MBA ICE: BJ

Plan: Immigration and Customs Enforcement should curtail its

interior immigration surveillance.

Contention One Immigration Federalism

State sovereignty over immigration has been crushed by ICEs use of state
and local police
Cox and Miles 2014 Professor of Law, NYU School of Law; Clifton R. Musser
Professor of Law and Economics and Walter Mander Research Scholar, University of
Chicago Law School. (Adam and Thomas, The Real World of Immigration
Federalism, http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Adam
%20Cox%20The%20Real%20World%20of%20Immigration%20Federalism_2.pdf)//AN
Writing about immigration federalism has, like much federalism scholarship, long been stuck with an outdated
model of federal-state relations. Under that old model, states wield power principally by possessing regulatory

the reality today is quite different: as a number of writers have begun to document,
state and local governments today are often empowered not by their autonomy, but
instead by their incorporation into federal statutory schemes. According to these accounts,
sovereignty-based federalism is the past; cooperative federalism is the future. 1 This
autonomy. But

turn in federalism theory has often been overlooked in immigration law, perhaps because attention has focused on

Frustrated by what it
saw as a lack of federal initiative on immigration policy, Arizona decided to go it
alone, passing a controversial law that created state penalties for violations of federal
immigration law. Nearly all of Arizonas law was invalidated by the Supreme Court in
high-profile battles like the recent one between Arizona and the federal government.

United States v. Arizonaa decision that many interpreted as a paean to old notions of dual sovereignty. The
reality, however, is that arguments over state or local immigration sovereignty are largely a sideshow. The

most

pressing questions of immigration federalism today pretty much all concern

cooperative arrangements between the federal government and nonfederal officials.2 This is driven by
the fact that immigration law has, in recent years, increasingly incorporated state and local law
enforcement officials into federal immigration enforcement. This is the deep irony of
the Supreme Courts decision in Arizona . Largely overlooked in all of the controversy surrounding
Arizonas law is a surprising fact: even while the Justice Department was arguing to the Supreme Court that local
law enforcement officials in Arizona lacked authority to participate in immigration enforcement, the federal
government was busy rolling out a program that incorporated those same officials into the federal enforcement
scheme. That program, known as Secure

Communities, has a straightforward goal: to

ensure that every person arrested for a crime by local police anywhere in the country is
screened by the federal government for immigration violations . Secure Communities is in
many ways an ideal testing ground for many of the theories that dominate the contemporary federal literature. One
such theory is that cooperative arrangements give local officials to much control over federal policy. This is among
the charges leveled by critics of Secure Communities: they argue that especially in a world where immigration

turning every local criminal

arrest into an immigration screening event puts local officials in charge of those
priorities.
policy is determined largely through the exercise of enforcement priorities,

ICE has state and local law enforcement cooperate with the federal
government on immigration policiesthis crushes immigration federalism
Kalhan 2013 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, Immigration
Policing and Federalism Through the Lens of Technology, Surveillance, and Privacy,
Vol. 74:6, pg. 1134, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/14Kalhan.pdf)//AN

C. Informational End Runs and the Eroding Boundaries of Immigration Federalism Automated immigration policing has enabled massive levels of state and local involvement in
immigration enforcement that could never have been achieved under earlier programs. The NCIC Immigration Violators File, for example, now makes over 298,900 records of potentially

over twenty-eight million sets of

fingerprints have been transmitted to DHS since the programs inception
thousands of fingerprints per day, according to one official, including fingerprints of all individuals born outside the United States or
deportable individuals accessible to state and local police nationwide.111 Under Secure Communities,

whose place of birth is unknownfrom which DHS has identified over 1.4 million matching records in IDENT. ICE has returned or formally removed 279,482 of these individuals, with the
number of removals attributable to Secure Communities jumping from 14,364 in 2009, representing four percent of all removals, to 83,815 in 2012, representing one-fifth of all

the 287(g) program, one of the

initiatives have forcefully
challenged and eroded the equilibrium on immigration federalism that has been
emerging in recent years, illustrating the powerful ways in which the technological architecture of
federalism itself can shape and govern the institutional relationships among
different levels of government.113 While sharing with its predecessors the goal of reducing the federal governments information deficit vis--vis
states and localities in the identification of potentially deportable noncitizens, automated immigration policing departs from those
earlier initiatives by precluding states and localities from making affirmative, calibrated, and
negotiated choices about the level of immigration policing assistance they wish to furnish .
removals.112 In light of these numbers, the Obama Administration has decreased its reliance on task force agreements under
cornerstones of the previous generation of federal immigration policing initiatives. In order to achieve these numbers, these

Instead, these initiativeswhile nominally still tethered to voluntary forms of federalstate cooperation affect informational end runs around those choices through the use of
technology. Both programs tightly weave immigration policing mechanisms into established, deeply ingrained systems designed to facilitate criminal investigation, prosecution, and
sentencingtransforming the process of monitoring and verifying immigration status into a routine, seamless part of virtually all ordinary law enforcement encounters with members of

This approach erodes the conception of immigration federalism that has

emerged in recent years by narrowing the space for states and localities to make
affirmative choices concerning their cooperation on immigration policing that are independent
the public.

from other decisionsinitially made decades earlierto exchange identification and criminal history records for wholly separate criminal justice purposes. With the NCIC, given the
manner of its extensive use by state and local police, the inclusion of immigration records means that individual police officers will automatically receive immigration status information
when making routine queries, even if their jurisdictions have policieswhich are likely immune from preemptionprohibiting or restricting officers from collecting that information from

police officers may then be induced to detain or

arrest suspected civil or criminal immigration law violators without regard to their
formal immigration arrest authority, which Arizona v. United States now clarifies to be highly constrained, or the extent to which their
jurisdictions have affirmatively chosen to cooperate with ICE.114 Secure Communities goes even further , inducing and
routinizing the assistance of state and local police en masse . Here, the informational end run proceeds in the
opposite direction from the flow of information using the NCIC. Rather than sending immigration status information to
law enforcement officials, DHS automatically extracts identification and criminal
history information from state and local law enforcement agencies when they routinely transmit that
information to the FBI for purposes that are unrelated to civil immigration enforcement, but understood as essential for criminal law enforcement.115 DHS then uses
that information for immigration enforcement purposes without regard to whether
those jurisdictions have affirmatively chosen to cooperate with federal immigration
authorities in helping to identify potentially deportable individuals whom they encounter. While technologybeing plastic, as Lawrence Lessig has emphasized likely
could be designed to preserve the room for state and local choices that existing federal immigration policing initiatives contemplate, these new automated
immigration policing initiatives are early components in a broader federal strategy
that instead appears poised not simply to erode existing conceptions of immigration
federalism even further, but to expand these surveillance mechanisms to
encompass even larger numbers of U.S. citizens. 116 Federal officials have championed Secure Communities not just as an
members of the public they encounter. Once presented with that information,

immigration policing program, but as the first phase of the FBIs Next Generation Identification (NGI) initiative, a biometric database system intended to upgrade and replace IAFIS, which
will enable the collection, storage, processing, and exchange of unparalleled quantities of biometric and biographic information of both U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike.117 The scope
of NGIs database system is enormous, encompassing multimodal biometric records of fingerprints, multiple photographs, iris scans, palm prints, voice data, and potentially other
biometric identifiers along with detailed biographical information, and populated with data from a multiplicity of sourcesincluding not only law enforcement agencies, but potentially
also commercial databases, security cameras, publicly available sources, social networking platforms, private employers, and individuals. Using powerful facial recognition and search

NGI not only enables more sophisticated means of immediately identifying particular individuals, but also makes it trivially easy to locate,
identify, and track individuals remotely for investigative, intelligence gathering, or
preventive purposes.118 To the extent that DHS stores the fingerprints of U.S. citizens collected under Secure Communities, as discussed above, the
implications of Secure Communities for U.S. citizens will become even more
consequential under NGI and any other programs that might involve broader
sharing of those fingerprints and other biometrics along with any personal information that may be linked to those biometric records. The
tools,

comprehensive immigration reform bill recently adopted by the Senate also proposes to use technology in a manner that promises to reshape existing conceptions of immigration
federalism. The bill would require employers to verify employees identities against DHS databases using an enhanced version of E-Verify, DHSs existing online employment eligibility
verification system, which incorporates a photo tool containing photos and personal information drawn from state drivers license and identification bureaus.119 With all of these
automated initiatives, the

manner in which information from different database systems and regulatory

is routinely aggregated and exchanged blurs the lines between immigration control and other
regulatory domains, on the one hand, and the institutional lines between federal, state, and local
institutions, on the other.120
domains

Federal limiting of state and local police cooperation with the ICE solves
immigration federalism
Kalhan 2013 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, Immigration
Policing and Federalism Through the Lens of Technology, Surveillance, and Privacy,
Vol. 74:6, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/14Kalhan.pdf)//AN
B. Immigration Federalism and Information Federalism One important means of fostering and facilitating these kinds of constraints
of creating friction in [the] system in aid of the public good may be to harness the existing potential for conflicts over
information control between the federal government and states and localities.219 While it is customary, in immigration as in other

federalism also establishes

multiple centers of power with the capacity to exert independent checks upon
federal authority. Particularly in the face of broad exercises of federal power, state and local institutions
can play important roles in the protection of rights and libertiesas focal points for the
expression of political opposition to national policies , as seedbed[s] for political change at the
national level, as sources of alternative and potentially broader conceptions of federal rights, and
as potentially moderating influences on the federal actors who seek their cooperation.220 Immigration
areas, to think of the federal government as a bulwark against rights violations by states,

scholars have long discounted these possibilities, devoting greater attention to more restrictive subfederal impulses. However, in

scholars increasingly have recognized that states and localities can and do play
affirmative and constructive roles in integrating, protecting, and otherwise affirmatively
engaging their noncitizen residents.221 Indeed, with respect to the collection, processing, storing, and
dissemination of immigration status and other personal information for immigration enforcement purposes, states and localities
have long played precisely this kind of rolefor example, by fashioning policies that constrain
the collection of that information or its dissemination to federal immigration
officials.222 Automated immigration policing initiatives such as Secure Communities directly respond to these forms of
recent years,

resistance by reducing the need for affirmative state and local assistance in collecting information about potentially deportable

as both surveillance and federalism scholars might have

predicted, that resistance itself has persisted in the form of efforts to limit the ability of
federal immigration officials to use that information .223 A growing number of states and
localities have adopted policies limiting their cooperation with ICE at the next stage of the
enforcement process, when ICE issues detainers to facilitate apprehension of individuals identified through Secure
Communities. For example, California recently adopted the Trust Act, which, except in cases involving
individuals charged with or convicted of serious criminal offenses, prohibits law enforcement officials within
the state from detaining individuals for immigration enforcement purposes, at ICEs
request, if those individuals are otherwise eligible for release.224 The significance of these anti-detainer policies and the extent
noncitizens in their custody. However,

to which they take hold in other jurisdictions remain to be seen. However, the broader trajectory leading to their adoption suggests

state and local institutions including hospitals, educational institutions, and others
increasingly collect and maintain personal information that might be relevant to
immigration enforcement, analysis of immigration federalism may benefit from greater
understanding of and attention to the dynamics of information control. Moreover, like the
that as

fingerprints collected through Secure Communities, the information sought by federal immigration authorities to identify potentially
deportable individuals need not even directly include immigration status itself. As databases become increasingly interoperable and

federal officials may well regard other

forms of personal informationwhether or not personally identifiableas amply sufficient to serve
their immigration enforcement purposes.225 Accordingly, while states and localities may still find that restrictions on
capable of aggregating information from a variety of different sources,

collection and dissemination of immigration status information play an important and useful role, they also will likely find those
limitations insufficient to fully achieve the immigration-protective objectives they have sought to advance with those laws. Beyond
immigration, these episodes raise the question of whether conflicts over information control might be harnessed to help protect
social interests in privacy and constrain federal surveillance activities. Scholars have critically assessed the potential for states and
localities to protect privacy interests as regulators.226 Separately, scholars have also assessed the prospects for aligning the

states and
localities increasingly possess large volumes of information that federal authorities
seek for their own surveillance and enforcement purposes , the institutional role of
states and localities as holders of this information warrants critical examination as well. For example,
Robert Mikos has recently argued that under prevailing understandings of Tenth
Amendment principles, federal efforts to compel states to provide this information
should be foreclosed as an impermissible form of commandeering.228 While anticommandeering doctrine itself has limits, as Mikos acknowledges, his analysis points to the possibility of
information federalism as a constraint on federal surveillance , whether as a matter
of constitutional doctrine, legislation, or technological design.229
interests of companies collecting personal information with interests in privacy.227 Since, as discussed above,

Immigration federalism is key to international perception, policy

experimentalism, and individual rightsalso none of their turns apply
eitherIts a self-check system that prevents states from enacting
racist policies
Huntington 2008 Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School; J.D.
Columbia Law School; (Clare, The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration
Federalism, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1181&context=faculty_scholarship)//AN
B. Immigration through a Federalism Lens The federalism debate, raging for more than two centuries, provides a rich vocabulary and nuanced landscape against which to examine
questions of the division of power. To date, this debate has not been applied in a systematic way in the immigration context. To be sure, some commentators have singled out certain
federalism values, but the selection tends to be both outcome determinative and dependent on the substantive commitments of the commentator. Thus, commentators who believe that
state and local enforcement of immigration law enhances national security identify decentralization values in immigration regulation-the importance of drawing on a wider array of law
enforcement resources than those in the federal government. 172 By contrast, commentators concerned about discrimination against non-citizens identify national uniformity as a goal
that precludes a state role in immigration regulation. 173 In this Section, I do not take sides on the substantive issues, but rather demonstrate the relevance and robustness of traditional
federalism debates to the novel questions raised by immigration federalism. Uniformity versus experimentalism. Of all the competing values in the immigration context, uniformity and
experimentalism are most clearly in tension. There are strong practical arguments for a uniform rule of pure immigration law. For example, although I argued above that the concern
about a state embroiling the United States in an international conflict should not lead to a rule of structural preemption, 174 the concern is important. There are good reasons for
preventing states from asserting themselves in the international arena, but this concern can be accounted for by weighing the interest in a uniform rule of pure immigration law more
heavily than the interest in experimental immigration laws. The federal government, through statutory preemption, already has precluded a role for states and localities in pure

a
decentralized system has some advantages. In a world where some states are offering in-state tuition to unauthorized migrants 176
while the federal government is seeking to construct a wall along the southern border, 177 it is by no means clear that the national
government will better protect the interests of non-citizens. At other points in
history, however, the roles have been reversed . Indeed, all levels of government can and have expressed both hostility and
openness to non-citizens. In short, there is no structural reason to believe that one level of government
will be more or less welcoming to non-citizens and therefore, on this basis, to favor uniformity over experimentalism.
Decentralizing and devolving decisionmaking regarding noncitizens may accommodate, and reflect a greater variety
of views on, non-citizens and perhaps even mitigate pressure on the federal government to enact legislation
that reflects ardently held views of a small but vocal portion of the population . 178
Decentralization and devolution might ensure, for better or worse, that the national government does not enact
legislation reflecting extremes at either end of the political spectrum. A system that allows states and localities to
express divergent views on the benefits and costs of immigration would permit the development of a
variety of policies, rather than a single, national policy, creating the proverbial
laboratories from which the national government (or states and localities) can learn. This devolution also would allow
for greater tailoring of immigration policy. For example, giving senators from Alaska a voice in determining the
demographic make-up of the work force in the agricultural southwest dilutes the
ability of those states and localities to shape immigration regulation to reflect their needs
immigration law. 175 Therefore, the federalism argument is simply a backstop. Moving beyond pure immigration law and looking at immigration regulation more generally,

and interests. State and local experiments in immigration regulation can lead to quick lessons. There is mounting evidence that the divergent state and local laws are
affecting the movement of non-citizens. For example, after Colorado passed a spate of laws in 2006 making life more
difficult for unauthorized migrants by requiring certain forms of identification and curtailing many public benefits, 179 the state saw
a dramatic decrease in the number of migrant workers available to work on farms, to the great
dismay of potential employers.180 Riverside, New Jersey, had a similar experience, leading the town to repeal its anti-immigrant ordinance.181
Further, permitting states and localities to have a role in determining levels of immigration law
enforcement would acknowledge the important economic and social stake that
subnational governments have in immigration. To the extent that the national policy does not address these concerns, the
subnational governments should be able to do so. If state and local governments discourage the presence of noncitizens to their economic and social detriment, this experimentalism should correct itself
quickly. On the other hand, emphasizing uniformity might lead to the conclusion that
the federal government-and not Farmers Branch, Texas, or Escondido, California-should determine
the appropriate level of enforcement of the country's immigration laws. If, for a variety of political, social, and economic reasons, the United
States chooses not to remove all unauthorized migrants and not to seal the border completely, then this determination arguably should bind states and localities. Efficiency and

If one state
determined that welcoming non-citizens was to its economic and social advantage, and this
prediction held true, then that state would be rewarded by its immigrant-friendly policies . A state
drawing a different conclusion might be rewarded when its prediction came true. Conversely, if the predictions were inaccurate, then
the states would lose out economically and socially. Allowing states and localities to encourage or discourage the presence of non-citizens
effectiveness. The experimentalism that would be fostered under devolution and decentralization might promote the values of efficiency and effectiveness.

also would allow these subnational governments to tailor their laws to their labor needs. For example, one state might want to encourage non-citizens to work in agriculture while
another state might prefer to bolster the workforce in the technology industry. Indeed, the relationship between immigration law and the demands for labor has deep roots,18 2 and
permitting experimentation simply would bring this connection to a local level, allowing for a more finely tuned supply and demand of labor. On the other hand, these localized results
and the potential efficiencies might run afoul of national interests. For example, if every state passed laws discouraging non-citizens' presence, admittance into the country from the
national government might have little practical effect. A non-citizen could cross the border but would not be welcomed by any state. In this way, states and localities could thwart
national immigration policy. Setting aside the constitutional aspect of unencumbered interstate travel,18 3 the free movement of people may be essential to a robust economy.
Permitting state and local governments to express varying degrees of welcome and hostility to non-citizens could discourage non-citizens from moving where they wish to go, perhaps in

a uniform rule may be more efficient and may ward off

state and local parochialism that could threaten national interests. This latter argument often is advanced in favor of structural preemption. My
point is that we need not set immigration law apart from mainstream constitutional
law with a rule of structural preemption. Instead, we can account for these concerns through a federalism
lens. Protection of individual rights.18 4 Although some commentators contend that non-citizens are at greater risk when the states take a more active role in the regulation of
search of better economic opportunities. For these reasons,

immigration,18 5 this hypothesis has not always proven true as an empirical matter. 8 6 In light of the explicitly race-based federal immigration laws in effect as late as 1952, there is no

state and local laws explicitly have sought

to protect non-citizens' individual rights: many major cities have "sanctuary laws" that prohibit law enforcement officers from specified
particular reason to think that the federal government is better at protecting individual rights. 8 7 Some recent

conduct, such as inquiring into a person's immigration status.188 Although one of the goals of such policies is to encourage unauthorized migrants to report crimes without fear of
detection, the policies also protect non-citizens from racial discrimination in the enforcement of laws.18 9 Increased political participation and political accountability. A traditional
argument is that political participation increases with the localization of government1 90 but that such decisionmaking likely will be parochial, increasing the chance that negative
externalities will be imposed on communities that cannot participate in the decisionmaking process. 191 In the context of immigration, however, this traditional trade-off is complicated
by the fact that non-citizens cannot vote at any level of government. 92 To be sure, other forms of participation are available,1 93 but direct participation is elusive, and therefore, the
benefit of decentralization and devolution is not obvious. By contrast, the potential for imposing externalities on other communities remains strong. Through its regulation, a state or
locality could affect patterns of immigration beyond its borders. Whether, in each case, the effect was a negative or positive externality would be a matter of debate, but the potential to
affect others exists. Federalism in the context of immigration will have to account for these peculiarities. With regard to political accountability, there is no reason to believe that either
the federal government or states and localities will be more accountable to non-citizens. 194 Again, non-citizens cannot vote at any level of government. The interests of non-citizens
may be asserted by former non-citizens who have naturalized and thus can now vote. In light of the uneven distribution of former non-citizens around the country, some states and
localities arguably will be more responsive to current non-citizens. Where former non-citizens make up a greater proportion of the population, they may have greater influence. 195

divergent standards set under the authority delegated by the PRWORA-with

some states providing more generous benefits than those given by the federal
government-is evidence that subnational levels of government are capable of
responsiveness to the interests of non-citizens. Indeed, permitting states and localities to determine their own level of welcome to
Further, the

noncitizens might open the door for non-citizens to reward the more welcoming states and localities with their presence. Permitting states and localities to express their preferences also
would help to inform non-citizens what to expect in a given location. Check on federal power. The power sharing envisioned by the federal system was intended to ensure that the states
were seen as legitimate sources of power and therefore would retain their citizens' loyalty, which would translate into the ability to check federal excesses in any field of regulation. 196

If authority over an important area like immigration were shared, it would make
states and localities more important in the eyes of their citizens, thus serving a
legitimating function. Sharing immigration authority means that states and localities also will be able to counteract federal immigration regulation. Although the
federal government could preempt state and local laws, to the extent it has not done so, states and localities would remain free to enact laws that run counter to federal policies. 197

In the international context, allowing for a range of immigration regulation would let
other countries know that there is a diversity of opinion among U.S. citizens with
regard to non-citizens. Although this would mean that a state could send an antiimmigrant message to other countries, contrary to the views of the U.S. government, it also would mean that,

in the face of a national antiimmigrant policy, a state could send a more positive
message. The need of the United States to speak with one voice would be served by the national government's ability to preempt state and local action.1 98 In this way, the
preemption function would serve as an important test of the strength of national policy: if the national government truly believes
that a particular policy is essential for international relations, it can preempt
contrary state and local legislation. The tolerance of divergent views by states and localities would be telling evidence of the strength of the
national commitment to the policy.199 In sum, once we recognize that federal exclusivity is not constitutionally mandated, classic federalism
arguments work well in determining the appropriate allocation of authority among levels of
government. Moreover, if the federal government wishes to prevent state and local governments from undertaking particular immigration regulations, it always can statutorily preempt
specified conduct.

Immigration federalism solves the balance of power and spurs successful

policymaking for comprehensive immigration reform
Sucheski 2011 2007 Buck Scholar, Senior Thesis at Claremont McKenna College
(Laura, Immigration and the States: Reinforcing Federalism through Limited
Preemption, pg. 116, http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1186&context=cmc_theses)//AN
If the Courts reaffirm their commitment to the narrowest understanding of the Naturalization Clause, Congress would have to rely on

Forcing Congress to preempt through statute

directly will reinvigorate the role of federalism in immigration policy . Congress retains its
supremacy on immigration regulation, but they have to actively pass statutory language to do so. Until Congress takes
action on an issue, states are free to regulate provided the regulation does not
constitute a rule of naturalization, admission, or deportation . One can refer to this understanding
of immigration law as a proposal for immigration federalism. Immigration federalism has several
advantages for American public policy. First, reaffirming states initial equal authority over
immigration regulation, states and local governments can pursue policies that are narrowly
tailored to the specific circumstances of their state or region. This will give states a greater
ability to respond quickly to emerging administrative problems. Some communities may decide they stand
statutory preemption to control immigration regulation.

more to gain by accommodating illegal immigrants, while others may conclude they will benefit from deterring them. Immigration
federalism best protects the federal-state cooperative effort in action today. States and local governments have already adopted
many policies that could be invalidated through structural preemption if the Court interprets Congresss implied power more broadly.

Moving to
statutory preemption would legitimize those state actions and also protect other
actions from arbitrary challenges. If a state enacts a policy Congress finds truly contrary to the national interest,
Many policies now are permitted that could be preempted under a structural understanding of preemption.

it can pass its own law and preempt the state law. But to pass this law, Congress will need to convince a majority of representatives
to invalidate the local law, a tough argument to make to representatives whose constituents are ambivalent on immigration policy.

However, should the localized interest run contrary enough to the national interest ,
Congress could make persuasive arguments to adopt a contrary uniform national policy.
Importantly, policy changes would have to garner a broad base of support before preemption of state regulation could occur. Several
scholars argue limiting preemption on any number of different issues will force the federal government to take action rather than
passively preempt. Influential legal scholar Professor Erwin Chemerinsky has written extensively on the valuable role limited
preemption has in reinforcing federalism. Although Chemerinsky focuses on corporate and tort preemption, the values ascribes to
limited preemption also apply to immigration policy. There should only be two situations when there is preemption of state law. One
is express preemption. The other is when federal law and state law are mutually exclusive, so it is not possible for somebody to
comply with both. This would then eliminate preemption based on states interfering with the achievement of the federal objective. It
would eliminate implied preemption based on the intent of CongressNarrowing

preemption means that in all

state and local governments may regulate as they see fit . If Congress
doesnt like what state and local governments are doing, Congress can always step in
and expressly preempt state and local laws.214 Professor Matthew J. Parlow applies the immigration federalism
argument in favor of permitting increased local regulation in the hopes that local ideas will spur higher
government action. Letting states experiment with policy responses to illegal
immigration could inspire Congress to adopt successful policy innovations on the
other instances the

national level. Empowering local governments will stimulate more innovative policymaking in the immigration arena that
may generate macro-level solutions for what is seen as an intractable problem, he writes.215 Professor Clare Huntingtons

immigration federalism sees increased competition between state policies

in the marketplace of ideas as a benefit to federal policymakers. After seeing what works at
lower levels, federal policymakers can better respond to the needs of the states when enacting comprehensive
immigration reform. A system that allows states and localities to express divergent views on the benefits and costs of
argument for

immigration would permit the development of a variety of policies rather than a single national policy, Huntington argues,

Opponents
of immigration federalism might object that permitting more state regulation will create an
incoherent patchwork of laws that treats illegal immigrants unequally based on state or local
Creating the proverbial laboratories from which the national government (or states and localities) can learn.216

preference. Opponents may also be uncomfortable with the disadvantages of federalism generally, preferring a national system for

although some public

issues are best addressed through legal centralization , in this illegal immigration case
decentralization better suits the nature of the problem . Illegal immigration and its
associated costs are not uniform across states, and neither are existing regulations. While
its tendencies to create laws that apply equally to all people no matter where they live. But

statutory preemption would permit more regulatory patchworking, it might spur more national legislation as well. If Congress
knows that it cannot rely on a constitutional challenge to clear the field of regulation it opposes, it will have to create policy in the
affirmative to preempt and obtain the results it desires that under structural preemption it could preempt without action.

Immigration federalism means that the political process will determine the balance
of regulatory power between Congress and the states , consistent with the framers preference for
political solutions to federalism questions. The Courts limited view of exclusive federal power over immigration will restore
deliberation to American immigration policy to the benefit of affected states and the country overall.

Immigration reforms are key to clean tech commercializationrevitalizes

US global leadership
Herman & Smith, 10
[Richard, 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, Robert, veteran journalist who covers international cultures
and immigration issues for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohios largest newspaper, 623, Why Immigrants Can Drive the Green Economy,
http://immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/why-immigrants-can-drive-greeneconomy]
immigrants will help drive the green revolution. America's 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. The 2000 Census found that immigrants, while
It should come as no surprise that

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.

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 lab's efforts to work with a Chinese energy lab, for
example, were stalled due to U.S. immigration barriers. "We can't 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 what's 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, that's a
brilliant idea." As the recent submission of the Startup Visa Act bill suggests, there's really no shortage of good ideas of leveraging immigration to

The challenge is getting the American people to understand that highskill immigration creates jobs, that the current system is broken, and that action is
required now. 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.
jumpstart the economy.

Clean Tech leadership key to preventing great power wars and adapt to
uncheck climate change
Klarevas 9 Louis Klarevas, Professor for Center for Global Affairs @ New York
University, 12/15, Securing American Primacy While Tackling Climate Change:
Toward a National Strategy of Greengemony, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louisklarevas/securing-american-primacy_b_393223.html
the
time is ripe to re-assess America's current energy policies - but within the larger
framework of how a new approach on the environment will stave off global warming
and shore up American primacy. By not addressing climate change more aggressively and creatively, the United
States is squandering an opportunity to secure its global primacy for the next few
generations to come. To do this, though, the U.S. must rely on innovation to help the world escape the
coming environmental meltdown. Developing the key technologies that will save
the planet from global warming will allow the U.S. to outmaneuver potential great
power rivals seeking to replace it as the international system's hegemon. But the greening of American
strategy must occur soon. The U.S., however, seems to be stuck in time, unable to move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in any
As national leaders from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark, to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference,

meaningful way. Often, the gridlock is portrayed as a partisan difference, with Republicans resisting action and Democrats pleading for action. This,
though, is an unfair characterization as there are numerous proactive Republicans and quite a few reticent Democrats. The real divide is instead one

Students of realpolitik, which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount
environmental issues as they are not seen as advancing national interests in a way that
generates relative power advantages vis--vis the other major powers in the system: Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Union. Liberals,
on the other hand, have recognized that global warming might very well become the
greatest challenge ever faced by [hu]mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined national
between realists and liberals.

interests for the greater global good. This, though, ruffles elected officials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote American national

by becoming a lean, mean, green fighting machine,

the U.S. can actually bring together liberals and realists to advance a collective
interest which benefits every nation , while at the same time, securing America's global primacy well into the future. To do
so, the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional hegemon, but as history's
first ever green hegemon. Hegemons are countries that dominate the international system - bailing out other countries in times of
interests. What both sides need to understand is that

global crisis, establishing and maintaining the most important international institutions, and covering the costs that result from free-riding and cheating
global obligations. Since 1945, that role has been the purview of the United States. Immediately after World War II, Europe and Asia laid in ruin, the global
economy required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire system longed for a multilateral forum where
global concerns could be addressed. The U.S., emerging the least scathed by the systemic crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the challenge and
established the postwar (and current) liberal order. But don't let the world "liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited from America's new-found

hegemony, the U.S. was driven largely by "realist" selfish national interests. The liberal order first and foremost benefited the U.S. With the U.S. becoming
bogged down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to shore up the dollar, the future of American hegemony now
seems to be facing a serious contest: potential rivals - acting like sharks smelling blood in the water - wish to challenge the U.S. on a variety of fronts.

This has led numerous commentators to forecast the U.S.'s imminent fall from
grace. Not all hope is lost however. With the impending systemic crisis of global
warming on the horizon, the U.S. again finds itself in a position to address a
transnational problem in a way that will benefit both the international community
collectively and the U.S. selfishly. The current problem is two-fold. First, the competition for oil is fueling animosities between
the major powers. The geopolitics of oil has already emboldened Russia in its 'near abroad' and China in far-off places like Africa and Latin America. As oil

a nasty zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the

U.S. and its major power rivals - a contest which threatens American primacy and
global stability. Second, converting fossil fuels like oil to run national economies is
producing irreversible harm in the form of carbon dioxide emissions . So long as the global
economy remains oil-dependent, greenhouse gases will continue to rise. Experts are predicting as much as a 60%
increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the next twenty-five years. That likely means more devastating
water shortages, droughts, forest fires, floods, and storms . In other words, if global
competition for access to energy resources does not undermine international
security, global warming will. And in either case, oil will be a culprit for the instability. Oil arguably has been the most precious
is a limited natural resource,

energy resource of the last half-century. But "black gold" is so 20th century. The key resource for this century will be green gold - clean, environmentally-

Climate change leaves no alternative. And the sooner

we realize this, the better off we will be . What Washington must do in order to avoid the traps of petropolitics is to convert
the U.S. into the world's first-ever green hegemon. For starters, the federal government must drastically increase
investment in energy and environmental research and development (E&E R&D). This will require a
friendly energy like wind, solar, and hydrogen power.

serious sacrifice, committing upwards of $40 billion annually to E&E R&D - a far cry from the few billion dollars currently being spent. By promoting a new

the U.S. could develop new technologies that will assure it does not drown
in a pool of oil. Some solutions are already well known, such as raising fuel standards for automobiles; improving public transportation
networks; and expanding nuclear and wind power sources. Others, however, have not progressed much beyond the drawing board: batteries
that can store massive amounts of solar (and possibly even wind) power; efficient and cost-effective photovoltaic
cells, crop-fuels, and hydrogen-based fuels; and even fusion. Such innovations will not only provide
alternatives to oil, they will also give the U.S. an edge in the global competition for
hegemony. If the U.S. is able to produce technologies that allow modern, globalized societies to escape the oil trap, those nations will
eventually have no choice but to adopt such technologies. And this will give the U.S.
a tremendous economic boom, while simultaneously providing it with means of leverage
that can be employed to keep potential foes in check . The bottom-line is that the U.S. needs to
become green energy dominant as opposed to black energy independent - and the best
national project,

approach for achieving this is to promote a national strategy of greengemony.

Two Impacts to decline in clean tech decline -1)

Hegemonic decline causes great power wars

Zhang et al., Carnegie Endowment researcher, 2011

(Yuhan, Americas decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry, 1-22,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflictand-rivalry/, ldg)
This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be negative and
perhaps alarming. Although the US still possesses incomparable military prowess and its economy remains the worlds largest, the

the global distribution

of power is shifting, and the inevitable result will be a world that is less peaceful,
liberal and prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective conflict regulation. Over
the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the
once seemingly indomitable chasm that separated America from anyone else is narrowing. Thus,

US military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear,

many actors have bandwagoned with US hegemony and accepted a subordinate
role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US,
creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew
these powers together withers, so will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The
result will be an international order where power is more diffuse, American interests and
influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As history
attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation . For example, in the
late 19th century Americas emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the
turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to
challenge the notion that Britain rules the waves. Such a notion would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of
the Western Hemispheres security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and
rule of law. Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions

As a result of
such political stability, free markets, liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms
have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter
this system, proliferating stable and cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these
of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society.

advances as Americas influence declines? Given that Americas authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across
much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to

Public imagination and academia

have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the problems of the
1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral
institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional
organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the
vacuum left by Washingtons withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free
markets would become more politicised and, well, less free and major powers
would compete for supremacy. Additionally, such power plays have historically
possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of
this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way.

the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded,

A world without American hegemony

is one where great power wars re-emerge , the liberal international system is
supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into
restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will
so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973).

inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.

2)
Warming causes extinction
Flournoy 12 Citing Feng Hsu, PhdD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight
Center, Don FLournoy, PhD and MA from UT, former Dean of the University College
@ Ohio University, former Associate Dean at SUNY and Case Institute of Technology,
Former Manager for Unviersity/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite,
currently Professor of Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications,
Ohio University, Solar Power Satellites, January 2012, Springer Briefs in Space
Development, p. 10-11
In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a research center in
the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, The

evidence of global warming is alarming , noting

potential for a catastrophic planetary climate change is real and troubling (Hsu 2010 ) .
Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a
global scale, through which they received first-hand scientific information and data
relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After discussing this research
with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global temperatures
the

are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity.
No matter whether these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic
cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific
evidence showing positive correlations between the level of CO2 concentrations in
Earths atmosphere with respect to the historical fluctuations of global temperature
changes; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community is in
agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change . That is, if
we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of
greenhouse gases into Earths biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment
expert, Hsu says he can show with some confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy

the risks of a
catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the extinction of human
species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances (Hsu 2010 )
addictions than it will in making a fundamental shift in its energy supply. This, he writes, is because

Contention Two The Chilling Effect

Federal immigration programs create a culture of fear in which immigrants
are afraid to partake in societythe plans distinction between federal and
state immigration enforcement is perceived by these immigrants as
disentangling the corrupt policiesbrings them into society and resolves
the chilling effect
Garcia and Keyes 12, Angela Garcia is an assistant professor at Harvard University
and writes for Stanford journals and David Keyes is the executive director of
Advancing Human Rights and co-founder of CyberDissidents.org, (Angela and David,
3/26/12, Life as an Undocumented Immigrant: How Restrictive Local Immigration
Policies Affect Daily Life, Center for American Progress,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2012/03/26/11210/lifeas-an-undocumented-immigrant/)//kap
What happens to undocumented immigrants after the passage of anti-immigrant state laws such as Arizonas S.B.
1070 and Alabamas H.B. 56 or restrictive local ordinances such as those in Prince William County, Virginia, or
Freemont, Nebraska? What is life like for unauthorized immigrants in these areas, and how do they mitigate the
harshness of these ordinances? On the flip side, what happens to the larger communitiesdocumented and not,
immigrant and notand how do these laws impact the ability of law enforcement professionals to keep our
communities safe? Many studies have focused on the fiscal and economic ramifications of anti-immigrant

little work has been done on the harmful effects these laws have on
everyday life in our communities. That is the focus of this report. This report presents one of the first
studies of immigrants responses to local restrictions and enforcement. We demonstrate that exclusionary
policies and ramped-up federal enforcement inhibit immigrant incorporation into
their communities. Immigrants react to legal threats and hostile reception by going
underground: They hold negative perceptions of local law enforcement, associate
routine activities such as driving and walking with anxiety and the risk of
deportation, and develop strategies of avoidance and fitting in to mitigate the
discovery of their unauthorized status . These avoidance strategies can lead to several
problems for larger communities: Immigrants who do not interact with police limit
the efficacy of policing measures. Immigrants who are reluctant to accompany their children to school
are a barrier to effective education. Immigrants who are afraid to leave their houses foster less
vibrant and civically unengaged neighborhoods for immigrants and nonimmigrants
alike. These anxieties affect documented and undocumented immigrants alike.
According to a 2009 Pew Hispanic Center report, 53 percent of undocumented immigrants live in
mixed-status families, where one or more family member is undocumented.
Because authorized immigrants fear that their friends and loved ones could be
deported when in contact with officials, many ultimately use the same strategies of
avoidance. Compounding state and local action is a perception among immigrants
that local law enforcement is working hand-in-hand with immigration officials . Over the
past decade, the increase in enforcement at the federal level has meant that local
police and the immigration bureaucracy are closer than ever before . Some of these
collaborationssuch as the agreement between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the City
of Escondido, or the Border Patrol mandate allowing action up to 100 miles into the country, which enables
agents to conduct routine searches for unauthorized migrants in the area without
probable cause or warrants bring a physical presence of immigration agents onto the streets in places
like North County near San Diego, California. Other forms of immigration enforcementparticularly the
legislation, but

Secure Communities programdo not explicitly put immigration officers into local communities but nevertheless

complicate the everyday lives of undocumented immigrants and make them equally
fearful about interacting with local police .

Scenario 1
---First Internal Link Health Care
Fear associated with immigration enforcement is the primary reason for
immigrants not seeking health care
Alexander and Fernandez 14 [ William L., William L. Alexander is Assistant Professor
and Program Coordinator for the Anthropology and Latin American Studies program
at the University of Arizona; Magdalena, North Carolina Community Health Center
Association; 04-27-14; Immigration Policing and Medical Care for Farmworkers:
Uncertainties and Anxieties in the East Coast Migrant Stream;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nad.12010/full; 09-01-15; jac]
anti-immigrant public sentiment, laws, and enforcement
agreements are responsible for fear and anxiety among both MHC staff and the
communities they serve. A predominant concern is the risks that immigrants take when traveling to receive health
care and medical treatment, and to attend community events staged by health centers. When fear of deportation
causes farmworkers and their families to delay seeking care and avoid health fairs
and other means of regular screenings, the result is an increase in the severity of
health problems, which in turn leads to more costly emergency department visits.
Farmworkers are now less likely to seek treatment for injuries and to receive
important vaccines, which present risks not only to their own health but to the
health of the entire community. The current anti-immigrant sentiment, laws and
immigration agreements are creating fear among both providers and community. On
the one hand providers are afraid of being punished for providing care and
resources to migrant workers. They are not attending free health events, following
up or scheduling appointments, or seeking care for their loved ones. Both providers and
community are receiving wrong messages regarding local laws and immigration agreements. (NY) Most immigrants
don't seek medical attention due to fears of giving their personal information,
especially their address, where they can later be found and possibly deported. This
has led to increased visits to local hospitals instead of seeking regular medical care
at local health clinics. I also noted a fear of appearing at public places such as health events due to possibilities of
The answers below reflect how

deportation. At some of these events local police and fire departments are invited that particularly increase their fear to attend. (NC)
Such changes in behavior are the outcomes of a wider strategic policy stance against undocumented immigrants. In tandem with
detention and deportation, in the last decade a theory of attrition emerged among restrictionists and nativists, proposing that
people will self-deport if the social safety net is removed (NC Policy Watch 2007; O'Leary and Sanchez 2011; Su 2013).
Proponents hold that even if it is impossible to remove every undocumented immigrant from the country, a serious and concerted
effort to effectuate enforcement would convince many to leave rather than live in constant fear of detection (Su 2013:1381).

People are afraid to be traveling, so they prefer not to visit the centers if they don't
need it. (NJ) The inability to get a driver's license makes getting to appointments or
community health events almost impossible without outside interventions. (NC)
Many workers don't want to travel or drive if they have a car from fear of being
pulled over. (VA) People are scared to drive through SC, GA and AL to reach Virginia
for work. They are more reluctant to drive to medical appointments out of fear of
being stopped for license checks. (VA) As the last comment shows, such fears restrict mobility between states
with varying degrees of hostility toward migrants. Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina passed copycat versions of the
controversial 2010 Arizona SB 1070 law. In the neighboring migrant stream state of North Carolina, similar legislation was
introduced, an effect that the social justice organization North Carolina Council of Churches deemed the spread of toxic immigration
laws (North Carolina Council of Churches 2011).

Uninsured populations cost over $100 billion annually-- slowing the

increase in healthcare costs would increase the GDP 8%
CEA 9 COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM EMBARGOED UNTIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 2; JUNE 2009

slowing the annual growth rate of health care costs by 1.5 percentage
points would increase real gross domestic product (GDP), relative to the no-reform baseline,
by over 2 percent in 2020 and nearly 8 percent in 2030. For a typical family of four, this implies that
income in 2020 would be approximately $2,600 higher than it would have been without reform
We estimate that

(in 2009 dollars), and that in 2030 it would be almost $10,000 higher. Under more conservative estimates of the

Slowing the
growth rate of health care costs will prevent disastrous increases in the Federal
budget deficit. Slowing cost growth would lower the unemployment rate consistent with
steady inflation by approximately one-quarter of a percentage point for a number of years. The beneficial
impact on employment in the short and medium run (relative to the no-reform baseline) is
estimated to be approximately 500,000 each year that the effect is felt. Expanding
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE to the uninsured would increase net economic wellbeing by roughly $100 billion a year, which is roughly two-thirds of a percent of GDP. Reform would
reduction in the growth rate of health care costs, the income gains are smaller, but still substantial.

likely increase labor supply, remove unnecessary barriers to job mobility, and help to "level the playing field"
between large and small businesses. WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE ARE HEADED Health care expenditures in the
United States are currently about 18 percent of GDP, and this share is projected to rise sharply. If health care costs
continue to grow at historical rates, the share of GDP devoted to health care in the United States is projected to
reach 34 percent by 2040. For households with employer-sponsored HEALTH INSURANCE, this trend implies that a
progressively smaller fraction of their total compensation will be in the form of take-home pay and a progressively

The rising share of health

expenditures also has dire implications for government budgets. Almost half of current
health care spending is covered by Federal, state, and local governments. If health care costs continue to
grow at historical rates, MEDICARE and Medicaid spending (both Federal and state) will rise to
nearly 15 percent of GDP in 2040. Of this increase, roughly one-quarter is estimated to be due to the
larger fraction will take the form of employer-provided HEALTH INSURANCE.

aging of the population and other demographic effects, and three-quarters is due to rising health care costs.

---Second Internal LinkReal Estate

Aggressive immigration enforcement causes $175 billion yearly drops in
residential construction spending
Tallent et. al. 13 [Rebecca, Bipartisan Policy Committee Director; Matt Graham, BPC policy
analyst; Lazora Zamora, BPC policy analyst; Kristen Masley, BPC administrative assistant;
10/2013; Immigration Reform: Implications for Growth, Budgets, and Housing;
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/default/files/BPC_Immigration_Economic_Impact.pdf; 8/30/15; jac]
Reference Case. The analysis examined immigration reforms impact on the housing market. Demand for housing
units increases as new immigrants enter the economy and form households, accelerating the current housing

Under the reference case,

average spending on residential construction increased by about $68 billion per
year, with a peak of more than $110 billion per year in FY2022FY2025. The first
decades annual average was about $56 billion per year higher, and the second
decades was about $81 billion. Alternative Scenarios. Projected increases in residential
recovery and fueling growth in this sector of the economy (Figure 12).

construction spending were closely related to the number of new immigrants

entering the country. Under Scenario 1s larger net increase in immigration, annual construction spending
was more than $19 billion per year higher than the reference case. The slightly lower immigration levels in Scenario
2 resulted in lower housing demand than the reference case. In Scenario 3, moving immigrants from the family to
employment categories resulted in more than $2 billion per year in additional construction spending. Scenario 4

Under the attrition through enforcement scenario, residential

construction spending declined by more than $100 billion per year compared with
the baseline, and by more than $175 billion per year compared with the reference
case. This is because the removal of all present and future unauthorized immigrants caused a significant decline
in the U.S. population. The departure of current unauthorized immigrants would leave many
dwellings vacant, and the reduction in future population growth would reduce the
need to build additional housing units.
had minimal impact.

Residential real estate spending drives the overall economy-helps to

recover personal consumerism
Amadeo 15 [Kimberly, About News economy writer; 03/05/15; How Does Real Estate Affect
the U.S. Economy?;
http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/Real_estate_faq.htm; 08/31/15; jac;]

Real estate plays an integral role in the U.S. economy. Residential real estate
provides housing for families, and is often the greatest source of wealth and savings
for many of them. Commercial real estate, which includes apartment buildings, create spaces for
jobs in retail, offices and manufacturing. Real estate income provides a source of
revenue for millions. In 2014, real estate construction contributed $1.0656 trillion, or
6.1%, to the nation's economic output as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is
getting closer to its peak of $1.195 trillion in 2006. At that time, it was a hefty 8.9% component of GDP. Real estate

a drop in housing construction was a big contribution

to the recession's high unemployment rate. However, construction is only a portion of the economic
construction is labor intensive. That's why

activity associated with real estate. A decline in real estate sales eventually leads to a decline in real estate prices.
This then reduces the value of everyones' homes, whether they are actively selling it or not. This then reduces the

Nearly 70% of
the U.S. economy is based on personal consumption. A reduction in consumer
spending contributes to a downward spiral in the economy. This results in further
unemployment, further reduction in income, and further reduction in consumer
spending. If the Federal Reserve doesn't intervene by reducing interest rates, then
the country could fall into a recession.
amount of home equity loans the homeowner can get. This, then, reduces consumer spending.

Slow US growth causes conflicts and extinction.

Richard N. Haass 13, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 4/30/13, The
World Without America, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairingthe-roots-of-american-power-by-richard-n--haass
The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the foreseeable
future is not a rising China, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear Iran, modern terrorism, or climate
change. Although all of these constitute potential or actual threats, the biggest challenges facing the US are its burgeoning
debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration system, and
Let me posit a radical idea:

slow economic growth in short, the domestic foundations of American power. Readers in other
countries may be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in Americas difficulties. Such a
response should not be surprising. The US and those representing it have been guilty of hubris (the US may often be the indispensable nation, but it would
be better if others pointed this out), and examples of inconsistency between Americas practices and its principles understandably provoke charges of
hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it preaches to others, it breeds resentment. But, like most temptations, the urge to gloat at

Americas failure
to deal with its internal challenges would come at a steep price . Indeed, the rest of the worlds stake
Americas imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted. People around the globe should be careful what they wish for.

in American success is nearly as large as that of the US itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US economy still accounts for about one-quarter of

If US growth accelerates, Americas capacity to consume other countries

goods and services will increase, thereby boosting growth around the world. At a time when
Europe is drifting and Asia is slowing , only the US (or, more broadly, North America) has the
potential to drive global economic recovery. The US remains a unique source of innovation. Most of the worlds citizens
global output.

communicate with mobile devices based on technology developed in Silicon Valley; likewise, the Internet was made in America. More recently, new
technologies developed in the US greatly increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from underground formations. This technology is now making
its way around the globe, allowing other societies to increase their energy production and decrease both their reliance on costly imports and their carbon
emissions. The US is also an invaluable source of ideas. Its world-class universities educate a significant percentage of future world leaders. More

the US has long been a leading example of what market economies and
democratic politics can accomplish. People and governments around the world are far
more likely to become more open if the American model is perceived to be
succeeding. Finally, the world faces many serious challenges, ranging from the need to halt the spread
of weapons of mass destruction, fight climate change, and maintain a functioning world
economic order that promotes trade and investment to regulating practices in
fundamentally,

cyberspace, improving global health, and preventing armed conflicts. These

problems will not simply go away or sort themselves out . While Adam Smiths invisible
hand may ensure the success of free markets, it is powerless in the world of geopolitics . Order requires
the visible hand of leadership to formulate and realize global responses to global
challenges. Dont get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively with the worlds problems on its own.
Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US lacks the means; the very nature of contemporary global problems suggests that only collective

multilateralism is much easier to advocate than to design and

implement. Right now there is only one candidate for this role: the US. No other country
has the necessary combination of capability and outlook. This brings me back to the argument that the
US must put its house in order economically, physically, socially, and politically if it is to have the
resources needed to promote order in the world . Everyone should hope that it does: The alternative to
a world led by the US is not a world led by China, Europe, Russia, Japan, India, or any other
country, but rather a world that is not led at all. Such a world would almost certainly be characterized by
chronic crisis and conflict. That would be bad not just for Americans, but for the vast majority of the planets inhabitants.
responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But

Scenario 2
Lack of healthcare for immigrants leads to uncontrollable disease, the
plan is key to solve disease
Betzler 13 (Song Betzler, J.D., M.P.H., Legal Fellow at the Network for Public Health
Law Mid-States Region at the University of Michigan School of Public Health,
Undocumented Immigrants and Healthcare, The Network for Public Health Care,
https://www.networkforphl.org/the_network_blog/2013/07/01/196/undocumented_im
migrants_and_health_care) //AS
Inadequate access to health care and treatment can lead to the spread of disease
and stymie disease control efforts. In November of 2012, immigration authorities detained
a Nepalese man who had extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis , or XDR-TB. This is the first
XDR-TB case that Immigration and Customs Enforcement encountered, but health officials arent
confident it will be the last.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report the TB rate among
foreign-born persons in the U.S. in 2012 was 11.5 times higher than among U.S.-born persons.
States with large immigrant populations , such as California, Texas, Florida and New York,
represented almost half of all TB cases reported in 2012. Proposed immigration reform focuses on
providing this population a path to citizenship by granting a registered provisional status. In general, this status
allows undocumented immigrants to legally work in the U.S. but denies them public benefits. Undocumented
immigrants are currently excluded from the Affordable Care Act (ACA). For example, they arent covered under the
individual mandate provision, entitled to any government subsidies, and are banned from purchasing insurance
through insurance exchanges. Undocumented immigrants remain ineligible for Medicaid, making them prone to rely
on safety-net providers (providers that offer health services to uninsured or other vulnerable patients). Under the

Provisions that exclude

undocumented immigrants from the U.S. health care system have implications that
impact public health. There is no guarantee that undocumented immigrants have
been inoculated for the same diseases the U.S. seeks to control within its borders.
current immigration reform bill these ACA provisions will continue to apply.

Immigration law requires those seeking to immigrate, or change their status to permanent resident, provide proof of
vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases, but this does not apply to undocumented immigrants. The failure

there are few options available to adequately and

quickly address preventable disease and illness. Because this population tends to
live in the shadows of society, tracking and preventing disease in immigrant
communities poses numerous difficulties. Undocumented immigrants may avoid
agencies that require self-identification, and fear visiting a health clinic will draw
the attention of immigration officials. There is greater risk of exposure to contagious
disease when access to health care is limited . As drug-resistant diseases become more prevalent
to address immigrant health care means

around the world, the U.S. can protect itself by providing undocumented immigrants with access to health care. As
immigration reform is being considered, Congress has a second opportunity (the first was during the debate on the
ACA) to have a robust debate on the public health benefits of insuring undocumented immigrants and enabling
them to obtain better access to health care. Providing such benefits will widen the pool of insured persons and offer
the potential to decrease the spread of disease and per capita cost. There is also significant potential to cut costs

immigration health reform can

prevent disease and illness in undocumented immigrants, thereby protecting the
health of the entire U.S. population .
by lowering the use of emergency care. And most importantly,

Immigrants scared of getting healthcare bring over new strains of drugs

that Americans have no immune defense for
Jack Minor, 14, (journalist and researcher, served in Marine Corps.)"New wave of
illegal immigrants could be bringing diseases to US," Finance Post,

http://usfinancepost.com/new-wave-of-illegal-immigrants-could-be-bringingdiseases-to-us-19643.html
While recent news has been focused on the recent trend of children coming across the U.S. border from Mexico and the steps the government is taking,
another problem appears to be cropping up, the possibility of infectious diseases spreading. Channel 15 ABC in Arizona is reporting that border patrol
agents are now sounding the alarm that with illegal aliens, being shipped to the state and other states, the potential for a viral outbreak has increased

We are sending people everywhere

significantly.
. The average person doesnt know whats going on down here, Border
Patrol agent and Rio Grande Valley Union representative Chris Cabrera told channel 15. According to Cabrera, in the detention facilities the only thing
separating the sick from the healthy is caution tape. Theres been an outbreak of scabies thats been going on for the past month, Cabrera said.

Another healthcare concern is that many illegal immigrants have not had the
vaccinations that Americans have long received and have the strong possibility
of bringing drug-resistant strains of diseases that have long since been
eradicated, such as tuberculosis, with them. Tuberculosis is a bacterial infection that generally attacks the lungs,
although it can attack any part of the body. The disease is easily spread when an infected individual coughs, sneezes, or even talks in the presence of

If not properly treated the disease can be fatal.

another person.
The disease has been around since ancient times,
and Tuberculosis was once the leading cost of death in America. Among the diseases victims was the legendary Doc Holiday who died in a tuberculosis

antibiotics were developed which resulted in the disease being virtually eradicated in
, in recent years the disease has been making a comeback with
new strains that are resistant to most antibiotics. Last year, Los Angeles suffered from a persistent strain of
ward in Colorado Springs. In the 20th century,
America in the 1960s. However

tuberculosis that may have been exposed to over 4,500 people. Police officers were advised to wear protective masks while dealing with members of the

Besides California and Florida, the states with the

greatest number of multi-drug resistant TB are Texas and New York . All of these
states have large numbers of illegal aliens within their borders. Florida was recently ranked as having
public who may have been exposed to the disease.

the third largest illegal alien population by the Department of Homeland Security. Many of the illegals in Florida come from the Caribbean and other
countries in the Southern hemisphere.

Some of these countries have widespread problems with tuberculosis.

Disease causes extinction -- Burnout is wrong these diseases are new

and mutate
Karl-Heinz Kerscher 14, Professor, Space Education, Wissenschaftliche Studie,
2014, 92 Seiten
The death toll for a pandemic is equal to the virulence , the deadliness of the pathogen or
pathogens, multiplied by the number of people eventually infected. It has been
hypothesized that there is an upper limit to the virulence of naturally evolved
pathogens. This is because a pathogen that quickly kills its hosts might not have
enough time to spread to new ones, while one that kills its hosts more slowly or not at
all will allow carriers more time to spread the infection , and thus likely out-compete a more
lethal species or strain. This simple model predicts that if virulence and transmission are
not linked in any way, pathogens will evolve towards low virulence and rapid
transmission. However, this assumption is not always valid and in more complex
models, where the level of virulence and the rate of transmission are related, high
levels of virulence can evolve. The level of virulence that is possible is instead limited by
the existence of complex populations of hosts, with different susceptibilities to infection, or by
some hosts being geographically isolated. The size of the host population and competition between different strains

There are numerous historical examples of pandemics

that have had a devastating effect on a large number of people, which makes the
possibility of global pandemic a realistic threat to human civilization .
of pathogens can also alter virulence.