 hectares of rice make up the bulk of the rice produced by Asian small farmers. Small increases in yields on these small farms that produce most of the worlds staple crops will have far more impact on food availability at the local and regional levels, than the doubtful increases predicted for distant and corporate-controlled large monocultures managed with such high tech solutions as genetically modified seeds. 2. Small

farms are more productive and resource conserving than

large-scale monocultures Although the conventional wisdom is that small family farms are backward and unproductive, research shows that small farms are much more productive than large farms if total output is considered rather than yield from a single
crop. Integrated farming systems in which the small-scale farmer produces grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, and animal products out-produce yield per unit of single crops such as corn (monocultures) on large-scale farms. A large farm may produce more corn per hectare than a small farm in which the corn is grown as part of a polyculture that also includes beans, squash, potato, and fodder. In polycultures developed by smallholders, productivity, in terms of harvestable products, per unit area is higher than under sole cropping with the same level of management. Yield advantages range from 20 percent to 60 percent, because polycultures reduce losses due to weeds, insects and diseases, and make more efficient use of the available resources of water, light and nutrients. In overall output, the diversified farm produces much more food, even if measured in dollars. In the USA, data shows that the smallest two hectare farms produced $15,104 per hectare and netted about $2,902 per acre. The largest farms, averaging 15,581 hectares, yielded $249 per hectare and netted about $52 per hectare. Not only do small to medium sized farms exhibit higher yields than conventional farms, but do so with much lower negative impact on the environment. Small farms are multi-functional more productive, more efficient, and contribute more to economic development than do large farms. Communities

surrounded by many small farms have healthier economies than do communities surrounded by depopulated, large mechanized farms. Small farmers also take better care of natural resources, including reducing soil erosion and conserving biodiversity. The inverse relationship between farm size and output can be attributed to the more efficient use of land, water, biodiversity and other agricultural resources by small farmers. So in
terms of converting inputs into outputs, society would be better off with small-scale farmers. Building strong rural economies in the Global South based on productive small-scale farming will allow the people of the South to remain with their families and will help to stem the tide of

migration. And as population continues to grow and the amount of farmland and water available to each person continues to shrink, a small farm structure may become central to feeding the planet, especially when large- scale agriculture devotes itself to feeding car tanks. 3.

Small traditional and biodiverse farms are models of sustainability Despite the onslaught of industrial farming, the
persistence of thousands of hectares under traditional agricultural management documents a successful indigenous agricultural strategy of adaptability and resiliency. These microcosms of traditional agriculture that have stood the test of time, and that can still be found almost untouched since 4 thousand years in the Andes, MesoAmerica, Southeast Asia and parts of Africa, offer promising models of sustainability as they promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain year-round yields even under marginal environmental conditions. The

local knowledge accumulated during millennia and the forms of agriculture and agrobiodiversity that this wisdom has nurtured, comprise a Neolithic legacy embedded with ecological and cultural resources of fundamental value for the future of humankind. Recent research suggests that many small farmers cope and even prepare for climate change, minimizing crop failure through increased use of drought tolerant local
varieties, water harvesting, mixed cropping, opportunistic weeding, agroforestry and a series of other traditional techniques. Surveys conducted in hillsides after Hurricane Mitch in Central America showed that farmers using sustainable practices such as mucuna cover crops, intercropping, and agroforestry suffered less damage than their conventional neighbors. The study spanning 360 communities and 24 departments in Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala showed that diversified plots had 20% to 40% more topsoil, greater soil moisture, less erosion, and experienced lower economic losses than their conventional neighbors. This demonstrates that a re-evaluation of indigenous technology can serve as a key source of information on adaptive capacity and resilient capabilities exhibited by small farmsfeatures of strategic importance for world farmers to cope with climatic change. In addition, indigenous technologies often reflect a worldview and an understanding of our relationship to the natural world that is more realistic and more sustainable that those of our Western European heritage. 4. Small farms represent a sanctuary of GMO-free agrobiodiversity In general, traditional small scale farmers grow a wide variety of cultivars . Many of these plants are landraces grown from seed passed down from generation to generation, more genetically heterogeneous than modern cultivars, and thus offering greater defenses against vulnerability and enhancing harvest security in the midst of diseases, pests, droughts and other stresses. In a worldwide survey of crop varietal diversity on farms involving 27 crops, scientists found that considerable crop genetic diversity continues to be maintained on farms in the form of traditional crop varieties, especially of major staple crops. In most cases, farmers maintain diversity as an insurance to meet future environmental change or social and economic needs. Many researchers have concluded that this varietal richness enhances productivity and reduces yield variability. For example, studies by plant pathologists provide evidence that mixing of crop species and or varieties can delay the onset of diseases by reducing the spread of disease carrying spores, and by modifying environmental conditions so that they are less favorable to the spread of certain pathogens. Recent research in China, where four different mixtures of rice varieties grown by farmers from fifteen different townships over 3000 hectares, suffered 44% less blast incidence and exhibited 89% greater yield than homogeneous fields without the need to use chemicals. It is possible that traits important to indigenous farmers (resistance to drought, competitive ability, performance on intercrops, storage quality, etc) could be traded for transgenic qualities which may not be important to farmers (Jordan, 2001). Under this scenario, risk could increase and farmers would lose their ability to adapt to changing biophysical environments and increase their success with relatively stable yields with a minimum of external inputs while supporting their communities food security. Although there is a high probability that the introduction of transgenic crops will enter centers of genetic diversity, it is crucial to protect areas of peasant agriculture free of contamination from GMO crops, as traits important to indigenous farmers (resistance to drought, food or fodder quality, maturity, competitive ability, performance on intercrops, storage quality, taste or cooking properties, compatibility with household labor conditions, etc) could be traded for transgenic qualities (i.e. herbicide resistance) which are of no importance to farmers who dont use agrochemicals . Under this scenario risk will increase and farmers will lose their ability to produce relatively stable yields with a minimum of external inputs under changing biophysical environments. The social impacts of local crop shortfalls, resulting from changes in the genetic integrity of local varieties due to genetic pollution, can be considerable in the margins of the Global South. Maintaining

pools of genetic diversity, geographically isolated from any possibility of cross fertilization or genetic pollution from uniform transgenic crops will create islands of intact germplasm which will act as extant safeguards against potential ecological failure derived from the second green revolution increasingly being imposed with programs such as the GatesRockefeller AGRA in Africa. These genetic sanctuary islands will serve as the only source of GMO-free seeds that will be needed to repopulate the organic farms in the North inevitably contaminated by the advance of transgenic agriculture. The small farmers and indigenous communities of the Global South, with the help of scientists and NGOs, can continue to create and guard biological and genetic diversity that has enriched the food culture of the whole planet. 5.

Small farms cool the climate While industrial agriculture

contributes directly to climate change through no less than one third of total emissions of the major g reen h ouse g ase s Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), small, biodiverse organic farms have the opposite effect by sequestering more carbon in soils. Small farmers usually treat their soils with organic compost materials
that absorb and sequester carbon better than soils that are farmed with conventional fertilizers. Researchers have suggested that the conversion of 10,000 small- to medium-sized farms to organic production would store carbon in the soil equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road. Further

climate amelioration contributions by small farms accrue from the fact that most use significantly less fossil fuel in comparison to conventional agriculture mainly due to a reduction of chemical fertilizer and pesticide use, relying instead on organic manures, legume-based rotations, and diversity
schemes to enhance beneficial insects. Farmers who live in rural communities near cities and towns and are linked to local markets, avoid the energy wasted and the gas emissions associated with transporting food hundreds and even thousands of miles. Conclusions The

great

advantage of small farming systems is their high levels of agrobidoversity arranged in the form of variety
mixtures, polycultures, crop-livestock combinations and/or agroforestry patterns. Modeling new agroecosystems using such diversified designs are extremely valuable to farmers whose systems are collapsing due to debt, pesticide use, transgenic treadmills, or climate change. Such diverse systems buffer against natural or human-induced variations in production conditions. There is much to learn from indigenous modes of production, as these systems have a strong ecological basis, maintain valuable genetic diversity, and lead to regeneration and preservation of biodiversity and natural resources. Traditional

methods are particularly instructive because they provide a long-term perspective on successful agricultural management under conditions of climatic variability. Organized
social rural movements in the Global South oppose industrial agriculture in all its manifestations, and increasingly their territories constitute isolated areas rich in unique agrobiodiversity, including genetically diverse material, therefore acting as extant safeguards against the potential ecological failure derived from inappropriate agricultural modernization schemes. It is precisely the ability to generate and maintain diverse crop genetic resources that offer unique niche possibilities to small farmers that cannot be replicated by farmers in the North who are condemned to uniform cultivars and to co-exist with GMOs. The cibo pulito, justo e buono that Slow Food promotes, the Fair Trade coffee, bananas, and the organic products so much in demand by northern consumers can only be produced in the agroecological islands of the South. This difference inherent to traditional systems, can be strategically utilized to revitalize small farming communities by exploiting opportunities that exist for linking traditional agrobiodiversity with local/national/international markets, as long as these activities are justly compensated by the North and all the segments of the market remain under grassroots control. Consumers

of the North can play

a major role by supporting these more equitable markets which do not perpetuate the colonial model of agriculture of the poor for the rich, but rather a model that promotes small biodiverse farms as the basis for strong rural economies in the Global South. Such economies will not only provide sustainable production of healthy, agroecologically-produced, accessible food for all, but will allow indigenous peoples and small farmers to continue their millennial work of building and conserving the agricultural and natural biodiversity on which we all depend now and even more so in the future.

Ext. Agriculture IL
CIR key to agriculture industry stability
Abou-Diwan 1-28

(Antoine, Bipartisan immigration proposal acknowledges agriculture's needs January 28, 2013, Imperial Valley Press)
Bipartisan immigration proposal acknowledges agriculture's needs The bipartisan proposal unveiled
Monday paves the way to legalization of the nations 11 million undocumented immigrants with a program described as tough but fair. It also addresses

the concerns of the agricultural industry, whose labor pool by some estimates is composed of some 50 to 70 percent unauthorized workers. Agricultural workers who commit to the longterm stability of our nations agricultural industries will be treated differently than the rest of the undocumented population because of the role they play in ensuring that Americans have safe and secure agricultural products to sell and consume, states the proposal. Total farmworkers in Imperial County fluctuated between 8,000 and 11,000 in
2012, according to data from the Employment Development Department. Theres definitely recognition that agriculture will be taken care of, said Steve Scaroni, a Heber farmer who has lobbied Washington extensively on immigration

reform. The proposal is based on four broad principles: a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, reform of the system to capitalize on characteristics that strengthen the economy, the creation of an effective employment verification system and improving the immigration process for future workers. The principles are broad and many details need to be worked out. The principles acknowledge that the situation in agriculture is distinct and requires different treatment, said Craig Regelbrugge, chairman of the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform, a group that represents the landscape and nursery industry. Access to a legal and stable work force is vital, Regelbrugge said, as is a workable program that eliminates or reduces hurdles for a future work force. We would like to see the agriculture legalization program attractive so there are incentives for
them to work in the sector, Regelbrugge noted. The proposals also acknowledge that the United States immigration system is broken, and address criticism that not enough is being done to enforce existing immigration laws. To that end, Mondays proposals are contingent on secure borders. But, the acknowledgement of the agriculture sectors needs allows for some optimism. As

long as the labor supply

solutions are there, we can support the enforcement solutions, Regelbrugge said.

More ev
ACIR 7

[December 4, 2007 THE AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM Lexis]

Dear Member of Congress: The Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR) is deeply concerned with pending immigration

enforcement legislation known as the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007' or SAVE Act (H.R.4088 and S.2368). While these bills seek to address the worthy goal of stricter immigration law enforcement, they fail to take a comprehensive approach to solving the immigration problem. History shows that a one dimensional approach to the nations immigration problem is doomed to fail. Enforcement alone, without providing a viable means to obtain a legal workforce to sustain economic growth is a formula for disaster. Agriculture best illustrates this point. Agricultural industries that need considerable labor in order to function include the fruit and vegetable, dairy and livestock, nursery, greenhouse, and Christmas tree sectors. Localized labor shortages have resulted in actual crop loss in various parts of the country. More broadly, producers are making decisions to scale back production, limit expansion, and leave many critical tasks unfulfilled. Continued labor shortages could force more producers to shift production out of the U.S., thus stressing already taxed food and import safety systems. Farm lenders are becoming increasingly concerned about the stability of
affected industries. This problem is aggravated by the nearly universal acknowledgement that the current H-2A agricultural guest worker program does not work. Based on government statistics and other evidence, roughly 80 percent of the farm labor force in the United States is foreign born, and a significant majority of that labor force is believed to be improperly authorized. The bills imposition of mandatory electronic employment eligibility verification will screen out the farm labor force without providing access to legal workers. Careful study of farm labor force demographics and trends indicates that there is not a replacement domestic workforce available to fill these jobs. This feature alone will result in chaos unless combined with labor-stabilizing reforms. Continued

failure by Congress to act to address this

situation in a comprehensive fashion is placing in jeopardy U.S. food security and global competitiveness. Furthermore, congressional inaction threatens the livelihoods of millions of Americans whose jobs exist because laborintensive agricultural production is occurring in America. If production is forced
to move, most of the upstream and downstream jobs will disappear as well. The Coalition cannot defend of the broken status quo. We support well-managed borders and a rational legal system. We have worked for years to develop popular bipartisan legislation that would stabilize the existing experienced farm workforce and provide an orderly transition to wider reliance on a legal agricultural worker program that provides a fair balance of employer and employee rights and protections. We respectfully urge you to oppose S.2368, H.R.4088, or any other bills that would impose employment-based immigration enforcement in isolation from equally important reforms that would provide for a stable and legal farm labor force.

Ext. Agriculture Impact

Food insecuritys the greatest proximate cause of war
Brown 11

(from World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse, by Lester R. Brown 2011 Earth Policy Institute)
For the Mayans, it was deforestation and soil erosion. As more and more land was cleared for farming to support the expanding empire, soil erosion undermined the productivity of their tropical soils. A team of scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has noted that the extensive land clearing by the Mayans likely also altered the regional climate, reducing rainfall. In effect, the scientists suggest, it was the convergence of several environmental trends, some reinforcing others, that led to the food

shortages that brought down the Mayan civilization. 26 Although we live in a highly urbanized, technologically advanced society, we are as dependent on the earths natural support systems as the Sumerians and Mayans were. If we continue with business as usual,
civilizational collapse is no longer a matter of whether but when. We now have an economy that is destroying its natural support systems, one that has put us on a decline and collapse path. We Foundation president, puts it well: The

are dangerously close to the edge. Peter Goldmark, former Rockefeller death of our civilization is no longer a theory or an academic possibility; it is the road were on. 2 Judging by the archeological records of earlier civilizations, more often than not food shortages appear to have precipitated their decline and collapse. Given the advances of modern agriculture, I had long rejected the idea that food could be the weak link in our twenty-first century civilization. Today I think not only that it could be the weak link but that it is the weak link.

Mexico Impact 1st Line

Immigration reform is key to Mexican stability and border cooperation
Castaneda 3

(Castaeda, Jorge G. Source: Foreign Affairs; May/Jun2003, Vol. 82 Issue 3, p67-81, 15p, 4 Black and White Photographs)
Dealing with Mexico is in many ways the most important regional task facing the Bush administration. The matter can be summed up simply: President Vicente Fox's consolidation of Mexico's first democratic transfer of power must be -and be seen to be-a success . There is nothing more important to the United States than a stable Mexico , and today a stable Mexico means a democratic one. And the United States has a huge role in making Mexico's transition to democracy a success, or in contributing to its failure . The success or failure of
this experiment will be judged in Mexico ultimately in the light of the country's economic performance-which has not been impressive these past two years. But Mexicans will also judge the state of their country's relations with the United States. They will look to see whether Presidents Fox and Bush deliver on the ambitious bilateral agenda they sketched out at their historic February 2001 meeting at Fox's ranch in Guanajuato, Mexico. On issues of trade, drug enforcement, the border, building a North American Economic Community, energy, and, most significant, immigration, the two countries set out a bold series of goals to meet by the end of Bush's first term, if not sooner. Indeed, in the first eight months of their respective presidencies, Bush and Fox achieved a fundamental breakthrough on immigration. By the time of the Guanajuato meeting, both sides had identified the core policies needed to tackle undocumented migration flows from Mexico to the United States: an expanded temporary-worker program; increased transition of undocumented Mexicans already in the United States to legal status; a higher U.S. visa quota for Mexicans; enhanced border security and stronger action against migrant traffickers; and more investment in those regions of Mexico that supplied the most migrants. The speed with which both governments carried out these negotiations certainly captured the political imagination of both societies. Fox's resounding state visit to Washington on the eve of the September 11 terrorist attacks further lifted the new initiatives and underscored both leaders' commitment to them. But the symmetry ends there: Fox staked much more on this partnership than Bush did. And since the Mexican president has little to show for his gamble, he has paid a high domestic political price for his willingness to bring about a sea change in Mexico's relations with the United States and the rest of the world. Indeed, this change has been on the order of what President Carlos Salinas did with Mexico's economy or what President Ernesto Zedillo did with the nation's political system.

Hence the centrality of immigration in the bilateral relationship today: both Bush and Fox stated dramatic goals and raised expectations enormously. The United States understandably was forced to put the issue on hold for a time. But what was initially portrayed as a brief interlude will now probably stretch through Bush's entire first term. It will be almost impossible to point to success in the bilateral relationship without a deal on immigration . And
unless there is such a breakthrough, Fox's six-year term in office, nearly half over, may well be seen in Mexico as an exercise in high expectations but disappointing results. To avoid a breakdown in relations, Bush must make a state visit to Mexico City this year. He should take with him sufficient progress on key issues-immigration; trade concerns relating to sugar, tuna, trucking, and the North American Free Trade Agreement's agricultural chapter; and funding for heightened security and the expedited passage of people and cargo at the border-to show that Mexico remains a top priority for his administration. Bush must also show that he is willing to spend political capital to ensure the success of Fox's push for true Mexican democracy. Washington

may have so far missed an opportunity to present its

relationship with Mexico City as a model for the rest of the hemisphere and , indeed, for the rest of the developing world -an example of how a rich and powerful neighbor and a still relatively poor and weak one can get along and
contribute to each other's success. But the

window of opportunity has not been shut . In the aftermath of the current conflict with Iraq, the United States would benefit hugely by demonstrating that it can construct alliances beyond its traditional circle of friends.

Alternatives terrorism
Cato 8

[Former Senior Counsel at the US Dept of Justice. The Weaponization of Immigration The Washburn Law Journal, Feb 08. JSTOR//JVOSS+
al Qaeda has considered using the Southwest Border to infiltrate the United States. Several al Qaeda leaders
Recent information from ongoing investigations, detentions, and emerging threat streams strongly suggests that

believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.75 Deputy Secretary Loy emphasized the threat saying that "entrenched human-smuggling networks and corruption in areas beyond our borders can be exploited by terrorist organizations."76 An unclassified post-September 11th Border Patrol bulletin, reviewed by 9/11 Commission staff, warned of meetings in Madrid, Spain between members of al Qaeda and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). These terrorists discussed using Mexican Islamist converts to infiltrate the United States across its southwest border. Recent reports signal that a " growing number [of illegal aliens picked up by the Border Patrol on the southwest border] hail from Central and South America, Asia, even Mideast countries such as Syria and Iran. "77

State failures a controlling impact

Manwaring 4

[Max. Latin America Expert @ CSIS, PhD in Poli Sci from UChicago. Shadows of the Past and Images of the Future 2004, Pg 36-8]
State failure is an evolutionary process, not an outcome. This state of affairs is often brought on by poor, irresponsible, and insensitive governance, and leads to at least one other very fundamental reason why states fail. That is,
state failure can be a process that is exacerbated by nonstate (insurgent) groups that, for whatever reason, want to take down or exercise illicit control over a given government. In Latin

America, Colombia is, Peru has been, and both continue to be good examples of this. The narco-insurgent/terrorist [is a] threat to the authority of the central governments. Through murder,
kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, destruction of infrastructure, and other means of coercion and persuasion, these violent, internal, nonstate actors compromise the exercise of state authority.

The government and its institutions become progressively less and less capable of performing the tasks of governance, including exercising their fundamental personal security functions to protect citizens. As a result, the narco-insurgents become increasingly wealthy and powerful , and
affected countries deteriorate further and further toward failed state status. Perus Sendero Luminoso calls violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure armed propaganda. Drug cartels operating in that country and throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities business incentives. Thus, in

addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their specific objectives, Senderos and other violent nonstate actors armed propaganda and business incentives are aimed at lessening a regimes credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. This debilitating and destabilizing activity generates the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing the global community today. More specifically, failing or failed states in Latin America, Africa, the Middle-East, and Asia are breeding grounds for instability, insurgency, and terrorism. A breakdown in institutional governance can breed or exacerbate humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. Such states can host networks of all kinds, including criminal business enterprises and/or some form of ideological, religious, or populist crusade. They also spawn a variety of pernicious and lethal activities and outcomes, including torture and murder; poverty, starvation, and disease; the recruitment and use of child soldiers; trafficking in women and human organs for transplants; trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and weapons of mass destruction; genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism; and criminal anarchy and insurgency. At the same time, these networks and activities normally are unconfined and spill over into regional syndromes of failing and failed states simply do not go away . Ample evidence demonstrates that become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new peoples democracies. Moreover, failing and failed states tend not to (1) buy U.S. and other exporting nations products, (2) be interested in developing democratic and free market institutions and human rights, or (3) cooperate on shared problems such as illegal drugs, illicit arms flows, debilitating refugee flows, and potentially dangerous environmental problems. In short, the longer they persist, the more they and their associated problems endanger global security,
destabilization and conflict. Additionally, failing and failed states

peace, and prosperity .

Extinction
Corsi 5

[Jerome. PhD in Poli Sci from Harvard, Expert in Politically-Motivated Violence. Atomic Iran, Pg 176-8//JVOSS]
The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the
explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb

Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us. [CONTINUES} Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike
at the Empire State Building. on Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. Muslims

around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. But
for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That

the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge.

Ext. Mexico
Squo immigration policies drive Mexican anti-Americanism results in terrorism
Marizco 4

*Michael. International Expert for the AZ Daily Star. Mexico Works to Spot Terrorists The Arizona Daily Star, 8/9/4. Lexis//JVOSS+
Worry that the

porous border with Mexico could become a popular route for terrorists increased last month after a woman now being investigated for suspected terrorist links tried to board a flight in McAllen, Texas, near the U.S.-Mexico border, with a falsified passport. She arrived in Mexico from London, then crossed into the United States, apparently by wading across the Rio Grande, a federal affidavit said. "While we
are thankful that law enforcement personnel prevented her from boarding that plane, the incident raises a larger issue, specifically, whether

terrorists from the Middle East are using our inadequately patrolled land borders with Canada and Mexico for easy entry into the United States," Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said in a letter sent Tuesday to Homeland Security
Secretary Tom Ridge. Tancredo, one of Congress' most vocal critics of U.S. immigration laws, was one of 12 lawmakers who signed the letter. The lawmakers contend terrorists could

be among the thousands of non-Mexican immigrants who are arrested then released into the country on their own recognizance while they await deportation hearings. But before releasing a detainee, officers are required to confirm the migrant's identity and run a background check to ensure the
entrant doesn't pose a safety risk or threat to national security, immigration officials said. The potential terrorist threat also was mentioned in

the recent 9/11 Commission Report, which notes the ease with which people can cross the border. "We must also be able to monitor and respond to entrances between our ports of entry, working with Canada and Mexico as much as possible," the commission wrote. *CONTINUES+ Glenn Spencer, founder of the Sierra Vista-based border watch group
American Border Patrol, said he's glad Mexican officials have stepped up their effort to intercept potential terrorists, but he's not convinced it will be a success. He said a

terrorist could find support with the widespread anti-American sentiment south of the border. "There is an ocean of that attitude in which they can swim. It would not surprise me that terrorists would exploit those attitudes. "You do not have that attitude in Canada. The threat is definitely from the southern border; there's no question about it," he said. His group has been conducting exercises that it says demonstrate how insecure Arizona's border with Mexico is when it comes to catching illegal entrants with bad intentions. Late last month, a group member smuggled a fake "weapon of mass destruction" from the Mexican side of the border fence
south of Palominas to a "safe house" near Sierra Vista. A few days later, the group repeated the demonstration, carrying the foam-filled briefcase stuffed in a backpack all the way to Tucson's U.S. District Court building Downtown. He said the

United States must do "whatever it takes" to seal the border with Mexico and ensure that potential terrorists will be caught.

More ev Mexicos key

Farah 5

*Joe. Founder of World Net Daily and Nationally Syndicated Columnist. Mexicos Blind Eye www.worldnetdaily.com, 13 June 05. //JVOSS]
Mexican agencies charged with intelligence and counter-terrorism, such as the Office of Coordination of the Presidency and the Center for Research on National Security, CISEN, do little more than offer half-hearted monitoring of militant Islamic activity, say G2 Bulletin sources. Mexico is facing a national crisis in dealing with drug lords who are killing elected officials, police chiefs and innocent civilians. Officials there have little interest and fewer resources to devote to law enforcement and intelligence activities that threaten the U.S., not Mexico. As WND reported last week, Islam is on the move in Mexico and throughout Latin America, making dramatic gains in converting the native population, increasing immigration, establishing businesses and charities and attracting attention from U.S. government officials who have asked their neighbors to the south to keep an eye on foreign Muslim groups. While Mexico has pledged to monitor these activities on behalf of the U.S., those familiar with the recruitment practices and the Mexican government's oversight say the U.S. has reasons for concern .
For instance, Gen. Jorge Serrano, the head of the Attorney General Office's special terrorism investigation unit, says no Muslim

terrorists have been found living in Mexico. Yet intelligence

sources in the U.S. and Canada say Islamic jihadists have been working with zealots in Mexico for more than 20 years. Early activities were sponsored by Iran. Later, the
recruitment activities got support from the Egyptian, Pakistani and Saudi embassies. It is known the Egyptians paid the rent for a prayer hall and allocated funds for students who wanted to study at the Islamic al-Azhar University in Cairo. The Pakistanis organized Muslim converts and others to visit madrassas in Pakistan, a golden opportunity offered to the Taliban and al-Qaida to reach a larger pool of recruitment candidates. Saudi funds created a range of activities linked to Hajj or studies in Saudi Arabia where young zealots established contacts with Sufi and Wahabi

Mexican authorities revealed in 2002 they knew Spanish Muslim converts of Basque origin were present in Chiapas state preaching the ideas of Islam and jihad as they mingled with local aboriginals. At least in two cases Mexican authorities, unable to determine the
activists one way or another connected to master terrorist Osama bin Laden. whereabouts of Basque Muslims, sent letters to their last known address informing them their stay in the country was illegal. According to a CISEN official, most Basque and Spanish Muslims were linked to the North African-based al-Murabitun World Tzotzil Movement, known for its blend of socialism and Islam. Information on Basque activity in Mexico is regularly collected by the Spanish government, but is not shared with

Small, sometimes clandestine Islamic clubs in Mexico, usually disguised as cultural groupings, are on the increase. Information on ways to cross the U.S. and Mexican border and where to go, including recommended U.S. states and so-called asylum cities has actually already reached all corners of the jihadi Khalifat world. Some documents found in Pakistan, and more information from Iraq and Lebanon, proves jihadists are aware they are in danger of being detected when they use legitimate ports of entry to the U.S. Therefore they prefer to reach their sympathizers in Mexico and then penetrate the U.S. together with hundreds of thousands of Mexicans, drug lords and gang members.
the U.S. by the Mexicans.

Immigration: Aff

2AC Wont Pass

Wont pass A. GOP will link it to health care kills the deal
Nakamura 6-17

*David. Lead Political Analyst for the Wash Post. Republicans trying to use health care law to derail Obamas immigration reform efforts The Washington Post, 6/17/13 ln//GBS-JV]
After spending years unsuccessfully trying to overturn Obamacare, Republicans are now attempting to use President Obamas landmark health-care law to derail his top second-term initiative a sweeping overhaul of the nations immigration system. Conservatives in both chambers of Congress are insisting on measures that would expand the denial of public health benefits to the nations 11 million illegal immigr ants beyond limits set in a comprehensive bill pending in the Senate. In the House, Republicans are considering proposals that would deny publicly subsidized emergency care to illegal immigrants and force them to purchase private health insurance plans, without access to federal subsidies, as a requirement for earning permanent legal residency. In the
Senate, Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has endorsed an amendment to a comprehensive immigration bill he helped negotiate that would deny health benefits to immigrants for five years after they become legal residents two years after they would be eligible to become citizens under the legislation. Some Republicans, eager

to capi-tal-ize on public uncertainty about the complexities of the Affordable Care Act, are casting the immigration legislation as a similarly unwieldy law. The immigration bill reminds me of a more recent piece of legislation: Obamacare, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said on
the Senate floor last week. It grants broad new powers to the same executive branch that today is mired in scandal for incompetence and abuse of power. Total cost estimates are in the trillions. And rather than fix our current immigration problems, the bill makes many of them worse. The

insertion of the politics of health-care reform one of the most polarizing issues in Washington into the immigration debate threatens to split open the emerging bipartisan coalitions that are crucial to passing a bill.

B. Wont get through the House

Birnbaum 6-12

[Jeremy. Politics for the Washington Times. Sensational Season for Scandal: When a Ship Runs Aground, its the Captains Fault The Washington Times, 6/12/13 ln//GBSJV]
Whats left among major initiatives is immigration reform. However, that faces a tough slog in the Senate and a possibly impossible trajectory in the House
of Representatives. Its leading Republican sponsor, Sen. Marco

Rubio of Florida, has already signaled that he might bail on the plan he helped craft if changes including guaranteed bolstering of border security arent added as the bill moves through the Senate.

Ext. Wont Pass the House

PC cant get immigration through the House the Obama-Boehner relationship is beyond repair
Roarty 13

[Alex. Politics for the National Journal and the Atlantic. There' s Reason to Be Optimistic About CongressSeriously The Atlantic, 2/21/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Maintaining that momentum

in the House won't be easy, and it could require Obama's

personal leadership . Getting Boehner to take such a perilous route could depend in large part on successful cajoling from the president. And on this subject -- the relationships among Washington's top leaders -- discussion of a deal being cut becomes sharply pessimistic. The two men's relationship is described as personally friendly, but professionally it has produced nothing but dysfunction.
last year's failed fiscal-cliff talks. What began with the debt-limit negotiations of 2011 culminated in

Boehner has vowed never to negotiate with Obama one-on-

one

again. Washington has had a litany of successful speaker-president relationships through the years. Think Newt Gingrich

and Bill Clinton -- or Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill in the 1980s. But Obama

and Boehner haven't been able to find a workable formula. " There is zero trust between Boehner and the trust is what's necessary to get deals done ," said Mike Hacker, a former Democratic leadership aide. "It's not just mutual interest." The belief among the GOP that the president won't act on good faith in the current negotiations is further straining the broken relationship between the two men. Rather than trying to cut a deal with Republicans, Obama might work only toward defeating them in next year's midterms, to try to re--take the House. At that point, assuming his party retains the Senate, congressional Democrats would be poised to pass legislation as they did during Obama's first two years in office. "In the matrix they're crafting to take back the House, there's no function for bipartisanship ," said Mike Ference, a former aide to Cantor. Obama's recent actions haven't put GOP worries to rest. His inaugural speech was long on urging the country to adopt a progressive agenda but short on emphasizing the need for compromise. After completely ignoring House Democrats in 2012, the president announced plans to hold eight fundraisers for them this cycle. Obama, in the eyes of the GOP, seems less interested in
and

president,

working with Republicans than in rolling over them . The atrophying of strong relationships on Capitol Hill is only one of many reasons polarization is so entrenched. Certainly the proliferation of powerful political organizations, such as the free-market Club for Growth, and the influence of partisan media have also played a role. In the bigger picture, the decades-long popular sorting out between the parties and their ideology has probably mattered most: Conservative Southern Democrats and liberal Northeastern Republicans are now nearly extinct . But another suggested cause of increased polarization, gerrymandered districts, remains hotly disputed in the political-science community. Research shows that members' voting behavior changes only slightly, if at all, with the partisan makeup of their district; lawmakers support whatever their party decides,
according to this argument.

2AC PC
Capital isnt key to immigration reform
Hirsh 13

Michael Hirsh is chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to 2012 Decoded. Hirsh previously served as the senior editor and national economics correspondent for Newsweek, based in its Washington bureau. He was also Newsweeks Washington web editor and authored a weekly column for Newsweek.com. (Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital, National Journal, 2/7/2013, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-aspolitical-capital-20130207)
Meanwhile, the

Republican members of the Senates so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after
an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would self-deport. But

this turnaround has very little to do with Obamas

personal influence his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. Thats 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama
drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has

mainly come out of the Republican Partys recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. Its got nothing to do with Obamas political capital or, indeed, Obama at all.

If the plan causes a fight it solves the DA

Dickerson 13

(John, Chief Political Correspondent at the Slate, Political Director of CBS News, Covered Politics for Time Magazine for 12 Years, Previous White House Correspondent, Go for the Throat!, http://tinyurl.com/b7zvv4d)
On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped to the microphone, looked down the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears capable of so little. A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the election,

the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon. Inaugural speeches are supposed to be

huge and stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the Liberty Bell. They use history to make greatness and achievements seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck in the rut of the day. But this might be too much for Obamas second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its elected representatives to common action while standing on the steps of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of tricks has been tried and it didnt work. People dont believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14 percent, the lowest in history. In a December Gallup poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works is doing serious harm to the country. The challenge for President Obamas speech is the challenge of his second term: how

to be great when the environment stinks . Enhancing the presidents legacy requires

something more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washingtons

partisan rancor , the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single

conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP . If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat . President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the achievements of his first
term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted to make history. He may already have made it. There's no question that he is already a president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate change, and immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker. How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too. That's the old way.

He has abandoned that . He doesn't

think it will work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name. Obamas only remaining option is to pulverize . Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues , he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray. This theory of political transformation
rests on the weaponization (and slight bastardization) of the work by Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek. Skowronek has written extensively about what distinguishes transformational presidents from caretaker presidents. In order for a president to be transformational, the old order has to fall as the orthodoxies that kept it in power exhaust themselves. Obama's gambit in 2009 was to build a new post-partisan consensus. That didn't work, but by exploiting the weaknesses of todays Republican Party, Obama

has an opportunity to hasten the demise of the old order by increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers , supporters
of self-deportation and the pure no-tax wing.

AT//Rubio Link
Rubioll walk on CIR
Cogan 4-2

*M. Politics for The New Republic. Why Rubio Will Probably Walk The senator may be too risk-averse to strike a deal on immigration The New Republic, 4/2/13
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112814/marco-rubio-and-immigration-reform-why-hes-likelywalk?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=c6bd8a4b25-TNR_Daily_040313&utm_medium=email# That's not universally seen as a positive. I didn't get into it much in my piece, but as McKay Coppins noted in his fun take on the South Florida Republican community, even of political

//GBS-JV]

some of Rubio's political allies down there have been frustrated that so far his great stores goodwill haven't been put to much use. And getting Republicans on board for this bill is going to require a willingness to take big risks. It's going to expend a lot of political capital, and will almost certainly mean making enemies among members of his own party (see, for example, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, also a CubanAmerican GOP Senator, who says he has "deep concerns" about the deal now and is unlikely to support it in the future.) Rubio's past political behavior doesn't suggest he'd be the type to take the plunge on this , especially with all of the untold opportunities for right-wing radio to turn a small but very vocal minority against reform. Of course, he's only been
in office for 27 monthsthat's plenty of time still for him to surprise usbut this line from Politico's report should give immigration-reform hopefuls serious pause: "Either

way, in the end, Rubio's view has evolved from believing that he needed passage in order to be able to display a substantive accomplishment, to believing he will get credit for trying so aggressively." In other it's a lot easier to walk away , basically unscathed, and portray himself as the reasonable guy who genuinely wanted reform but couldn't negotiate with the unreasonable Democrats, than it is to stick around and actually get the bill done.
words,

CIR Fails General

Immigration reforms not key to anything
Hill et al 10

[Laura. Research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. She has been a research associate at The SPHERE Institute and a National Institute of Aging postdoctoral fellow. She holds a Ph.D. in demography from the University of California, Berkeley. And Magnus Lofstrom is a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. He also holds appointments as a research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) at the University of Bonn and as a research associate at the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San Diego. He has also served as a researcher and has taught at IZA and at the University of California, Irvine. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of California, San Diego. AND*** Joseph M. Hayes is a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California, where he studies migration and population change throughout the state. He has studied migration in the Central Valley, the families of newly arrived immigrants to California, and the states prison population. He holds an M.S. in agricultural economics from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. 2010, Immigrant Legalization Assessing the Labor Market Effects, Public Policy Institute of California, www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_410LHR.pdf#ppic//GBS-JV]
Legalization of the estimated 12 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States would lead to both economic benefits and costs for the nation. Some arguments for comprehensive immigration reform suggest that legalizing immigrants will help end the current recession. This seems unlikely. Our research
suggests that earlier findings

from the IRCA era may overstate anticipated earnings from a new reform, at least in the short run. We do expect occupational mobility to improve for formerly unauthorized

immigrants with higher skill levels. When compared to the continuously legal, their occupational earnings growth was about 9 to 10 percent. These higher-skill unauthorized immigrants are more likely to be overstayers than crossers, but unauthorized immigrants with college degrees are found in both groups. Lower-skill unauthorized immigrants are not likely

to experience strong occupational mobility as a result of a legalization program

(although their occupational earnings grow over time in the United States). It will be important that any new legislation give legalized immigrants incentives to improve their skills, especially in English. The majority of studies

investigating the effect of legalizing immigrants on natives earnings suggest that the effects are slightly negative for workers with low skill levels. Since we find no improvements in occupational mobility or wages for the lowest skill levels in the short run, we do not expect that legalizing immigrants would place any increased pressure on the wages of low-skill natives or low-skill legal immigrants. Tax revenues may increase, although many unauthorized immigrants already file federal and state tax returns and pay sales and payroll taxes. We found that about 90 percent of unauthorized immigrants filed federal tax returns in the year before

gaining LPR status. We expect that increases in tax revenues resulting from increased earnings among the formerly unauthorized would be modest.

AT//Economy IL
Immigration reforms not key to the economy
Castelletti et al 10

[Brbara, economist at the OECD Development Centre, , Jeff DaytonJohnson, head of the OECD development Centre, and ngel Melguizo, economist at the OECD Development Centre, Migration in Latin America: Answering old questions with new data, 3/19/10, http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4764]
Most research on migration assumes that workers are employed in activities that correspond to their skill level. In practice workers may be employed in sectors characterised by skill requirements different from their educational or training background. In particular, migrants may be overqualified for the work they do. As Mattoo et al. (2005) show, this is the case for Mexicans, Central Americans and Andean universityeducated migrants working in the US. Despite their tertiary degrees, these groups rarely hold highly skilled jobs. Worse, they may even be at the lower rungs of the skill ladder; 44% of tertiary-educated Mexicans migrants in the US are working in unskilled jobs. This equilibrium represents a lose-lose-lose situation. The home country loses human capital (brain drain), the host country and the migrant him/herself are not fully employed (brain waste), and the low skilled workers in host countries (both earlier migrants and natives) can be pushed out of the market (given that they compete with these higher-educated
workers for jobs). To illustrate this phenomenon for South-South flows, we follow OECD (2007) and compare the education level (primary, secondary and tertiary) of migrants in Argentina, Costa Rica and Venezuela with their category of job qualification (low, intermediate and high skilled). Figure 3 shows the share of over-qualified migrants and native workers, residing in different countries, and the comparison between foreign-born and natives. Over-qualification rates vary sharply among countries, ranging from 5% in Costa Rica and Venezuela to 14% in Argentina. While lower than in the US, Canada and Spain where the overqualification rates are above 15%, these results point to a high degree of over-qualification among immigrants compared to the native-born in Latin American countries. While there are possible omitted variables, it is likely

that some part of the brain waste observed is because of the non-recognition of foreign qualifications or excessive requalification requirements for foreigners.

It wrecks growth
Rector 7

[Robert. Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at Heritage. And Christine Kim. Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the US Taxpayer Heritage Special Report #14, 5/22/7 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-low-skill-immigrants-to-the-ustaxpayer //GBS-JV]
In FY 2004, low-skill immigrant households received $30,160 per household in immediate benefits and services (direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services). In general, low-skill immigrant households

received about $10,000 more in government benefits than did the average U.S. household, largely because of the higher level of means-tested welfare benefits received by low-skill immigrant households. In contrast, low-skill immigrant households pay less in taxes than do other households. On average, low-skill immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004. Thus, low-skill immigrant households received nearly three dollars in immediate benefits and services for each dollar in taxes paid. A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. When the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus
$10,573 in taxes). At $19,588, the average annual fiscal deficit for low-skill immigrant households was nearly twice the amount of

taxes paid. In

order for the average low-skill household to be fiscally solvent (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, all means-tested welfare, and to cut expenditures on public education roughly in half. American families often are net tax payers during working age and net tax takers (benefits exceeding taxes) during retirement. This is not the case for low-skill immigrant households; in these households benefits substantially exceed taxes at every age level. Consequently, low-skill immigrant households impose substantial long-term costs on the U.S. taxpayer. Assuming an average adult life span of 60 years for each head of household, the average lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be nearly $1.2 million for each low-skill household for immediate benefits received minus all taxes paid. As noted, in 2004, there were 4.5 million low-skill immigrant households. With an average net fiscal deficit of $19,588 per household, the total annual fiscal deficit for all of these households together equaled $89.1 billion (the deficit of $19,588 per household times 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households). Over the next ten years, the net cost (benefits minus taxes) to the taxpayer of low-skill immigrant households will approach $1 trillion. Current immigrants
(both legal and illegal) have very low education levels relative to the non-immigrant U.S. population. At least 50 percent and perhaps 60 percent of illegal immigrant adults lack a high school degree.[1] Among legal immigrants the situation is better, but a quarter still lack a high school diploma. Overall, a third of immigrant households are headed by individuals without a high school degree. By contrast, only 9 percent of non-immigrant adults lack a high school degree. The current immigrant population thus contains a disproportionate share of poorly educated individuals. These individuals will tend to have low wages, pay little in taxes, and receive above average levels of government benefits and services. Recent waves of immigrants are disproportionately low skilled because of two factors. For years, the U.S. has had a permissive policy concerning illegal immigration: the 2,000-mile border with Mexico has remained porous and the law prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants has not been enforced. This encourages a disproportionate inflow of low-skill immigrants because few college-educated workers are likely to be willing to undertake the risks and hardships associated with crossing the southwest U.S. deserts illegally. Second, the legal immigration system gives priority to "family reunification" and kinship ties rather than skills; this focus also significantly contributes to the inflow of low-skill immigrants into the U.S. Understanding of the fiscal consequences of low-skill immigration is impeded by a lack of understanding of the scope of government financial redistribution within U.S. society. It is a common misperception that the only individuals who are fiscally dependent (receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes) are welfare recipients who perform little or no work, and that as long as an individual works regularly he must be a net tax producer (paying more in taxes than his family receives in benefits). In reality, the present welfare system is designed primarily to provide financial support to low-income working families. Moreover, welfare is only a modest part of the overall system of financial redistribution operated by the government. Current government policies provide extensive free or heavily subsidized aid to low-skill families (both immigrant and non-immigrant) through welfare, Social Security, Medicare, public education, and many other services. At the same time, government requires these families to pay little in taxes. This very expensive assistance to the least advantaged American families has become accepted as our mutual responsibility for one another, but it is fiscally unsustainable to apply this system of lavish income redistribution to an inflow of millions of poorly educated immigrants. Finally, it is sometimes argued that since higher-skill immigrants are a

net fiscal plus for the U.S. taxpayers, while low-skill immigrants are a net loss, the two cancel each other out and therefore no problem exists. This is like a stockbroker advising a client to buy two stocks, one that will make money and another that will lose money. Obviously, it would be better to purchase only the stock that will be profitable and avoid the money-losing stock entirely. Similarly, lowskill immigrants increase poverty in the U.S. and impose a burden on taxpayers that should be avoided. U.S. immigration policy should encourage high-skill immigration and strictly limit low-skill immigration. In general, government policy should limit immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, avoiding those who will increase poverty and impose new costs on overburdened U.S. taxpayers.

AT//Latin America IL
Plans a bigger internal link to relations than immigration reform their author concedes there are a bunch of alt causes that only the plan could conceivably resolve
Shifter 2012

(Michael, President of the Sol M. Linowitz Forum Intern-American Dialogue (Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America, An Inter-American Dialogue Policy Report, April, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportF INAL.pdf)
In part as a result of these shifts, US-Latin

American relations have grown more distant . The quality and intensity of ties have diminished . Most countries of the region view the United States as less

and less relevant to their needsand with declining capacity to propose and carry out strategies to deal with the issues that most concern them .In the main, hemispheric relations are amicable . Open conflict is rare and, happily, the sharp antagonisms that marred relations in the past have subsided . But the US-Latin America relationship would profit from more vitality and direction . Shared interests are not pursued as vigorously as they should be, and opportunities for more fruitful engagement are being missed . Well developed ideas for reversing these disappointing trends are scarce. Some enduring problems stand

squarely in the way of partnership and effective cooperation . The inability of Washington to reform its broken immigration system is a constant source of friction between the United States and nearly every other

country in the Americas . Yet US officials rarely refer to immigration as a foreign policy issue . Domestic policy debates on this issue disregard the United States hemispheric agenda as well as the interests of other nations .Another chronic irritant is

US drug policy, which most Latin Americans now believe makes their drug and crime problems worse . Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while visiting Mexico, acknowledged that US anti-drug programs have not worked . Yet, despite growing calls and pressure from the region, the United States has shown little interest in exploring alternative approaches .Similarly, Washingtons more than half-century embargo on Cuba, as well as other elements of United States Cuba policy, is strongly opposed by all other countries in the hemisphere . Indeed, the US position on these troublesome issuesimmigration, drug policy, and Cubahas set Washington against the consensus view of the hemispheres other 34 governments .These issues stand as obstacles to further cooperation in the Americas . The United States and the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean need to
resolve them in order to build more productive partnerships.

Immigration reforms not key

Oppenheimer 13

[Andres. International Desk for the Miami Herald.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/19/3189668/obama-may-help-latin-america-without.html 1/19/13

//GBS-JV]

Latin America is probably one of the farthest things from President Barack Obamas mind, but there are several largely domestic reasons why, during his second term, he may become the best U.S. president for the region in recent times. Lets start with the obvious: Obama doesnt have a history of special
resurrecting the U.S. economy and instead stated that his top foreign policy priority is Asias Pacific rim. Still,

interest in Latin America. When I interviewed him for the first time in 2007, he had never set foot in the region. And during his first term, unlike most of his predecessors, he didnt come up with any grand plan for Latin America granted, he had to focus on

he may end

up being great for Latin America, for reasons that have very little to do with Latin America . First, there are better-than-even chances that emboldened by his 71-27 victory margin will be able to pass an immigration reform plan that could legalize many of the estimated 11 million undocumented residents in the United States. That would be a godsend
among Latino voters in the 2012 elections Obama to the economies of Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Colombia and Ecuador. Most experts agree that once undocumented workers get legal status, they get better jobs and can send more money to their relatives back home. According to Manuel Orozco,

author of the new book Migrant Remittances and Development in the Global Economy, the $73billion that U.S.-based undocumented workers send to Latin America annually is likely to increase by 18 percent if their immigration status is legalized. That would mean an extra influx of about $13billion in 2014, Orozco told me. Second, Obamas new proposals to

ban assault weapons in the aftermath of the most recent massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., would help reduce violence in several Latin American countries that are flooded with weapons smuggled from the United States. Mexico, where more than 60,000 people have died in drug-related violence over the past six years, says 83 percent of the weapons seized in its territory are brought illegally from the United States. The Mexican government, alongside others, has

demanded that Washington do something to ban sales of semi-automatic weapons

and impose stricter controls on gun purchases. Many Latin American officials say that, now that Obama cant run for a new term, he will be freer to push harder for gun-control laws. Third, the recent approval of marijuana legalization

measures in Colorado and Washington state is likely to allow Obama greater flexibility in drug-related talks with Latin America. Over the past year, the presidents of Guatemala, Uruguay,
Mexico and Colombia, among others, have called for a serious debate on drug legalization with Washington. They say that four decades of drug interdiction programs have failed to curb trafficking, and that its time to divert more funds to education, drug prevention and rehabilitation. Fourth, Obamas stated intention to negotiate a Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) trade agreement, while mostly geared at Asian countries,

would also benefit Latin American countries on the Pacific coast, including Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile. The TPP could become the worlds biggest trade deal if Japan the worlds third largest economy decides to join. Fifth, Obamas likely appointment of Sen. John Kerry to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is expected to lead Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. a supporter of greater U.S. cooperation with Latin America to replace Kerry as chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Thats good news to countries that rely on U.S. assistance.

AT//Border Security IL
Borders sufficiently strong now
Saenz 2/13

[Arlette Saenz Reporter for ABC News Border Security No Barrier to Immigration Reform, Napolitano Says http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/border-security-nobarrier-to-immigration-reform-napolitano-says/, 2/13/2013]
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

insisted that the U.S. border has never been stronger and dismissed the notion that border security is the first initiative that must be addressed before all other immigration reform is put in place. I often hear the argument that before reform can move forward we must first secure our borders, but too often the border security first refrain simply serves as an excuse for failing to address the underlying problems. It also ignores the significant progress and efforts that we have undertaken over the past four years, Napolitano said in testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committees first hearing on immigration reform Wednesday. Our borders have, in fact, never been stronger.

AT//India Relations IL
Immigration reforms worse for relations if theyre right about the influx of high-skilled labor, India would perceive it as an American strategy for brain drain
KPMG 11

[KPMG International Consulting. Unlocking the Potential: The Indian Aerospace and Defense Sector http://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ThoughtLeadership /KPMG_Indian_Defence_Industry.pdf]
No substitute to trained manpower The backbone of the defence sector as is true for most skills led manufacturing industries are its human resource and in turn, the skills and technical abilities of the workforce. Estimates suggest that almost 50 percent of the workforce in this sector is constituted by engineers and management graduates. Countries like France have developed highly regarded specialist schools like Institut Superier de lAeronautique et de lEspace (ISAE) and Ecole Nationale de lAviation Civile

(ENAC) in Toulouse and Ecole Nationale Superieure de Mecnique et dAerotechnique (ENSMA) in Poitiers to train engineers for this eld. As the French industry grew, substantial investments were made in the form of professional federations such as Groupem ent des Industries Francaises Aeronautiques et Spatiales (GIFAS) to promote the interests of this sector 10 . With a pool of 134000 specialist employees, the French Aerospace and Defence industry today is clearly a European leader 11 . Whilst one could also reason that since Aerospace and Defence being a very niche sector with specic skills requirement, it is rst important to develop training grounds for the manpower so that they are sector ready for application of these skills. On the other hand, it can also be argued that once the sector comes out of infancy that one would see the setting up of such training schools/innovation hubs. Both arguments may be correct in their own respects and a logical way ahead would be that they both need to function together so that one complements the other. As one of the worlds top 10 military markets, Indias increasing

importance to defence contractors has already been established. As Indian Aerospace and Defence is on the path to growth and development through technology and business from both the domestic private sector and the global integrators, there are valuable lessons that can be learnt from the experience of contemporaries across the globe, who in the past have outdone their potential in this sector. The global Aerospace and Defence evolution clearly suggests that it requires a synchronised working of the governments will and policy coupled with technology and R&D, proven manpower and manufacturing abilities for this sector to create sustainable growth and economic contribution in a country.

More evidence CIR would rob Indias worker base

KPMG 11

[KPMG International Consulting. Unlocking the Potential: The Indian Aerospace and Defense Sector http://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ThoughtLeadership /KPMG_Indian_Defence_Industry.pdf]
D: Availability of skilled manpower An

important enabler for any successful industry is enriched manpower base. It becomes even more indispensable in Aerospace and Defence owing to its dependence on highly skilled human resources. India has the largest pool of English speaking scientists and engineers in the world. With over 380 universities, 11,200 colleges and 1,500 research institutions, India has the second largest pool of scientists and engineers in the world. Every year, over 2.5 million graduates are added to the workforce, including 300,000 engineers and 150,000 IT professionals. 28 India is ranked third globally, after USA and China, in terms of absolute number of
students enrolled in higher education institutions at 11.2 million students. 29 Mastery over quantitative concepts coupled with English prociency has resulted in a skill set that has enabled India to reap the benets of the current international demand for IT.

According to industry feedback, the research and training institutes in India are insufcient as compared to the number of students. Moreover, the training provided in these institutes is not uniform across the country. The government needs to invest more into the sector for the development of professionals so as to leverage the potential of the human resources in an effective manner.

AT//Agriculture IL
Squo solves
Resurreccion 13

[Lyn. Science Editor for Business Mirror. Crop Biotechnology: A Continuing Success Globally The Business Mirror, 2/23/13 ]
CROP biotechnology has been achieving continuing success globally as the number of farmers who use it and the farms planted to biotech crops are increasing, recording 17.3 million farmers who planted the crops in 170.3 hectares in 28 countries in 2012, Dr. Clive James, chairman of the board of directors of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), said on Thursday. James said the trend in crop biotechnology is in favor of developing countries, which compose 20 of the 28 countries that adopt the technology. Another significant development , he said, was that for the first time developing countries planted more biotech crops in 2012, with 52 percent, against the developing countries 48 percent. They registered equal production in 2011. This, James said, was contrary to the perception of critics that biotech crops are only for the developed countries and would not be adopted by developing countries. The increase in biotech farms in 2012 recorded a growth rate of 6 percent, or 10.3 million hectares more from 160 million hectares in 2011, James told a select group of journalists at a hotel in Makati City when he announced the results of the ISAAA report Global Status of
Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops for 2012. James said this development was remarkable because it recorded a 100 -fold increase in biotech crop hectarage in the 17th year of its adoptionfrom 1.7 million hectares in 1996, when it was first commercialized. It

also reflects the confidence of farmers in the technology. They make their decision on the second year [on the technology they use] based on the performance of the first year , he said. He noted that of the 17.3 million farmers, 15.5 million, or 90 percent, are resource-poor, thereby helping farmers increase their income. He said biotech contributed to economic gains of $100 billion from 1996 to 2011, half of this was from reduced production cost, such as less pesticide sprays, less plowing and fewer labor, and the other half was from increased production per hectare. Increased production, James said, resulted in increase in farmers income and more money in their pockets.

Some degree of famines inevitable

Harsch 3

(Ernest, Africa Recovery, May, http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol17no1/171food1.htm)

To many around the world, the image of famine in Africa is closely linked to drought and, in some countries, war. But even

when there is no drought or other acute crisis, about 200 million Africans suffer from chronic hunger, UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Director-General Jacques Diouf noted during a recent visit to Senegal. The reasons are multiple: low farm productivity, grinding poverty, the ravages of HIV/AIDS and unstable domestic and international agricultural markets. "Food insecurity in Africa has structural causes ," Mr. Annan emphasizes. "Most African farmers cultivate small plots of land that do not produce enough to meet the needs of their families. The problem is compounded by the farmers' lack of bargaining power and lack of access to land, finance and technology." Because small-scale farmers and other rural Africans have so few food stocks and little income, a period of drought can quickly trigger famine conditions . This is especially true for rural women, who are among the poorest of the poor and who account for the bulk of food production in Africa.

It doesnt cause war

Barnett 2k

(Jon, Australian Research Council Fellow in the School of Social and Environmental Enquiry at the University of Melbourne, Review of International Studies 26, April)
The ways in which population growth leads to environmental degradation are reasonably well known. However, the particular ways in which this leads to conflict are difficult to prove . In the absence of proof there is a negative style of argumentation, and there are blanket assertions and abrogations; for example: the relationship is rarely causative in a direct fashion, but we may
surmise that conflict would not arise so readily, nor would it prove so acute, if the associated factor of population growth were occurring at a more manageable rate.38 It is possible though, that rather than inducing warfare, overpopulation

and famine reduce the capacity of a people to wage war . Indeed, it is less the case that famines in Africa in recent decades have produced first rate breeding grounds for conflict; the more important, pressing, and avoidable product is widespread malnutrition and large loss of life.

Politics Links Starter Packet

Link turn cards should be specific to the aff youre reading and can be found in the core file for your aff.

Topic Neg

Topic Link UQ
Minimal engagement with Latin America
Cerna 11

[Michael, staff @ CRC, "China's growing presence in Latin America: Implications for US and Chinese presence in the region" China Research Center -- Vol 10 No 1 -- www.chinacenter.net/chinasgrowing-presence-in-latin-america-implications-for-u-s-and-chinesepresence-in-the-region/]
In March 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama met with leaders and officials in Brazil, Chile and El Salvador. Mr. Obama made this visit amid growing Chinese power in the region. The trip marked the first time President Obama had visited Latin America since becoming President. By comparison, at common response in those countries was that the trip was symbolic but not very substantive. Obamas visit did not reflect any shift in policy. Many of the major statements these

this point in Hu Jintaos presidency, the Chinese president already had visited four countries, including Brazil, where he si gned 39 bilateral agreements and announced $100 billion in investments. While Mr. Obama was well-received during his trip, the most

countries hoped for (such as a call for Brazils permanent place on the U.N. Security Council), in fact, were not made. Mr. O bama admitted on his trip: There have been times when the United States took this region for granted, according to the Latin American Herald Tribune. Those times are not yet in the distant past and there are fears this administration is making mistakes similar to ones in the past. After promising during his 2000 election campaign to correct Washingtons indifference to Lati n America, George W. Bush was accused of turning his back on the region in favor of more pressing issues in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The

President showed no concern for a growing Chinese influence in the hemisphere, and China put both feet inside before anyone in Washington seemed to realize the door was open. This was a move China had planned during the administration of George H.W. Bush.

LA 1NC
Engagement with Latin Americas a fight in congress
Meyer and Sullivan 12

[Peter J. Meyer - Analyst in Latin American Affairs and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2013 Appropriations, June 26th, 2012, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf]
At this juncture it

is uncertain if Congress will approve a stand-alone FY2013 foreign aid appropriations measure, or whether such legislation will be rolled into an omnibus appropriations measure that action on the individual bills has reduced the opportunities for Members to consider and amend regular

combines several appropriations bills. With increasing frequency, Congress has included the language of appropriations bills that have not first received House or Senate floor action in omnibus appropriations measures. In these cases, the lack of floor appropriations measures. For example, for FY2012 foreign aid appropriations, neither chamber approved individual State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bills before such appropriations were include in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74). If similar action is taken for FY2013, it would continue the pattern of reduced opportunities for Members that are not on the Appropriations Committees to consider and debate foreign aid legislation, including assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean. To date in the FY2013 foreign aid

appropriations process, the Administration has requested a 9% reduction in foreign aid to Latin America
Committees have and the Caribbean while

House and Senate Appropriations

approved bills that would likely further reduce U.S. assistance going

to the region, although by how much is unclear. The House bill, H.R. 5857, would reduce the Administrations worldwide foreign aid request by almost 12% while the Senate bill, S. 3241, would reduce overall foreign aid by almost 5%. Potential
automatic spending cuts stemming from the implementation of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) could result in further cuts in worldwide foreign assistance, including aid to Latin America and the Caribbean. Further reductions in assistance to the region beyond the Administrations FY2013 request would force the Administration to make even more difficu lt choices about where to prioritize assistance and scale back some of its foreign aid programs in a critical neighboring region where the United States has extensive ties and diverse economic, political, and security interests.

Ext. Latin America

More evidence no political will for the plan, only backlash
Meyer and Sullivan 12

[Peter J. Meyer - Analyst in Latin American Affairs and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2013 Appropriations, June 26th, 2012, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf]
When considering foreign assistance levels for Latin American and Caribbean nations, Congress might examine the issues of political will and program sustainability. According to the State
Departments first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), the United States should assess and monitor host nations political will to make the reforms necessary to make effective use of U.S. assistance to ensure our assistance is being targeted where it can have the most impact.76 Unless partner nations are willing to implement complementary reforms and take ownership and sustain programs as aid is reduced and withdrawn, the results of U.S. assistance will likely be limited and short-lived. The nations of Latin America and the Caribbean have a mixed record in terms of

demonstrating political will and ensuring program sustainability. The Colombian government, which has

benefitted from high levels of U.S. assistance for more than a decade, has undertaken numerous reforms and raised revenue. As a result, the United States is able to carry out a managed transition of its assistance programs in the country in which aid is slowly reduced as Colombia takes over financial and technical responsibility.77 Similarly, USAID is closing its mission in Panama, and closing out its voluntary family planning programs in a number of other Latin American countries because partner nations have developed the capacity to manage and fund the programs on their own.78 Despite these successes, numerous GAO reports over the past decade indicate that

political will has often been lacking

in the region,

especially with

regard to raising sufficient government revenue to sustain efforts initiated with U.S. support. A 2003 study of U.S. democracy programs in six Latin American nations found cases in which U.S. -funded training programs, computer systems, and police equipment had languished for lack of resources after U.S. support ended.79 Likewise, a 2010 study of counter-narcotics programs found that several countries in the region were unable to use U.S.-provided boats for patrol or interdiction operations due to a lack of funding for fuel and maintenance.80 Even MCC-funded projects, in which assistance is contingent on partner nation actions, have run into problems with program sustainability. A July 2011 study of the MCC compact in Honduras found that the lifespan of roads built to improve small farmers access to markets may be relatively limited as the municipalities where they were constructed lack the equipment, expertise, and funding for road maintenance.81

Cuba Neg

Cuba Link UQ
US engagement toward Cubas low Reuters 5-31 [Cuba says inclusion on U.S. terrorist list 'shameful', May 31st, 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-cuba-usaterrorism-idUSBRE94U05020130531]
(Reuters) - In what has become an annual ritual, the

United States on Thursday kept Cuba on its list of "state sponsors of terrorism" and Havana reacted angrily, calling it a "shameful decision" based in politics, not reality. Cuba said in a statement that the U.S. government was pandering to the Cuban exile community in Miami against its own interests and the wishes of the American people. "It hopes to please an anti-Cuban group, growing smaller all the time, which tries to maintain a
policy that now has no support and doesn't even represent the national interests of the United States," said the statement issued by Cuba's foreign ministry. Iran, Sudan and Syria also are on the list, which is published annually by the U.S. State Department. Cuba has been on it since 1982. The

terrorism designation comes with a number of sanctions, including a prohibition on U.S. economic assistance and financial restrictions that create problems for Cuba in international commerce, already made

difficult by a U.S. trade embargo imposed against the island since 1962. The State Department's explanation for Cuba's inclusion on the list discounted most of the reasons from previous years and said "there was no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups." In the past, the report fingered Cuba for harboring rebels from the Marxist-led FARC, or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and members of Basque separatist groups. This year, it noted that Cuba is sponsoring peace talks between the FARC and the Colombian government and has moved to distance itself from the Basques.

Washington's primary accusation was that Cuba harbors and provides aid to fugitives from U.S. justice. Cuba does not deny that it has fugitives from the United States, but said none had been accused of terrorism.

Cuba Aid/Democracy 1NC

All foreign aid to Cuba is for democracy assistance which causes political fights, none goes to the government PolitiFact 11 [The U.S. gives foreign aid to Cuba and Venezuela, even though those countries are our enemies, February 9th, 2011, http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2011/mar/23/ted-poe/ted-poe-decries-us-aidvenezuela-cuba/]
In a House floor speech on Feb. 9, 2011, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, took

aim at American aid to foreign countries. Poe has introduced a bill to require separate votes on aiding specific countries, thus ending the practice of bundling foreign aid into a single bill. "Maybe its time to reconsider our foreign aid that we send to countries
throughout the world," Poe said in the floor speech, which has attracted attention in conservative circles on the Internet. "There are about 192 foreign countries in the world, and we give foreign aid to over 150 of them." Poe proceeded to name

some examples of countries where many Americans might be uncomfortable sending taxpayer money, including Egypt, Pakistan, Russia and China. But two of the nations in Poes speech caught our eye -- Venezuela and Cuba. Critics of Venezuelas leader, Hugo Chavez, call him a dictator. Meanwhile, Cuba has been a communist country for decades, led by Fidel Castro and now his brother Raul. In its widely followed rankings, the group Freedom House rates Venezuela toward the bottom of the nations it classifies as "partly free," while Cuba sits at the lower end of its "not free" scale. And both nations have strained relations with the United States. So Poe suggested these as two examples of whats wrong with U.S. foreign aid. "We give money to Venezuela. Why do we give money to Chavez and Venezuela? He hates the United States. He defies our president, makes fun of our nation. We dont need to give him any foreign aid. We give $20 million to Cuba. Why do we give money to Cuba ? Americans cant even go to Cuba. Its off-limits. Its a communist country. But were dumping money over there." We looked at budget documents for

foreign aid and talked to experts in the field, and heres what we found. Poe is correct that U.S. foreign aid flows into both countries. In fiscal year 2010, the Venezuela account showed $6 million, while the Cuba account showed $20 million. For fiscal year 2012, the administration has requested a little less for Venezuela -- $5 million -- and the same $20 million amount for Cuba. To give a sense of context, the 2010 funds allocated for Venezuela amounted to less than 1/100th of 1 percent of the total U.S. foreign-aid budget, and the figure for Cuba was about 4/100 of 1 percent of the U.S. foreign aid budget. The percentage of the entire federal budget is even more minuscule. Still, even if the amount is small, taxpayer money is taxpayer money, so Poe has a point. However, Poe also said in plain language that "we give money to Chavez." And while he didnt say it in as explicit a fashion, Poe implied that the U.S. sends aid to the Cuban regime. This is where it gets more complicated. The funding for both nations comes from the Economic Support Fund, which, according to the State Department, "supports U.S. foreign policy objectives by providing economic assistance to allies and countries in transition to democracy. Programs funded through this account promote stability and U.S. security interests in strategic regions of the world." Lets take Cuba first. A spokesman for the U.S. Agency for International Development confirmed that no

U.S. aid goes to the Cuban government. In an explanation of its proposed budget, the administration writes civil society to advocate for greater democratic freedoms and respect for human dignity." The $20 million designated for Cuba "focuses on strengthening independent Cuban civil society organizations, including associations and labor groups. To advance the cause of human rights in Cuba, U.S. assistance provides humanitarian assistance to political prisoners and their families The United States supports nascent pro-

that "Cuba is the only non-democratically elected government in the Western Hemisphere and one of the most politically repressed countries in the world. In view of these challenges, U.S. assistance for Cuba aims to empower Cuban

democracy groups, the use of technology, and new information-sharing opportunities." A 2006 review by the Government Accountability Office noted that the aid is such a threat to the regime that it has to be kept under tight wraps on the island. "Given the Cuban governments repressive policies and opposition to U.S. democracy assistance, grantees employed a range of discreet delivery methods," GAO reported. In other words, the money being sent to Cuba is designed to foster

democracy in what is currently an undemocratic country -- not to support the government. Poes failure to note that
distinction as he attacks aid to "Cuba" strikes us as misleading.

Ext. Cuba Aid/Democracy

Cuban democracy assistance programs are corrupt and opaque Congress has been very critical of them Collins 10 [Michael Collins is the program associate for the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy, Cuba: Democracy Promotion Programs under Fire as Fallout from Spy Arrest Continues, May 12th, 2010, http://upsidedownworld.org/main/cuba-archives43/2488-cuba-democracy-promotion-programs-under-fire-as-falloutfrom-spy-arrest-continues]
Since the early 90s the

United States has funded several programs that are designed ostensibly to promote democracy in Cuba. All are managed by USAID. Gross's arrest has shone a spotlight on these programs, which have been questioned over the past few years for issues of corruption and transparency . Many USAID programs in Cuba are run through the Office of Transition Initiatives
(OTI). A congressional report noted in 2009 that, "Unlike many foreign assistance programs, Transition Initiative programs are often initiated on short notice and are not always accurately detailed in budget justification documents. The annual appropriations provisions for OTI require that the office give only five days' notice to Congress of new TI programs, and even ongoing programs are not reported at the same level of detail as other foreign assistance programs." A 2006 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)

offered stinging criticism of USAID for the lack of oversight in its Cuba aid program. According to the report, "Nearly all of the $74 million spent on contracts to promote democracy in Cuba over the past decade has been distributed without competitive bidding or oversight in a program that opened the door to waste and fraud." Some of the profligacy

cited includes the purchase of a gas chainsaw, computer gaming equipment and software (including Nintendo Gameboys and Sony Playstations), a mountain bike, leather coats, cashmere sweaters, crabmeat, and Godiva chocolates. A Miami Herald article from the same year pointed out that "most of the USAID money has remained in Miami or Washingtoncreating an anti-Castro economy that finances a broad array of activities." The corruption that exists in the Cuba democracy promotion

programs came to a head in 2008, when Howard Berman, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, placed a hold on the $45 million due to be allocated to Cuban programs that year. Berman
wrote a memo to the assistant secretary for Legislative Affairs, questioning the "four-fold increase" in funding for Cuban democracy promotion programs given the fraudulent abuse and lack of adequate oversight reported by the GAO in 2006 and the media. He

requested the freeze be maintained until USAID responded to a list of questions regarding the reported irregularities. Berman wanted answers on where the $74 million awarded for Cuba

democracy promotion programs mentioned in the GAO report had gone. He also requested follow-up information and measures regarding the case of Felipe Sixto from the Washington-based Center for a Free Cuba (CFC). Sixto was discovered to have embezzled between $500,000 and $700,000 from the grantee's total award of $7.3 million. Sixto, who was a special assistant for intergovernmental affairs during the George W. Bush administration, was given thirty months in jail. Berman later unfroze the withheld funds saying that he had been given assurances by USAID and the State Department that it was "working to improve the program."

Cuba Energy 1NC

Energy cooperation with Cuba drains capital Nerurkar and Sullivan 11 [Neelesh Nerurkar - Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Cubas Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations, November 28th, 2011, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf]
On the opposite side of the policy debate,

a number of policy groups and members of Congress

oppose engagement with Cuba, including U.S. investment in Cubas offshore energy development . A legislative initiative introduced in the 111th Congress, H.R. 5620, would have gone further by imposing visa restrictions and economic sanctions on foreign companies and their executives who help facilitate the development of Cubas petroleum resources. The bill asserted that offshore drilling by or under the authorization of the Cuban government poses a serious economic and environmental threat to the United States because of the damage that an oil spill could cause. Opponents of U.S. support for Cubas offshore oil development also argue that such involvement would provide an economic lifeline to the Cuban government and thus prolong the continuation of the communist regime. They maintain that if Cuba reaped substantial economic benefits from offshore oil development, it could reduce societal pressure on Cuba to enact market-oriented economic reforms. Some who oppose U.S. involvement in Cubas energy development contend that while Cuba might have substantial amounts of oil offshore, it will take years to develop. They maintain that the Cuban government is using the enticement of potential oil profits to break down the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba.78

Ext. Cuba Energy

Congress HATES any cooperation with Cuba over oil drilling several bills have been brought to sanction companies that even try Nerurkar and Sullivan 11 [Neelesh Nerurkar - Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Cubas Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations, November 28th, 2011, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf]
Interest in Cubas offshore oil development has continued in the 112th Congress as foreign oil companies have moved forward with plans to begin exploratory drilling. To date, five legislative initiatives have been introduced taking

different approaches, and two congressional hearings have been held examining the issue. H.R. 372 (Buchanan), introduced January 26, 2011, would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to deny oil and gas leases and permits to persons who engage in activities with the government of any foreign country that is subject to any sanction or an embargo by the U.S. government. The intent of the legislation is to provide a disincentive to companies involved, or contemplating becoming involved, in Cubas oil development, although the scope of the legislation is much broader and could affect other oil companies, including U.S. companies, not involved in Cuba. Because the bill does not define sanction, the term could be used to refer to such U.S. restrictions as export controls or limits on foreign assistance. With this use of the term, many countries worldwide could be construed as being subject to a U.S. sanction, and as a result, any energy company that engages in activities with one of these countries could be denied an oil and gas lease in the United States under the proposed legislation. S. 405 (Bill Nelson), the Gulf Stream Protection Act of 2011, introduced February 17, 2011, would require a company that is conducting oil or gas operations off the coasts of Cuba to submit an oil response plan for their Cuba operations and demonstrate sufficient resources to respond to a worst case scenario if the company wanted to lease drilling rights in the United States. The bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to carry out an oil spill risk analysis and planning process for the development and implementation of oil spill response plans for nondomestic oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. The Secretary of the Interior would be required, among other things, to include recommendations for Congress on a joint contingency plan with the countries of Mexico, Cuba, and the Bahamas to ensure an adequate response to oil spills located in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. H.R. 2047 (Ros-Lehtinen), the Caribbean Coral Reef Protection Act of 2011 (identical to a bill introduced in the 111th Congress and noted above), was introduced May 26,
2011, and

would impose visa restrictions on foreign nationals and economic

sanctions on companies that help facilitate the development of Cubas offshore petroleum resources . The bill would exclude from the United States aliens who invest $1 million or more that contributes to the enhancement of the ability of Cuba to develop its offshore oil resources. It would also require the imposition of sanctions (two or more from a menu of listed sanctions) if the President determined that a person had made an investment of $1 million on or after January 10, 2005, that contributed to Cubas offshore oil development.

Obama has to use his PC Orth 11 (Derek Orth, J.D. expected May 2012, Rutgers School of Law (Newark, N.J.); Managing Articles Editor for the Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 2011 University of Oregon, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 26 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 509, Lexis, 2011)
The Deepwater

Horizon was constructed in 2001 and was "capable of operating in water up to 8,000 feet deep and able occurred while Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton) was mounting production casing and [*512] cement on a 5,000 feet deep
to drill down to 30,000 feet." n6 The disaster exploratory well in the Macondo Prospect. Ironically, integrity tests were due to be performed on the Macondo well at the time the

explosion occurred, after which the well would have been capped until BP was prepared to begin extraction operations. n7

Tragically, the fiery explosion that occurred onboard the Deepwater Horizon threw BP's plans into disarray, resulting in eleven deaths, n8 millions of barrels of spewing oil, n9 and immense damage to the Gulf Coast. n10 The subsequent proliferation of monetary claims, lawsuits, and legislation n11 has raised numerous issues that stand to forever alter the regulatory structure of the offshore oil industry n12 as well as the liability schemes of international oil companies operating in the United States' coastal waters. n13 A bill's passage through Congress is fraught with danger at every turn . In general, most bills are submitted by individual members of Congress, examined and voted upon by specialized committees, presented to both the House and Senate for approval, and, finally, submitted to the President for his signature . Thus, a well-meaning and complex bill can often only gain approval through an expenditure of serious political capital by at least one party or the occurrence of an event that exerts public pressure on both political parties to react expediently and deal with the crisis.

Plan can only hurt Obama only opposition to the plankills democrat support
Hobson 12

Margaret Kriz Hobson 12, E&E reporter, April 18, http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1

OFFSHORE DRILLING: Obama's

development plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf spill President Obama is embracing the offshore oil and gas development policies he proposed in early 2010 but were sidelined in the shadow of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Two years after the BP PLC oil rig exploded, killing 11 people and causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history, Obama's "all of the above"
energy policy includes offshore drilling provisions that are nearly identical to his aggressive March 2010 drilling plan. Since the moratorium on offshore oil drilling ended in late 2010, the administration expanded oil and gas development in the western and central Gulf of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House appears poised to allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. The administration is also paving the way for oil and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such survey in 30 years. While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama administration has also taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President Obama's oil spill commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety, environmental protection and oil spill preparation. An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully inadequate." As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon, Obama's

offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any

political capital . The environmental community hates the drilling proposals . The Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough.
And independent

voters are confused by the president's rhetoric. According to

the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in Colorado and Virginia don't understand what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy was "described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and necessary to becoming more energy independent." A recent Gallup poll indicated that American

voters are polarized on energy issues. The survey found that 47 percent of the public

believes energy development is more important than environmental protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority. In that political climate, Obama's

offshore oil development policies are not likely to affect the nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of

Virginia's Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no place to go except Obama, and Obama isn't going to convince any conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas proposals, Sabato said. "He's obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will work." Back to the original plan, minus 2 pieces Obama's all-ofthe-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic. The White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratorium and passed a global warming bill. When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor. Since the Republicans took

control of the House in 2011, GOP

leaders have advanced a series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially allowing development along all U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the Democratcontrolled Senate. The Republicans and industry officials long for the offshore oil and gas plan floated by former President George W.

Bush during his last days in office. That proposal would have offered 31 federal lease sales and included regions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By comparison, Obama's 2012 to 2017 leasing blueprint includes a dozen sites in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and excludes the West Coast and northern East Coast.

No turns---liberals hate the plan and conservatives wont give Obama credit for it
Walsh 11

Bryan, TIME Senior editor, November 9, Why Obamas Offshore Drilling Plan Isnt Making Anyone Happy, http://science.time.com/2011/11/09/why-obamas-offshore-drillingplan-isnt-making-anyone-happy/#ixzz26snhDbbI
Nonetheless, Obama has set

a target of reducing U.S. oil imports by a third by 2025, and greater domestic oil production is going to have to be a part of thatincluding oil from the Arctic. Unfortunately for the President, no ones likely to cheer him . Conservatives and the oil industry wont be foot of the country is available for drillingthough it is worth noting that oil production offshore has actually increased under Obamaand environmentalists arent going to rally to support any sort of expanded drilling . With energy, as with so many other issues for Obama, its lonely at the center .
square

happy until just about every

Cuba Engagement 1NC

The plan drains capital
Birns and Mills 13

(Larry, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Frederick B., COHA Senior Research Fellow, 01/30, Best Time for U.S. Cuba Rapprochement Is Now, http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-scuba-rapprochement-is-now/)
Despite the basic intransigence of US policy towards Cuba, in recent years, important changes have been introduced by Havana: state control over the economy has been diminished; most travel restrictions affecting both Americans and Cubans on the island have been lifted; and the group of 75 Cuban dissidents detained in 2003 have been freed. Washington has all but ignored these positive changes by Havana, but when it comes to interacting with old foes such as those of Myanmar, North Korea, and Somalia, somehow constructive dialogue is the order of the day. One reason for this inconsistency is the

continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a change of course by Washington. The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in the US Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and that political repression continues unabated. They continue to see the embargo as a tool for coercing either more dramatic reforms or regime change. It is true that the reformist tendency in

Cuba does not include a qualitative move from a one party system to political pluralism. Lamentably, Cuba reportedly continues to use temporary detentions and the occasional jailing of non-violent dissidents to limit the parameters of political debate and total freedom of association. The authors agree that no non-violent Cuban dissident should be intimidated, detained or jailed. But continuing to maliciously turn the screws on Havana has never provided an incentive for more democracy in any sense of the word nor has it created a political opening into which Cuba, with confidence, could enter. The easing of tensions between Washington and Havana is more likely to contribute to the evolution of a more democratic form of socialism on the island, the early stages of which we may presently be witnessing. In any case the precise form of such change inevitably should and will be decided in Cuba, not in Washington or Miami. To further moves towards rapprochement with Cuba, the U.S. State Department should remove the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is an invention to depict Havana as a state sponsor of terrorism, a charge only levied by the State Department under pressure from Hill hardliners. As researcher Kevin Edmunds, quite properly points out: This position is highly problematic, as the United States has actively engaged in over 50 years of economic and covert destabilization in Cuba, going so far as blindly protecting wanted terrorists such as Luis Posada Carilles and Orlando Bosch, both former CIA agents accused of dozens of terrorist attacks in Cuba and the United States (Nov. 15, 2012, Kevin Edmonds blog). It was precisely the propensity of some anti-Castro extremists to plan terrorist attacks against Cuba that urgently motivated the infiltration of such groups by the Cuban five as well as the close monitoring of these organizations by the FBI. Another gesture of good will would be for the White House to grant clemency to the Cuban five: Gerardo Hernandez, Ramn Labaino, Fernando Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and Ren Gonzalez. They are Cuban nationals who were convicted in a Miami court in 2001 and subsequently sentenced to terms ranging from 15 years to double life, mostly on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. Despite requests for a change of venue out of Miami, which at first was granted and later denied, the trial took place in a politically charged Miami atmosphere that arguably tainted the proceedings and compromised justice. Supporters maintain that the Cuban five had infiltrated extremist anti-Castro organizations in order to prevent terrorist attacks against Cuba and did not pose any security threat to the United States. It would be an important humanitarian gesture to let them go home. Perhaps such a gesture might facilitate reciprocity on the part of Cuban authorities when it comes to American engineer Alan Gross who is presently being detained in a Cuban jail. There would probably be

a political price to pay by the Obama administration for taking steps towards reconciliation with Havana, but if Obamas election to a second term means that there is to be a progressive

dividend, surely such a dividend ought to include a change in US policy towards the island. Mirabile dictu, the Administration can build on the small steps it has already taken. Since 2009, Washington has lifted some of the restrictions on travel between the US and Cuba and now allows Cuban Americans to send remittances to relatives on the island. The Cuba Reconciliation Act (HR 214) introduced by Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY) on January 4, 2013, and sitting in a number of congressional committees, would repeal the harsh terms of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, both of which toughened the embargo during the special period in Cuba. The Cuba Reconciliation Act, however, is unlikely to get much traction, especially with ultra-hardliner Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairing the House Foreign Relations Committee, and her counterpart, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who is about to lead the Senate Foreign Relations Body. Some of the anti-Castro Cuban American community would likely view any of the three measures advocated here as a capitulation to the Castro brothers. But as we have argued, a pro-democracy and humanist position is not in any way undermined, but might in fact be advanced by dtente. An end to the embargo has been long overdue, and the judgment of history may very well be that it ought never to have been started.

Ext. Cuba Engagement

The Cuba lobby hates the plan they think the US should leverage the plan for changes abroad The Register 4-21 [The Cuban chill, April 21st, 2013, http://www.registerguard.com/rg/opinion/29740770-78/cuba-lobbypolicy-china-political.html.csp,]
Policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally pivotal state of Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents in line behind a policy that, as President Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is supported by virtually no other countries. (The last time it came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point is not that a Cuba Lobby exists, but that it astonishingly lives on even during the presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus far. Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby isnt one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic members of Congress and nongovernmental organizations, some of which comprise a selfinterested industry nourished by the flow of democracy promotion money from the U.S. Agency for International Development. And like its Sino-obsessed predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was launched at the instigation of conservative Republicans in government who needed outside backers to advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling New Dealers in the Truman administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald Reagans administration battling congressional Democrats over Central America policy. At the Cuba Lobbys request, Reagan created Radio Mart, modeled on Radio Free Europe, to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. He named Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban American National Foundation, to lead the radios oversight board. President George H.W. Bush followed with TV Mart. Sen. Jesse Helms, R -N.C., and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., authored the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, writing the economic embargo into law so no president could change it without congressional approval. Founded at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagans first national security adviser, CANF was the linchpin of the Cuba Lobby until Mas Canosas death in 1997. No individual had more influence over United States policies toward Cuba over the past two decades than Jorge Mas Canosa, The New York Times editorialized. In Washington, CANF built its reputation by spreading campaign contributions to bolster friends and punish enemies. In 1988, CANF money helped Connecticuts Joe Lieberman defeat incumbent Sen. Lowell Weicker, whom Lieberman accused of being soft on Castro because he visited Cuba and advocated better relations. Weickers defeat sent a chilling message to other members of Congress: challenge the Cuba Lobby at your peril. In 1992, according to Peter Stones reporting in National Journal, New Jers ey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli, seduced by the Cuba Lobbys political money, reversed his position on Havana and wrote the Cuban Democracy Act, tightening the embargo. Today, the political action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the

U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands out more campaign dollars than CANFs political

action arm did even at its height more than $3 million since 1996. In Miami, conservative Cuban-Americans long have presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist groups such as Omega 7 and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF, played in creating it. Like the China Lobby,

the Cuba Lobby has

struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy . The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive branch, routinely punishes career civil servants who dont toe the line. One of the Cuba Lobbys early
targets was John Jay Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, who was given an unsatisfactory annual evaluati on report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor reported from Havana that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America. In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the appointment of President Bill Clintons first choice to be assistant secretary of state for interAmerican affairs, Mario Baeza, because he once had visited Cuba. Clinton dumped Baeza. Two years later, Clinton caved in to the lobbys demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995 migration accord with Cuba that created a safe, legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba told me he stopped sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could report to the department by telephone. During George W. Bushs administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Departments Latin America bureau (renamed the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). Bushs first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban -American veteran of the Reagan administration and favorite of Miami hard-liners. Reich had run Reagans public diplomacy operation demonizing opponents of the presidents Central America policy as communist sympathizers. In 2002, Bushs undersecretary for

arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence officer for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to this mischaracterization of the communitys assessment, Bolton and Reich tried repeatedly to have him fired. When Obama

was elected president, promising a new beginning in relations with Havana, the Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the senior Cuban-American Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, vehemently opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill, needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed the requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased restrictions on travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had to promise in writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.

Reforming Cuba policy will be a fight Think Progress 4-9 [How the GOP Response to Beyoncs Cuba Trip Highlights Broken Policy, April 9th, 2013, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/09/1838661/rubiobeyonce-cuba/]
Experts at CAP and the Cato Institute alike agree that the policy has been an abject failure at achieving the goals the United States set out. On taking office, President Obama sought to roll-back some of the harsher restrictions the previous administration placed on Cuba. the U.S. to their families back home and

Cuba, including removing a ban on remittances from Cubans in reducing travel restrictions on Americans with immediate family in Every step towards reforming Cuba policy, however, has been met with

kicking and screaming , mostly from the GOP with some Democrats joining in. While the human rights violations the Cuban regime continues to perpetrate are most certainly a concern, campaign funding may play a strong role in the perpetuation of U.S. policies. A 2009 report from Public Campaign highlighted the nearly $11 million the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, along with a network of hard-line Cuban American donors, spent on political campaigns since 2004. In the report, those candidates who received funding displayed a shift in voting patterns on Cuba policy in the
aftermath of the gift

The plans perceived as a concession to Cuba congress prefers the hardline NY Times 10 [U.S. Said to Plan Easing Rules for Travel to Cuba, August 16th, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/world/americas/17cuba.html?_ r=3&hp&]
The Obama administration is

planning to expand opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba, the latest step aimed at encouraging more contact between people in both countries, while leaving intact the decades-old

embargo against the islands Communist government, according to Congressional and administration officials. The officials, who asked not to be identified because they had not been authorized to discuss the policy before it was announced, said it was meant to loosen restrictions on academic, religious and cultural groups that were adopted under President George W. Bush, and return to the people to people policies followed under President Bill Clinton. Those policies, officials said, fostered robust

exchanges between the United States and Cuba, allowing groups including universities, sports teams, museums and chambers of commerce to share expertise as well as life experiences. Policy analysts said the intended changes would mark a significant shift in Cuba policy . In

early 2009, President Obama lifted restrictions on travel and remittances only for Americans with relatives on the island. Congressional aides cautioned that some administration officials still saw

the proposals as too politically

volatile to announce until after the coming midterm elections, and they said revisions could still be made. But others said the policy, which does not need legislative approval, would be announced before Congress returned from its break in mid-September,
partly to avoid a

political backlash from outspoken groups within the Cuban American

lobby backed by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey that oppose any softening in Washingtons position toward Havana. Those favoring the change said that with a growing number of polls

showing that Cuban-Americans attitudes toward Cuba had softened as well, the administration did not expect much of a backlash. They have made the calculation that if you put a smarter Cuba policy on the table, it will not harm us in the election cycle, said one Democratic Congressional aide who has been working with the administration on the policy. That, I think, is what animates this. Mr. Menendez, in a statement, objected to the anticipated changes.

This is not the time to ease pressure

on the Castro regime,

he said, referring to President Ral Castro of Cuba, who took office in 2006 after his brother,

Fidel, fell ill. Mr. Menendez added that promoting

travel would give Havana a much needed infusion of dollars that will only allow the Castro brothers to extend their reign of oppression.

Cuba Trade 1NC

Increasing trade with Cubas a fight NYT 12 [The New York Times. Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo, November 19th, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-incuba-create-support-for-easingembargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]
And Cuba has a long history of tossing ice on warming relations. The latest example is the jailing of Alan Gross, a State Department contractor who has spent nearly three years behind bars for distributing satellite telephone equipment to Jewish groups in Havana. In Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main impediment to an easing of the embargo, but there are also limits to what the president could do without Congressional action. The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act conditioned the waiving of sanctions on the introduction of democratic changes inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also requires that the embargo remain until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected government. Obama administration officials say they have not given up, and could move if the president decides to act on his own. Officials say that under the Treasury Departments licensing and regulation-writing authority, there is room for significant modification. Following the legal logic of Mr. Obamas changes in 2009, further expansions

in travel are possible along with new allowances for investment or imports and exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses. Even these adjustments which could also include travel for all Americans and looser rules for ships engaged in trade with Cuba, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba Study Group would probably mean a fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred oppose looser asked about Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more American support, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, proposed an even tighter embargo. The
rules. When

sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered , she wrote in an e-mail. Responsible nations must not buy into the facade the dictatorship is trying to create by announcing reforms while, in reality, its tightening its grip on its people.

Ext. Cuba Trade

Plan guarantees congressional backlash
Hanson and lee 13

(Stephanie, associate director and coordinating editor at CFR.org, Brianna, Senior Production Editor, 01/31, U.S.-Cuba Relations, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113)
Many recent policy reports have recommended that the United States take some unilateral steps to roll back sanctions on Cuba. The removal of sanctions, however, would be just one step in the process of normalizing relations. Such a process is sure to be controversial , as indicated by the heated congressional debate spurred in March 2009 by attempts to ease travel and trade restrictions in a large appropriations bill. "Whatever we call it--normalization, dtente, rapproachement-- it is clear that the policy process risks falling victim to the politics of the issue," says Sweig.

More evidence tremendous support for the embargo anything that contradicts it gets roasted US-Cuba Politics 5-14 [United States Cuba Relations Why U.S. Cuba Policy Does Not Change: Asymmetrical Absurdity, May 14th, 2013, http://www.uscubapolitics.com/2013/05/united-states-cubarelations-why-us.html]
Over the last decade we have seen many attempts to change U.S. Cuba policy beginning with lifting the travel ban. All have failed . Most recently, we have seen the efforts to remove Cuba from the Terror List, a
designation that Cuba does not deserve and only serves to keep costs higher between the two countries, also fail. Conversely,

we

have seen the hand of the pro-embargo hardliners grow bigger and stronger . Legislation to expand Cuba travel is consistently blocked or thwarted in Congress.
Funding for clandestine Democracy programs like the ones that got Alan Gross into a Cuban prison, still continue to be funded.

The pro-embargo voting bloc raises money and elected six Members of Congress to be their vanguards on the floors of Congress. Their capacity to even reach into the White House, the Executive Branch, and establish themselves in gateway leadership positions in the Congress all speak to a well concerted political effort. Government officials and policy makers have to tow the hard line through the veiled and actual threats of holding up Presidential appointments or congressional funding. Intelligence and reason have taken a back slide to raw political power . Meet the
consequences of distorted politics.

AT//GOP Likes the Plan

The ones that matter hate it
The Hill 12

[Cuban-American senators hit brick wall with Obama administration on Cuba policy, June 7th, 2012, http://thehill.com/blogs/globalaffairs/americas/231487-cuban-american-senators-hit-a-brick-wallwith-obama-administration-on-cuba-policy]
The Senate's two Cuban-Americans spent Thursday morning talking past the Obama administration's top official for the Americas on the issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba. Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were the only two senators who showed up for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subpanel hearing on freedom in Cuba. They called

the administration's relaxing of travel restrictions to Cuba naive and bashed the State Department's decision to grant visas to high-profile Cuban officials, including President Raul Castro's daughter Mariela. The Cuban people are no less deserving of America's support than the millions who were imprisoned and forgotten in Soviet gulags, Menendez said. I am compelled to ask again today as I have before why is there such an obvious double standard when it comes to Cuba? Rubio said Castro government officials are master manipulators of U.S. policy and public opinion. The two senators favor a hard-line stance against Cuba until regime change takes place. Critics of that policy argue that more than 50 years of U.S. sanctions have only enabled Castro brothers Fidel and Raul to consolidate their power while impoverishing the Cuban people.

They dont
Griswold 5

[director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (Daniel, 10/12, Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decadesfailure-us-embargo-against-cuba]
For all those reasons, pressure has been building in Congress for a new policy toward Cuba. In the past five years, the House and occasionally the Senate have voted to lift the travel ban to Cuba, and also to lift the cap on remittances and even to lift the embargo altogether. Yet each time efforts in Congress to ease the embargo have been thwarted by the administration and the Republican leadership . Support for the embargo certainly does not come from the general American public, but from a group of Cuban-American activists concentrated in southern Florida. By a fluke of the electoral college, Republican presidents feel obligated to please this small special interest at the expense of our broader national interest.

Mexico Neg

Mexico Link UQ
US engagement is decreasing
Priest 5-1

[Dana. Latin American Reporter for the Washington Post. U.S. role to decrease as Mexicos drug-war strategy shifts The Washington Post, 5/1/13 ln//GBS-JV]
For the past seven years, Mexico and the United States have forged an unparalleled alliance against Mexicos drug cartels, one based on sharing sensitive intelligence, U.S. training and joint operational planning. But much of

that hard-earned cooperation may be in jeopardy . President Obama heads off Thursday on a threeday visit to Mexico to cement relations with the newly elected president, Enrique Pea Nieto, with vows of neighborly kinship and future cooperation. Obamas visit comes as the fight over border security and

immigration overhaul has begun to consume Congress. The December inauguration of Pea Nieto brought the nationalistic Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) back to power after 13 years, and with it a whiff of resentment over the deep U.S. involvement in Mexicos fight against narcotraffickers. The new administration has shifted priorities away from the U.S.backed strategy of arresting kingpins, which sparked an unprecedented level of violence among the cartels,
and toward an emphasis on prevention and keeping Mexicos streets safe and calm, Mexican authorities said.

Hold any of their link uniqueness claims to a high threshold US actions never reflect diplomatic rhetoric
Padgett 5-27

[Timothy. Latin America Reporter for TIME Why China I s Behind Fresh U.S. Moves In Latin America WLRN South Florida 5/27/13 http://wlrn.org/post/why-china-behind-fresh-us-moves-latin-america//GBS-JV]
There are of course skeptics. I asked Robert Pastor, a

former White House national security advisor for Latin America and now an international relations professor at American University in Washington, D.C., if he thinks the U.S. is doing enough to keep itself relevant in the Americas. No its not, he
says. President Obamas

trip (to Mexico and Central America) is a good first step, but he needs to do
with the rest of South

a lot more to open up and show Americas interest in re-engaging

America. Pastor has a point: for

decades, Latin America has heard a lot of rhetoric from the U.S. about engagement -- the kind Biden offered the Council of the Americas in Washington recently, when he declared that the hemisphere matters more (to the U.S.) today because it has more potential than any time in American history.

Recent attempts at engagement have failed

Zissis 12

[Carin. Mexico Analyst for the Council of the Americas. Mexicos Pea Nieto Visits Washington to Refocus Relations 11/27/12 http://www.as-coa.org/articles/mexico%E2%80%99s-pe%C3%B1anieto-visits-washington-refocus-relations//GBS-JV]
the American public may not have read the good news . A November 20 Vianovo and GSD&M survey found that half of Americans have an unfavorable view of Mexico, with drugs being the word most frequently associated with it. As many as 59 percent of those surveyed viewed Mexico as a source of problems compared to just 14 percent considering it a good partner. This perception persists, even as signs indicate a turning tide in
But it appears

terms of the drug-related violence that marked the six-year term of outgoing President Felipe Caldern. An AnimalPolitico
analysis (translated into English by InSight Crime) reports that 20 of Mexicos 32 states saw fewer homicides between January and October in 2012 compared to the same period last year. Areas associated with high rates of violence saw notable drops, with homicides decreasing by 32 percent in Chihuahua, 25 percent in Nuevo Leon, and 23 percent in Sinaloa. Last month, Ciudad Juarez logged fewer homicides than Chicago. [A]re we still in a security crisis? asks the articles author, Mexican security expert Alejandro Hope. I would say no: crime and violence continue (and will continue for a while) at unacceptable levels, but it can no

longer be so easily argued that the situation is escalating out of control.

More evidence even recent attempts at improved relations will fail too many barriers
Farnsworth 5-8

[Eric. Leader of the Washington Office of the Council of the Americas. He was the Clinton Administrations Senior Adviser to the White House Special Envoy for the Americas. Obamas Mexico Trip Yielded Progress, Missed Opportunities 5/8/13 http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12934/obama-smexico-trip-yielded-progress-missed-opportunities//GBS-JV]
At the same time, a

number of obstacles to growth must be addressed if the bilateral

relationship is to reach its full potential. Many of these are domestic issues that each nation should resolve for its own self-interest but that would nonetheless meaningfully improve the are, from Mexicos side, reforms in fiscal, energy and competition policy, as well as the continuing implementation of labor and education reforms. Working with Mexicos other two main political parties, Pena Nietos Institutional Revolution Party (PRI) has successfully begun the reform process. But the Mexican presidents honeymoon period is coming to an end, and the most difficult issues remain unresolved. From the U.S. perspective, comprehensive immigration reform would boost the economy by regularizing, and therefore capitalizing on, immigrant workers already in the United States contributing to economic production. The United States would also do well to quickly pass the transboundary hydrocarbons agreement with Mexico, which would open up opportunities for cooperation with Mexican state energy company Pemex in the Gulf of Mexico.
bilateral economic relationship. Among these

More evidence instances of increased cooperation are meaningless in the context of our DA
Farnsworth 5-8

[Eric. Leader of the Washington Office of the Council of the Americas. He was the Clinton Administrations Senior Adviser to the White House Special Envoy for the Americas. Obamas Mexico Trip Yielded Progress, Missed Opportunities 5/8/13 http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12934/obama-smexico-trip-yielded-progress-missed-opportunities//GBS-JV]
The presidents visit to Mexico was timely and symbolically important. It was designed to shift the narrative about U.S.-Mexico relations, and several concrete initiatives were announced. But the trip seemingly did little to promote or capture a larger ambition for the relationship . Both sides will need to think bigger to take the relationship to the next level.

The turn to economics is not substantive the security focus will return and theres no coherent economic agenda
Fossett 13

[Katelyn, In U.S.-Mexico Relations, a Shift from Security to Economy, Interpress Service News, www.ipsnews.net/2013/04/in-us-mexico-relations-a-shift-from-security-to-economy///GBS-JV]
Developments Achilles heel Still, for a country like Mexico that is still struggling with issues of citizen security and rampant crime, many suggest that economic growth would have to start from the bottom, with more robust social programmes and safety nets, before the international community becomes too optimistic about economic and trade booms.

Cynthia Arnson, director of the Latin America programme at the Wilson Center, calls Latin America far behind in developing policies that might leverage inclusive growth. There is not a sense of shared responsibility when your social policy is
remittance, when your lack of social policy is permitted, she told reporters on Friday. The region, she said, needs a widespread recognition of the role the private sector needs to play in paying taxes, improving government [and] institutions. In a

telephone interview with IPS, she noted that the U.S. relationship with Central America is likely to remain more focused on security concerns. There is a growing consensus
in the development community that sustainable growth cant and will not happen unless levels of violence are brought under control, she told IPS. The World Bank recently called citizen insecurity the Achilles heel of development in Latin America.

Members of the U.S. Congress and advocacy groups here are also wary of turning a blind eye to human rights concerns in Mexico. The dire human rights situation in Mexico is not going
to solve itself, Maureen Meyer, a senior associate for Mexico and Central America with the Washington Office on Latin Americ a (WOLA), an advocacy group, said in a statement. As the bilateral agenda evolves, it is critical that

the U.S. and Mexican governments continue to focus on how best to support and defend human rights in Mexico. In a press release issued last week, WOLA expressed agreement with a letter

from 23 members of Congress to Secretary of State John Kerry that stressed that [t]he human rights crisis will not improve until there are stronger legal protections, increased human rights training for Mexicos security forces, and more government agents held responsible for the human rights violations they commit. Even as the focus of U.S.-Mexico relations

turns to economics, there is no broad agreement on how exactly a shift toward trade relations will strengthen the economic competitiveness of both countries. Part of the challenge is that we have this term, but we have a laundry list of issues that could fit into that term, the Mexico Institutes Chris Wilson said. What we still dont have is a coherent agenda or a way in which the leadership from the top level can engage the public or business community or civil society and create something more [meaningful], he told IPS.

Some collaboration might be inevitable, but the increase in economic engagement facilitated by the plan is distinct
Stratfor 13 [Stratfor Global Intelligence. Evolving U.S.-Mexico Relations and

Obama's Visit 5/2/13 http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/evolving-us-mexico-relations-and-obamas-visit //GBS-JV]

Domestic political factors will determine the success of the pending overhauls. But the labor reform could improve bilateral commerce and investment with the United States, as would a successful liberalization of the country's energy sector in the coming years. Mexico is already the United States' third-largest trading partner, and economic coordination between the two countries has become a routine matter at the ministerial level, but there is still a need to ease bureaucratic trade and investment barriers .

Mexico Democracy 1NC

The plan causes a fight because its linked to Merida
Seelke 13

[Clare Ribando Seelke - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Mexico and the 112th Congress, January 29th, 2013, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf]
There have been ongoing concerns about the human rights records of Mexicos federal, state, and municipal police. For the past several years, State Departments human rights reports covering Mexico have cited credible reports of police involvement in extrajudicial killings, kidnappings for ransom, and torture.83 While abuses are most common at

the municipal and state level, where corruption and police collaboration with criminal groups often occurs, federal forces including the Federal Policehave also committed serious abuses. Individuals are most vulnerable to police abuses after they have been arbitrarily detained and before they are transferred to the custody of prosecutors, or while they are being held in preventive detention. Some 43% of Mexican inmates are reportedly in pre-trial detention.84 The Caldern government sought to combat police corruption and human rights abuses through increased vetting of federal forces; the creation of a national police registry to prevent corrupt police from being re-hired; the use of internal affairs units; and the provision of human rights training. In 2012, the government also announced new protocols on the use of force and how detentions are to be handled that were designed to prevent abuses. A January 2009 public security law codified vetting requirements and professional standards for state police to be met by 2013, but progress toward meeting those standards has been uneven. With a few exceptions, efforts to

reform municipal police forces have lagged behind. There has also been increasing concern that the

Mexican military, which is less accountable to civilian authorities than the police, is committing more human rights abuses since it is has been tasked with carrying out public security functions. A November 2011 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report maintains that cases of torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings have increased significantly in states where federal authorities have been deployed to fight organized crime.85 According to Mexicos Human Rights Commission (CNDH), the number of complaints of human rights abuses by Mexicos National Defense Secretariat (SEDENA) increased from 182 in 2006 to a peak of 1800 in 2009 before falling slightly to 1,695 in 2011. The Trans-Border Institute has found that the number of abuses by SEDENA forces that have been investigated and documented by CNDH has also declined since 2008-2009, particularly in areas where largescale deployments have been scaled back.86 In contrast, complaints of abuses against the Secretariat of the Navy (SEMAR) reported to CNDH increased by 150% from 2010 to 2011 as its forces became more heavily involved in anti-DTO efforts.87 While troubling, only a small percentage of those allegations have resulted in the CNDH issuing recommendations for corrective action to SEDENA or SEMAR, which those agencies say they have largely accepted and acted upon.88 A June 2011 constitutional amendment gave CNDH the authority to force entities that refuse to respond to its recommendations to appear before the Mexican Congress. In addition to expressing concerns about current human rights abuses, Mexican and international human rights

groups have

criticized the Mexican government for failing to hold military and police officials accountable for past abuses .89 In addition to taking steps to reform the police and judiciary, the Caldern government took some steps to comply with rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) that cases of military abuses against civilians should be tried in civilian courts. While a few dozen cases90 were transferred to civilian jurisdiction and former President Caldern asked SEDENA and SEMAR to work with the Attorney General to accelerate transfers, most cases were still processed in the military justice system.91 Military prosecutors have opened thousands of investigations into allegations of human rights abuses as a result of complaints filed with the CNDH, with few having resulted in convictions.92 A reform of Article 57 of the military justice code was submitted by then-President Caldern in October 2010 mandating that at least certain human rights violations be investigated and prosecuted in civilian courts. A more comprehensive proposal that required that all cases of alleged military human rights violations be transferred to the civilian justice system was approved by the Mexican Senates Justice Commission in April 2012; however, the bill was subsequently blocked from coming to a vote. In September 2012, another proposal to reform Article 57 was presented in the Mexican Senate, but not enacted. Enacting a reform of Article 57 of the military justice code may become more urgent now for the Pea Nieto Administration now that Mexicos Supreme Court is in the process of establishing binding legal precedent for determining jurisdiction in cases involving alleged military human rights violations against civilians. Human rights defenders and journalists have been particularly vulnerable to abuses by organized crime, sometimes acting in collusion with corrupt government authorities. Recently, several prominent human rights defenders have been harassed, attacked, and even killed, including members of the high-profile Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity led by Javier Sicilia. Increasing violent crimes targeting journalists, combined with high levels of impunity for the perpetrators of those crimes, have made Mexico the most dangerous country in the Western Hemisphere for journalists. Crimes against journalists range from

harassment, to extortion, to kidnapping and murder. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has documented 58 murders of journalists and at least 10 cases of journalists disappearing in Mexico since 2000. Threats from organized crime groups have made journalists and editors fearful of covering crime-related stories, and in some areas coverage of the DTOs activities have been shut down.93 The Caldern government and the Mexican Congress took some steps to better protect human rights defenders and journalists, but many human rights organizations have called upon the Pea Nieto Administration to do more. The Caldern

government established a special prosecutor within the Attorney Generals Office to attend to crimes against freedom of expression and created mechanisms to provide increased protection for journalists and human rights defenders. Those mechanisms have yet to be effectively implemented. The Mexican Congress enacted a law to make crimes against journalists a federal offense and a law to require the federal government to provide protection to journalists and human rights defenders who are at risk of being victimized and to their families. Another law approved by the Congress in 2012, but not promulgated by the Caldern government, would require the state to track victims of organized crime and provide assistance to victims and their families. Human rights organizations expressed satisfaction after President Pea Nieto signed that law, commonly referred to as the victims law, in January 201 3, but said that the real test of his governments commitment to human rights will be in how that and other laws are implemented. Human Rights Conditions on U.S. Assistance to Mexico In 2008, Congress debated whether human rights conditions should be placed on Mrida assistance beyond the requirements in 620J of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961. That section was re-designated as 620M and amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-74). It states that an individual or unit of a foreign countrys security forces is prohibited from receiving assistance if the Secretary of State receives credible evidence that an individual or unit has committed a gross violation of human rights. The FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-252), which provided the first tranche of Mrida funding, had less stringent human rights conditions than had been proposed earlier, largely due to Mexicos concerns that some of the conditions would violate its national sovereignty. The conditions required that 15% of INCLE and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) assistance be withheld until the Secretary of State reports in writing that Mexico is taking action in four human rights areas: 1. improving transparency and accountability of federal police forces; 2. establishing a mechanism for regular consultations among relevant Mexican government authorities, Mexican human rights organizations, and other relevant Mexican civil society organizations, to make consultations concerning implementation of the Mrida Initiative in accordance with Mexican and international law; 3. ensuring that civilian prosecutors and judicial authorities are investigating and prosecuting, in accordance with Mexican and international law, members of the federal police and military forces who have been credibly alleged to have committed violations of human rights, and the federal police and military forces are fully cooperating with the investigations; and 4. enforcing the prohibition, in accordance with Mexican and international law, on the use of testimony obtained through torture or other ill-treatment. Similar human rights conditions were included in FY2009-FY2011 appropriations measures that funded the Mrida Initiative.95 However, the first two conditions are not included in the 15% withholding requirement in the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74). As previously mentioned, Congress has yet to

pass a final FY2013 appropriations measure. It remains to be seen whether an omnibus bill would include the conditions on aid to Mexico that are in the Senate Appropriations Committees version of the FY2013 foreign operations ppropriations measure S. 3241 (S.Rept. 112-172). Those conditions would retain the condition related to torture, as well as

require the State Department to report that Mexico has reformed its military justice code and is requiring police and military officials to immediately transfer detainees to civilian judicial authorities. Thus far, the State Department has submitted three 15% progress reports on Mexico to congressional appropriators (in August 2009, September 2010, and August 2012) that have met the statutory requirements for FY2008-FY2012 Mrida funds that had been on hold to be released. Nevertheless, the State Department

has twice elected to hold back some funding pending further progress in key areas hold back $26 million in FY2010 supplemental funds as a matter of policy until further progress was made in the areas of transparency and combating impunity.96 Those funds were not obligated until the fall of 2011. In the August 2012 report, the State Department again decided to hold back all of the FY2012 funding that would have been subject to the conditions (roughly $18 million) as a matter of policy until it can work with Mexican authorities to determine steps to address key human rights challenges. Those include: improving the ability of Mexicos civilian institutions to investigate and prosecute cases of human
rights abuses; enhancing enforcement of prohibitions against torture and other mistreatment; and strengthening protection for human rights defenders.97

of concern.

In the September 2010 report, for example, the State Department elected to

Mexico Engagement 1NC

Economic engagement with Mexicos politically divisive
Wilson 13

Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International. Center for Scholars (Christopher E., January, A U.S.Mexico Economic Alliance: Policy Options for a Competitive Region, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexi co_relations.pdf)
At a time when Mexico is poised to experience robust economic growth, a manufacturing renaissance is underway in North America and bilateral trade is booming, the United States and Mexico have an important choice to

make: sit back and reap the moderate and perhaps temporal benefits coming naturally from the evolving global context , or implement a robust agenda to improve the competitiveness of North America for the long term . Given that job creation and economic growth in both the United States and Mexico are at stake, t he choice should be simple, but a limited understanding about the magnitude, nature and depth of the U.S.-Mexico economic relationship among the public and many policymakers has made serious action to support regional exporters more politically divisive than it ought to be.

Ext. Mexico Engagement Link

NAFTA proves the link trade gets linked to a broader fights about jobs
Villarreal and Fergusson 13

Specialists in International Trade and Finance (M. Angeles, Ian F., 02/21, NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf)
NAFTA was controversial when first proposed , mostly because it was the first FTA involving two wealthy, developed countries and a developing country. The political debate surrounding the agreement was divisive with proponents arguing that the agreement would help generate thousands of jobs and reduce income disparit y in the region, while opponents warned that the agreement would cause huge job losses in the United States as companies moved production to Mexico to lower costs. In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic
gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico account for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies.

Pushing expanded free trade measures with Mexico angers democrats Perez-Rocha 12 [Manuel Prez Rocha is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C, Don't Expand NAFTA, July 26th, 2012, http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta]
With Canada and Mexico joining the TPP, the agreement is looking more and more like a substitute for the FTAA. So it is not surprising that opposition to the TPP is growing as quickly as it did against that former
attempt to expand the neoliberal model throughout the Western hemisphere. The intense secrecy of the TPP negotiations is not helping the Obama administration make its case. In their statement, North American unions call on our

governments to work with us to include in the TPP provisions to ensure strong worker protections, a healthy environment, safe food and products, and the ability to regulate financial and other markets to avoid future global economic crises. But the truth is that only big business is partaking in consultations, with 600 lobbyists having exclusive passwords to online versions of the negotiating text. A majority of Democratic representatives
(132 out of 191)

have expressed that they are troubled

that important policy decisions are being made without full input from Congress . They have written to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to urge him and his staff to engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the wide-ranging issues involved, and to ensure there is ample
opportunity for Congress to have input on critical policies that will have broad ramifications for years to come." In their letter, the

representatives also challenge the lack of transparency of the treaty negotiation process, and the failure of negotiators to meaningfully consult with states on the far-reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local laws, even when binding on our states,
is of grave concern to us. U.S. Senators, for their part, have also sent a letter complaining of the lack of congressional access to the negotiations. What openness and transparency can we in Canada and Mexico expect when the decision to join the TPP, under humiliating conditions, was made without any public consultation? NAFTA turns 20 years old in 2014. Instead of expanding it through the TPP we must learn from NAFTAs shortcomings, starting with the historic lack of consultation with unions and producers in the three member countries. It is necessary to correct the imbalances in NAFTA, which as the North American union statement explains enhanced corporate power at the expense of workers and the environment. In particular, we need to categorically reject the investor-state dispute settlement process that has proven so costly, in real terms and with respect to our democratic

options in Canada and Mexico. The

unions statement of solidarity provides a strong foundation for the growing trinational opposition to the TPP in Leesburg, Virginia, and beyond.

Mexico Energy 1NC

US-Mexico energy cooperations controversial
CFR 12

standing committee of the United States Senate (12/21, OIL, MEXICO, AND THE TRANSBOUNDARY AGREEMENT, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-112SPRT77567/html/CPRT112SPRT77567.htm)
The TBA further contains requirements of data sharing and notification of likely reserves between the United States and Mexico, opening the opportunity for increased government-to- government collaboration on strategic energy policy choices. Mexico and the United States are relatively less advanced in effective communication and linkages of our energy systems than we are in less politicallycontroversial economic areas. Improved ties can improve understanding and galvanize cooperation in often unexpected ways. In the immediate term, closer oil sector communication will be beneficial in case of accidents in the Gulf of Mexico or in case of significant disruptions to global oil supplies.

Venezuela Neg

Venezuela Link UQ
No US-Venezuela engagement Americas staying out of the transition Fox News 5-5 [Obama Says The U.S. Will Not Get Tangled In Venezuela's Politics, May 5th, 2013, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/05/obama-saysus-will-not-get-tangled-in-venezuela-politics/]
President Barack Obama said the U.S. has not and will not get tangled up in Venezuela's political conflict. Commenting in an interview with Spanish-language network Telemundo that's set to air Sunday, Obama said the U.S. hasn't tried "in any way" to interfere with the recent election of Nicolas Maduro as Venezuela's president. On Saturday Venezuela's government accused Washington and the Obama
administration of being behind violence that has followed its recent presidential election. A foreign ministry statement said that Obama's "fallacious, intemperate and interventionist declaration" will lead toward deteriorating relations between the countries and "confirms to the world the policy of aggression his government maintains against our country." The statement read by Foreign Minister Elias Jaua on state television referred to comments the U.S. president made to Spanish-language television network Univision during his trip to Mexico and Costa Rica. In the interview that aired Friday, Obama wouldn't say if the

United States recognizes Nicolas Maduro as Venezuela's new president following elections that have been disputed by the opposition. When asked, he replied that it's up to the people of Venezuela to choose their leaders in legitimate elections.

Venezuela 1NC
Congress hates cooperation with Venezuela
Sullivan 13

Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., 01/10, Venezuela: Issues for Congress, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
U.S. Policy The

United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela, a major supplier of foreign oil to the United States, but there has been significant friction with the Chvez government. For several years, U.S. officials have expressed concerns about human rights, Venezuelas military arms purchases (largely from Russia), its relations with Cuba and Iran, its efforts to export its brand of populism to other Latin American countries, and the use of Venezuelan territory by Colombian guerrilla and paramilitary forces. Declining Venezuelan cooperation on antidrug and antiterrorism efforts also has been a U.S. concern. Since 2005, Venezuela has been designated annually (by President Bush and President Obama ) as a country that has failed to adhere to its international anti-drug obligations. Since 2006, the De partment of State has prohibited the sale of defense articles and services to Venezuela because of lack of cooperation on antiterrorism efforts.

Ext. Venezuela
More evidence the plan would be perceived as an end-run on a bunch of reforms Congress wants before it engages Venezuela theyd backlash
Sullivan 13

Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., 01/10, Venezuela: Issues for Congress, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
Legislative Initiatives As

in past years, there were concerns in the 112 th Congress regarding the state of Venezuelas democracy and human rights situation and its deepening relations with Iran, and these concerns will likely continue in the 113 th Congress. The 112 th Congress approved H.R. 3783 (P.L. 112- 220), which requires the Administration to conduct an assessment and present a strategy to address Irans growing hostile presence and activity in the Western Hemisphere.

Other initiatives that were not approved include: H.R. 2542, which would have withheld some assistance to the Organization of American States unless that b ody took action to invoke the Inter-American Democratic Charter regarding the status of democracy in Venezuela; H.R. 2583, which included a provision prohibiting aid to the government of Venezuela; and H.Res. 247, which would have called on the Secretary of State to designate Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism.

GOP hates the plan Ros-Lehtinen 13 [Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican, is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. ROS-LEHTINEN: Venezuela after Chavez: What comes next?, March 14th, 2013, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/venezuelaafter-chavez-what-comes-next/]
Last year, it was

reported that the Obama administration was seeking to exchange ambassadors in an attempt to normalize relations between the countries. The U.S. State Departments approach was extremely premature , and it, unfortunately, legitimized Mr. Maduro without even questioning whether the Venezuelan Constitution was being upheld. The Obama administration continued to send mixed messages and to undermine the opposition by sending a delegation to attend Chavezs funeral services last week, alongside enemies of the United States, such as Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Words matter, but actions matter more, and this decision not only sends mixed signals to the people of Venezuela, but reiterates the failed policy of attempting to re-establish diplomatic relations. It is in our best interest if political and economic reforms come to Venezuela, but all signs currently point to the contrary. As the leader of the Chavista movement, Mr. Maduro could potentially be worse for the Venezuelan people and for U.S. national security interests. Mr. Maduro still controls all branches
of government, stifles free speech and was indoctrinated with socialist ideology. He has traveled to Tehran and has strong ties with Iran, supports the Assad regime in Syria and has become a lap dog for Cubas Castro brothers.

AT//Chavez Death = Engagements Popular

Chavez death didnt create an impetus for cooperation Congress still hates Venezuela
Schultz 13

The International (Kylie, 03/17, The Rocky U.S.-Venezuela Relationship: What Both Countries Could Learn, http://www.theinternational.org/articles/370-the-rocky-usvenezuela-relationship-wh)
While the United States sent a representative, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the

Obama administration itself offered no condolences. At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavezs passing, the United States reaffirms its

support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government, said a statement released by the White House. As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. Criticized by many Chavez supporters for its unsympathetic and, some claim, contemptible tone, the White House statement and the reactions it

has elicited are representative of the divide between the United States and Venezuela which emerged during Chavezs presidency. The influence and standing of the United States in Latin America has decreased in recent years as domestic inequality and political polarization in America rise . There seem but few signs that Chavezs death will spark a shift in U.S.-Venezuelan relations. As Venezuela enters into

the post-Chavez era with a struggling economy, high inflation, and some of the worst crime rates in the world, why do both countries continue to demonize one another?