Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
States Counterplan and Answers

States Counterplan and Answers

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10 |Likes:
Published by Sarah Spring
HUDL Institute - UH Debate
HUDL Institute - UH Debate

More info:

Published by: Sarah Spring on Aug 06, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/06/2013

pdf

text

original

 
States Counterplan & Answers
States CP 1NC
2
 
Negative -
States CP 1NC
 
N
EGATIVE
 
States CP 1NC
CP Text; The 50 states and territories of the United States should fund substantialinfrastructure improvements at Points of Entry along the United States
 –
Mexico border.The CP solves the case - States can improve ports of entry
Wilson & Lee 2013
 Erik Lee, Associate Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS) at Arizona StateUniversity, Christopher E. Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars “THE STATE OF TRADE, COMPETITIVENESS
AND ECONOMIC WELL-BEING INTHE U.S.-
MEXICO BORDER REGION”
The State of The Border report: A Comprehensive Analysis of the U.S.-MexicoBorder Border Research Partnership May 2013http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/mexico_state_of_border.pdf 
Given the fact that POE improvements offer significant
and tangible monetary
benefits to border communitiesand
trade-dependent
industries
,
state, local and private entities are often willing to contribute
funding
to
border
infrastructure projects
.
Under the current budgetary constraints, it makes sense for federal agencies to takefull advantage of these
alternative funding sources.
Along the Texas-Mexico border, the majority of POEs areowned by the city or county in which they are located. This model
for infrastructure investment
could beexpanded along other parts of the
U.S.-Mexico
border, but changes to current federal legislation appear to benecessary to allow C
BP to “accept reimbursement
from sources other than Congress.”17 As demonstrated above,
additional staffing is and will be increasingly necessary as trade increases.
With the active support of border stakeholdersacross the region, a proposal along these lines designed in collaboration with federal agencies could likelygarner legislative support and could open significant opportunities for investment despite tough budgetarytimes
.
 
States Counterplan & Answers
CP Solves - Infrastructure
3
 
Negative -
CP Solves - Infrastructure
 
CP Solves - Infrastructure
Actions by the Border States solve.Shapleigh, Texas Senator, 8
*10/08, Eliot, “Texas Borderlands 2009 The State of Border Transportationand Security,” http://shapleigh.org/system/reporting_document/file/238/81st_Transportation_Chapter.pdf,
date accessed: 07/12/13, LV]
 
Key U.S.-Mexico border ports-of-entry are located on international trade corridors
linking Mexico, the United States, and Canada. TheSafe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) emphasizes continued federal
 interest in identifying and promoting key international highway trade corridors in the United
States.
U.S.-Mexico border statesshould continue to expand efforts at border corridor planning
coordination. Border corridor plans shouldrecognize the role of border ports-of-entry on selected
international corridors and ensure that theircontributions to transportation effectiveness and
efficiency is explicitly recognized.
In the future, trade corridorsmay qualify for a variety of 
federal transportation funding, and the border region needs to be clearly recognized as part of the
U.S.corridor program. By clearly stating the case for new trade corridor investment along the
Border, we will establish the foundation tosupport future requests for federal funding for the
Border Region.
In addition,
a corridor analysis of trade flow canproduce substantial benefits for both
planners and users. Corridor planning considers the overall efficiencyof a transportation
corridor by analyzing how efficiencies along the corridor benefit the corridor overall.
 Evidence
supports the separation of trade flows and transportation flows because the two can differ so
extensively.
Enhancingour understanding of how corridors work will lead to a better use of 
resources
, while a regional analysis of transportation flows will make a stronger case for federal
support. Finally,
the bi-national nature of U.S.-Mexico will allowus to synchronize investment
plans with the Mexican Ministry of Transport.
State action solves
 –
greater state initiative leads to national level policy realignmentGerber et al. 2010
 
James Gerber, PhD California Davis San Diego State University Director of the Center for Latin AmericanStudies (CLAS) and a Professor of Economics;Francisco Lara-Valencia , PhD Umich, Arizona State University Associate Professor,Director, Research Network for Transborder Development and Governance; Carlos de la Parra, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, PhDUmich, professor Urban and Environmental Studies at El Colegio
de la Frontera Norte. “Re
-Imagining the U.S.-Mexico Border: Policies
toward a More Competitive and Sustainable Transborder Region”
Global Economy Journal Volume 10, Issue 4 2010
 
The trajectory toward crossborder integration and the increasing political maturity of the ten border states
are the underpinnings of the term “transborder
,” as we use it here and as it being use by the Border Governors Conference.
The Border Governors Conference launched
in 2009
a set of Strategic Guidelines
, or Plan Indicativo,
in an attemptto define policies for the U.S.-Mexico border region
as a whole
as well as to have a greater voice in the futureof overall
U.S.- Mexico
relations
. We argue that
this claim to an increased voice
in national policies
for border stateswill tend towards a greater partnership between national and regional interests, rather than promoting atug-of-war
between border states and national capitals.
Regional-national partnership is essential, both for the socialand economic development of the border region, and for the strengthening of U.S.-Mexico ties
.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->