Immigration Reform Politics

1NC
CIR will pass however Obamas continued PC investment is
uniquely key
Bennett 6/27 (Clay Bennett; June 27, 2013; Editorial: Keep up momentum on
immigration reform; Tampa Bay Times;
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-keep-up-momentum-onimmigration-reform/2128923)//KDUB
With broad bipartisan support, the Senate approved sweeping legislation
Thursday that would significantly benefit Florida and finally create a path to citizenship for
millions of undocumented immigrants. Sen. Marco Rubio deserves credit for helping negotiate
reforms and build a coalition of reasonable Republicans and Democrats, but the work is far from finished. The
road will be even tougher in the more conservative House, and supporters
have to keep up the pressure for comprehensive reform . The 68-32 vote
sent a strong message about the merits of the Senate bill , even if it is far from

perfect. The path to citizenship would take more than a decade and should be shorter. The strict requirements along
the way, from learning English to paying fines and back taxes, may be too difficult for many illegal immigrants to
clear. The $46 billion for strengthening the border to win over more conservative senators is too high, and the
requirements for border security goals to be met before permanent resident green cards are obtained may be a

the legislation offers a far smarter way forward than the

status quo, and it reflects what can be accomplished by building
consensus in an era where Washington has been paralyzed by partisan
gridlock. The Senate bill acknowledges the reality that 11 million illegal immigrants are not going to be
prescription for failure. Yet

returned to their home countries. It also recognizes that many of them already are quietly working in Florida fields
and businesses, attending public schools and living peacefully in our communities. Undocumented immigrants
would not be the only beneficiaries of the Senate bill. So would large segments of Florida's economy. Labor and
business groups agreed on a provision to create up to 200,000 guest visas annually for low-skilled immigrants like
those who work in Florida's tourism industry. The number of visas for high-skilled foreign workers also would be
increased. And a new agricultural guest worker program would benefit Florida agriculture, where informed
estimates suggest the overwhelming number of field workers are illegal immigrants. In his closing remarks before
the Senate vote, Rubio acknowledged that the immigration issue ''has been a real trial for me" and that it angered
many conservatives who helped elect him. But he recounted his family's move from Cuba to Florida in search of
work and a better life, and he talked of the "miracle of America,'' of the impact immigrants have on the nation and
the impact the nation has on immigrants. "I support this reform,'' the Florida Republican concluded, "not just

Convincing the House

Republicans to embrace that optimistic vision will be difficult . House Speaker John
Boehner has no control over the most conservative Republicans and no
appetite for building a coalition of Democrats and mainstream Republicans
like the Senate did to pass immigration legislation. It will be up to President Barack Obama
and Republicans like Rubio to build public pressure, change the speaker's mind and
force a House vote on comprehensive immigration reform that could pass with
because I believe in immigrants, but because I believe in America even more.''

bipartisan support.

[INSERT LINK]
Obamas PC is key to overcome GOP opposition
AFP 6-12 (Agence France Presse. US immigration bill advances in Senate, clears
first hurdle http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-0612/news/39925853_1_border-security-landmark-immigration-bill-democraticsenator-chuck-schumer)

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

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
the crucial test votes,

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

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
said at a White House event.

broken system is the best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to try to block it," he said. "But if 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

Graham, a frequent Obama critic, said "the president's tone

and engagement has been very helpful" to the process . But he stressed that fellow
done." Republican Senator Lindsey

Republicans in the Senate and House needed to look closely at whether they want to scupper the effort and
jeopardize the party's political future by alienating millions of voters.

[INSERT IMPACT SCENARIO]

Will Pass

Will Pass General

CIR will pass now but Obamas PC is still key to overcome GOP
opposition in the house
Geman 6/29 (Ben Geman - 06/29/13; Obama adviser: House facing a lot of

pressure to act on immigration reform; The Hill; http://thehill.com/blogs/blogbriefing-room/news/308581-white-house-adviser-sees-a-lot-of-pressure-on-houseover-immigration-)//KDUB

A senior White House official said the Senates 68-32 passage of a
sweeping immigration bill on Thursday has created pressure for action in
the GOP-led House. There is a national conversation happening about immigration reform. And there is a
sense of momentum created by what the Senate just did. So we expect that conversation is going to continue, said

theres going to be a
lot of pressure on the House to act now that the Senate has acted, Munoz
added in an interview Friday with Bloomberg. President Obama on Saturday urged the House to
move legislation before the August recess. But efforts to reach a HouseSenate deal face major hurdles. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said any House
plan must have support from a majority of the Republicans in his chamber .
Cecilia Munoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. And frankly

Asked whether that represents a setback, Munoz replied: there are multiple options available for House
consideration. It

is important that the speaker has made it clear that the

House is going to make its mark on this debate. Thats as it should be , she
said on the program Political Capital with Al Hunt. The Senate plan, which includes a pathway to
citizenship for undocumented residents, won 14 Republican votes in the upper chamber .
Munoz called the 68-32 Senate passage a very strong vote, and said
theres widespread backing for immigration reform nationwide that will
translate into support from House Republicans. [Y]oure talking about the business
community, from the National Association of Manufacturers, to the U.S. Chamber, to the tech sector, small
businesses, faith leaders of every kind, but also this conversation is happening locally in a different way in religious
congregations, in communities around the country," she said. "The country is for this and I think ultimately the
House of Representatives will be too."

CIR will pass treasury secretary

Indian Express 7/1 (Indian Express; Jul 01 2013; Immigration reform bill will

pass: US treasury secretary; http://www.indianexpress.com/news/immigrationreform-bill-will-pass-us-treasury-secretary/1136184/)//KDUB

US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said that he was confident that immigration
reform would be adopted, despite strong opposition from some Republicans. Last
week the US Senate passed a controversial immigration bill that would give a path
to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, and the legislation is now under debate
in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Conservatives have
criticised the Senate version of the overhaul and have vowed any House
version would need to have significant differences. But Treasury Secretary Lew, thought
the reforms strongly backed by President Barack Obama, would become law. "I think the immigration reform will

pass," he said at a conference in Aspen, Colorado yesterday. "We need to do this for the sake
of the economy," he said, emphasising that taxes paid by these newly
legalised immigrants could help prolong the solvency of social security
and medicare. And he added, "we have to do it because it's the right thing to do. We have to it because it's
the smart thing to do." "We are a nation of immigrants. You look at the fortune 500
companies, 40 percent of them were started by immigrants or children of

immigrants," he said. The treasury secretary called himself "very optimistic" for US economic growth, saying
there are "a lot of signs that there is a real recovery on the way." But, he said, "we have to make sure we do not
have another round of self-inflicted wounds," referring to negotiations over the country's borrowing limit and budget
cuts, which hinder growth. "I

think the president has made clear... that we cannot be

in a position ever again that you are negotiating over whetheror not the
US government is going to default," Lew said. He refused to answer questions
on monetary policy or to discuss the process to replace Ben Bernanke as
head of the Federal Reserve, whose term ends in January. Though media reports
indicate the Treasury Department is involved in selecting his successor, Lew simply said his "conversations with the
president should remain private."

CIR will pass political pressure

Reuters 6/30 (John Whitesides; Jun 30, 2013; Democrat predicts House will

pass Senate immigration bill; Reuters;

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/30/us-usa-immigrationidUSBRE95R14T20130630)//KDUB
Schumer, a member of the bipartisan Senate group that crafted the immigration measure, said House
Republicans who are now vowing they will not pass the Senate measure
will ultimately be convinced by political concerns about the party's future .
"I believe that by the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill. I know that's not what they think now.
And they'll say, 'Oh no, that's not what's going to happen.' But I think it will," Schumer told the "Fox News Sunday"

House Republicans rejected Schumer's prediction. Republican Speaker

Boehner has said the House will write its own immigration bill rather
than bringing up the Senate bill passed on Thursday, which is supported by Democratic President
Barack Obama. Fourteen Senate Republicans joined Senate Democrats in backing a
Senate bill that features a path to citizenship for millions of illegal
immigrants already in the United States, an approach vehemently opposed by many
conservative House Republicans who view it as rewarding law-breakers. Some Republican leaders
worry that rejecting the Senate bill could further alienate Hispanics, a
fast-growing bloc of voters who overwhelmingly supported Obama's reelection in 2012, and could handicap the party in future presidential elections. Schumer said
House Republicans eventually will allow a vote on the Senate bill to get
the issue off their backs and ease the pressure from immigration reform supporters including
religious, civil rights and business groups. "Within several months, Speaker Boehner will find two
choices: no bill or let a bill pass with a majority of Democratic votes and
some Chamber of Commerce-type Republicans. And he'll find that the better choice," the
program. Senior
John

New York senator said. House Republicans sarcastically shrugged off Schumer's prediction. "I was moved almost to
the point of tears by Senator Schumer's concern for the future prospects of the Republican Party. But we're going to
not take his advice," said Republican Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who heads the immigration
subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. "The Senate bill is not going to pass in the House, and it's not
going to pass for myriad reasons," Gowdy said. "I'm more interested in getting it right than doing it on Senator

Boehner has said an immigration bill

will be put to a vote only if a majority of House Republicans back it . Boehner
Schumer's schedule," he added. FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

supports a piecemeal approach using smaller, targeted bills rather than the sweeping Senate legislation. Republican

McCain of Arizona, another member of the bipartisan group behind the Senate bill, said it
would not be easy to convince the House to pass broad immigration
reform but held out hope. "I really hesitate to tell Speaker Boehner exactly how he should do this. But
I think Republicans realize the implications (for) the future of the Republican
Party in America if we don't get this issue behind us," McCain said on "Fox
Senator John

News Sunday." "I believe that the coalition that we've assembled of support ranging from evangelicals, to the
Catholic church, business, labor, farm workers, growers ... I frankly have never seen such widespread support. And I
am hopeful that we can convince our House colleagues," McCain said. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the
top Democrat in the House, said she was optimistic the political realities of immigration would force House

Republicans to come around. "It's

certainly right for the Republicans if they ever

want to win a presidential race," Pelosi said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program. A proposal being
talked about in the House as an alternative to the Senate bill would offer possible citizenship in the future after
illegal immigrants spend a decade working through a legalized status that gives them work permits. Representative
Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said it was possible the House could pass
a measure that did not include a pathway to citizenship but focused on a "pathway to legalization" for
undocumented immigrants. On ABC's "This Week" program, Goodlatte also made clear the House would not pass
the Senate bill. "When you use the word pathway to 'legalization' as opposed to pathway to 'citizenship,' I'd say,
'Yes,'" he said when asked about the chances for an immigration bill getting through the House. "Not a special
pathway to citizenship where people who are here unlawfully get something that people who have worked for
decades to immigrate lawfully do not have," Goodlatte added.

Will Pass Schumer

Whitesides, John 6/30/13 Reuters political correspondent,

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/30/senator-charles-schumer-gop-led-house-will-passimmigration-reform/

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives will

bow to political pressure and pass the immigration bill approved by the
Democratic-led Senate by the end of the year, Democratic Senator Charles Schumer
predicted on Sunday.Schumer, a member of the bipartisan Senate group
that crafted the immigration measure, said House Republicans who are
now vowing they will not pass the Senate measure will ultimately be
convinced by political concerns about the partys future.I believe that
by the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill. I know thats
not what they think now. And theyll say, Oh no, thats not whats going to happen. But I think
it will, Schumer told the Fox News Sunday program.
WASHINGTON (Reuters)

Will pass Pelosi

Morgenstern, Madeleine 6/30/13

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/30/nancy-pelosi-houserepublicans-will-pass-immigration-reform-if-they-ever-want-to-win-a-presidential-race/; Assistant editor at TheBlaze.

A graduate of George Washington University with a degree in political science

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said congressional Republicans will have
to pass immigration reform if they ever want the GOP to retake the White
House.I believe that the members of Congress, many more than are directly affected themselves
by the number of Hispanics in their district, will do what is right for our country , Pelosi (Calif.)
said in an interview aired Sunday on NBCs Meet the Press. And its certainly right for the
Republicans, if they ever want to win a presidential race.House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi of Calif. speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, June 27, 2013. (AP)

Pelosi said shes very optimistic that comprehensive immigration reform

will pass before long, and certainly this year.The onus is now on the Republican-led
House, after the Democratic-led Senate overwhelmingly passed its bill Thursday. House Speaker John Boehner said
last week that any type of immigration legislation to come to the House floor must have the approval of the
majority of congressional Republicans.

Will Pass Momentum

Senate bill creates momentum for CIR but Obamas
involvement is still key
Bloomberg 6/28 (Editors: Robin Meszoly; Jun 28; Munoz Sees House

Republicans Pressed on Immigration (Transcript); Bloomberg;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-28/munoz-sees-house-republicanspressed-on-immigration-transcript-.html)//KDUB
White
House domestic policy adviser, Cecilia Munoz. Cecilia, thank you so much for joining us. On
HANS NICHOLS: Thanks for joining us. Im Hans Nichols filling in for Albert R. Hunt. We begin the show with

Thursday, Speaker John Boehner said that it has - that any immigration bill has to have a majority of a majority.

what makes
passage possible is that we just had a very, very strong vote in the Senate ,
68 votes, 14 Republicans supporting. And there are constituencies all over the country
who cheered way out loud once they saw what the Senate was doing. We
have business leaders of every shape and size. We have faith leaders.
There are law-enforcement officials. There are mayors and governors of
both parties. There is strong support for immigration reform all over the
country. And there is strong evidence that immigration reform is not just good for the economy, but excellent
Does that make passage impossible or just harder? CECILIA MUNOZ: Well, I think that

for the economy. It reduces the deficit by almost $1 trillion. It helps create jobs. It helps grow GDP. So the reason
that this is going to happen is because there is so much support all over the country. NICHOLS: And that support
translates to the Republican conference? MUNOZ: I think it does because, again, youre talking about the business

from the National Association of Manufacturers, to the U.S.

Chamber, to the tech sector, small businesses, faith leaders of every kind ,
but also this conversation is happening locally in a different way in religious
congregations, in communities around the country. The country is for this
and I think ultimately the House of Representatives will be too. NICHOLS: So the
community,

majority of majoritys benchmark by Boehner is not a setback? MUNOZ: Well, there are multiple options available
for House consideration. It is important that the speaker has made it clear that the House is going to make its mark

at the end of the day, the

American people expect their policymakers to make policy, especially to
fix what everybody acknowledges to be a broken immigration system .
on this debate. Thats as it should be. Thats how democracy works. But

Inaction here is not an option. NICHOLS: The president, and as well yourself, have been involved at least in the
Senate negotiations, but for the most part you gave the Senate some space, the Gang of Eight to sort of crack, to
compromise, to do the heavy negotiations themselves. Will there be a same strategy with the Gang of Seven in the
House, give them space to work this out? MUNOZ: Well,

the president has made it abundantly

clear that this is a priority for him. There is nobody who has any guesswork to make about that.
And he has been involved by being public about his wishes, but putting out
a set of principles, by talking to senators on both sides of the aisle . And his
team has been involved with senators on both sides of the aisle for just
facilitating a good legislative process. What hes going to do and what his
administration is going to do is whatever helps us get the best possible
bill over the finish line, because thats what the American people expect out of it. NICHOLS: Well, walk
me through that a little bit. What is the strategy, day in, day out? Congress is obviously away on recess, July 4th.

there is a
national conversation happening about immigration reform. And there is a
sense of momentum created by what the Senate just did . So we expect that
Will they come back ready, were more ready, less ready to sort of cut a deal? MUNOZ: Well

conversation is going to continue. And frankly theres going to be a lot of pressure on the House to act now that the
Senate has acted. Thats clearly where the next move is.

CIR has momentum and will pass

Dickerson 6/25 (JOHN DICKERSON; June 25, 2013; How the Senate hopes to

bully the House on immigration; CBS News; http://www.cbsnews.com/8301250_162-57590878/how-the-senate-hopes-to-bully-the-house-on-immigration/)

Later this week, the Senate will pass comprehensive immigration reform, and
that's supposed to give the bill momentum in the House . "We're working to get a
very substantial bipartisan majority," said Republican Sen. John Hoeven. "That's going to help in terms of actually
getting the bill all the way through the House and into law." Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, a member of the
Senate Gang of Eight that has crafted the bill, and also a former member of the House, says that, "Having a
significant number of Republicans will change the dynamic in the House." But what one person calls "momentum,"
another might call "recklessness." If the bill passes the Senate with 70 votes or more, as supporters predict, that
could mean the bill is the product of sweet reason and compromise between the parties. Or it could mean the bill
won so many votes because it is a bill filled with special provisions meant to buy off particular senators or generally
calm the political anxiety of a Republican Party that feels it must improve its electoral chances with Hispanic voters.
In a time when voters loathe Congress, will they see this bill as a rare piece of fruit or will they reason that anything
that has the support of so many members of a body so thoroughly discredited must be awful? Whoever wins this

Momentum Theory is
based on the principle that the more votes the bill gets in the Senate, the
better the bill is. The rare coming-together of both parties in the Senate might make low-information
labeling debate will help determine the fate of comprehensive immigration reform.

voters think the bill is in the category of other unassailable good things senators support in large majorities: the

If people don't see Republicans

and Democrats collapsing into their usual predictable squabbles --particularly on
such a contentious issue--that must mean the path they've agreed on is a wise one .
If Momentum Theory is true, polls should show voters increasingly behind the measure. That would
pressure those House members whose opposition to reform is not
absolute but flavored with some concern about the public will or the national
image of the Republican Party. This is why supporters of reform are pushing to run up
the Senate vote total to build the bandwagon feeling. On CNN, Schumer took this
American military, national holidays, and Social Security checks.

theory to its stratospheric conclusion, claiming that if the Senate bill is blocked it would result in a protest of "a

A big Senate victory would also give

supporters a way to minimize future debate about the controversial
portions of the bill. The House is expected to pass a series of smaller
immigration bills but no path to citizenship, which is the heart of the
Senate effort. If a House Republican takes issue with a particular element of Senate reform, a supporter will
claim the issue was already debated and resolved in the Senate. Charges of bigotry are always
just below the surface in the immigration debate. If the perception is that the Senate has
million people on the Mall in Washington."

already worked through the tough issues, then House skepticism will be easier to frame as being motivated by

The charges won't be coming just from liberals. The

Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page has conveyed that
sentiment already about those who oppose reform. Since a number of
Republicans worry about how the party is perceived by voters as it debates this
issue in public, fear of looking intolerant will be pronounced, putting even more
pressure on lawmakers in the House to ratify the Senate version .
bigotry instead of policy concerns.

CIR will pass - momentum

Bloomberg 6/28 (Editors: Robin Meszoly; Jun 28; Munoz Sees House
Republicans Pressed on Immigration (Transcript); Bloomberg;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-28/munoz-sees-house-republicanspressed-on-immigration-transcript-.html)//KDUB
MUNOZ: Well there is a national conversation happening about immigration
reform. And there is a sense of momentum created by what the Senate just

did. So we expect that conversation is going to continue. And frankly

theres going to be a lot of pressure on the House to act now that the
Senate has acted. Thats clearly where the next move is. And I think there is a lot of room for the House to
do what is right here and make sure that theyre engaging and talking about border enforcement, to make sure that
theyre engaging and talking about how to reform the legal immigration system, to make sure this system works
equally well for businesses as well as workers, and know and you have to address the question of a pathway to
citizenship, which is something that is strongly supported all over the country. NICHOLS: And that absolutely needs

The president has made it clear. He has put out

a series of principles. Thats one of them and he wants a bill that is as
consistent with those principles as possible. NICHOLS: Now I take your momentum point.
Sixty-eight votes in the Senate is no small thing, bigger than the previous
majorities, but at what point does that momentum run out ? Are you worried about
to be in any final bill that the president signs. MUNOZ:

this sort of being so the clock being run out and the House not acting? MUNOZ: Well, look, there are no hard and
fast rules about every piece of legislation following the same path. NICHOLS: Well are there deadlines? Are MUNOZ:

its pretty important to get an immigration bill done this year. The
Senate has acted. There is no - the House has been considering and talking
about this now, not just for months but for years . You could date this debate back to
There - look,

2001 when George Bush put this on the table. The House passed a bill in 2005. This debate has been going on for a
long time. Theres while its very important that the House speak, there is no reason that it cant speak this summer
or this year. NICHOLS: Well theres a difference there between this summer and this year. When we talk about
momentum, will momentum run out if its October and we dont have a deal? MUNOZ: I dont think momentum is
running out on this issue because its clear that theres bipartisan support. Its clear that theres support all over the
country. Its clear that theres an imperative for action here. And NICHOLS: So perpetual momentum machine.
MUNOZ: I NICHOLS: Momentum does not slow down. MUNOZ: I have to say I was in the Senate gallery when the
Senate voted. The diversity of people who are in the gallery, the diversity of the statements that came out after the
Senate acted demonstrate there is strong support for this all over the country. Immigration reform is going to
happen. NICHOLS: But what about McConnells statements? And when you look at House leaders they are lukewarm
or outright hostile. And just help me understand your confidence. MUNOZ: I actually think weve heard the speaker
say that he intends to take this up, that the House is going to work its will. We have seen bills go through the
judiciary committee as recently as this last week. Weve seen other important leaders like Congressman Ryan speak

there are constituencies that have

influence with frankly the members on both sides of the aisle, like evangelicals, like
Catholic bishops, like business leaders of every shape and size, who have
said, not just were for this but this is a priority. We have to get this done. We cant afford the
consequences of inaction any longer. Thats a pretty strong sense of
momentum. NICHOLS: Now when you - in your other big capacity as domestic policy adviser, you do deal
out forcefully in favor of immigration reform. And importantly,

with domestic policy, foreign policy. Does the defeat of the farm bill give you pause at all at sort of just how tough

legislating is never easy. It

involves compromise. Thats what just happened in the Senate, but it is - its
clear that there are multiple options available to the House . And the important
the politics are going to be in the House? MUNOZ: Well, look,

thing is that the House act.

CIR will pass - momentum

Camia 7/1 (Catalina Camia, USA TODAY; July 1, 2013; Jeb Bush urges House to
pass immigration bill; http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/07/01/jebbush-immigration-house-republicans/2479497/)//KDUB
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is calling on the GOP-led House to pass
a comprehensive immigration bill and asked his party to quit being "the
obstacle" on the divisive issue. Bush, who is considering running for the GOP presidential

nomination in 2016, called on House Republicans to make improvements to the sweeping immigration legislation
passed by the Senate last week on a bipartisan, 68-32 vote. He made his plea Monday in an op-ed column for The
Wall Street Journal, co-written by Clint Bolick, his co-author on a book about immigration policy. " No

Republican would vote for legislation that stifled economic growth,

promoted illegal immigration, added to the welfare rolls, and failed to
ensure a secure border. Yet they essentially will do just that if they fail to
pass comprehensive immigration reform and leave in place a system that does all of those

Boehner has said the House will not pass

an immigration bill that doesn't have support from a majority of
Republican and Democratic members. That could be a challenge in the
GOP-led House, where Republicans have 234 members to 201 for Democrats. Three major pieces of
things," Bush and Bolick wrote. House Speaker John

legislation this year the bill to avert the "fiscal cliff," aid to Superstorm Sandy victims and an extension of the

Bush and Bolick

acknowledged the threshold set by Boehner for GOP votes, calling it a "tall
order" but one that could be met. They suggest tweaking the Senate bill
to include more triggers to ensure the border is secure and ways to verify
the legal status of workers, and create more opportunities for foreign guest workers. They
made a nod to GOP losses at the ballot box last year, when minorities
overwhelmingly voted for President Obama. "Immigration is not the only issue
on which Hispanics or Asians vote. But it is a gateway issue ," Bush and Bolick said.
"Republicans need to cease being the obstacle to immigration reform and
instead point the way toward the solution."
Violence Against Women Act all passed on the strength of Democratic votes.

Will Pass DOMA

The DOMA ruling eliminates a key disagreement between
parties and makes immigration passage more likely
Avila, et. al 6-26-2013 Senior National Correspondent at ABC News (focus on
Hispanic America); White House correspondent for Fusion, former Senior Law and
Justice Correspondent (Jim, Serena Marshall, DEATH OF DOMA BOOSTS
IMMIGRATION BILL CHANCES http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/deathof-doma-boosts-immigration-bill-chances/ //SRM)
Todays Supreme Court decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
makes passing immigration reform just a little easier. How do the two collide? Under
DOMA the federal government did not recognize marriages of same-sex
couples, thereby preventing them from accessing federal benefitsincluding the ability
to sponsor a spouse for a visa. Democrats wanted to change that under the
new immigration bill. Sen. Patrick Leahys, D-Vt., introduced an amendment allowing gays and lesbians
to sponsor their partners for immigration in the same way married heterosexual couples would be able to do. But

Republicans on the Gang of 8 objected and threatened to scuttle the

entire compromise. Leahy withdrew his bill but has been threatening to
bring it back before the final vote. One Long, Arduous Day on the Road to Overhaul. It was a
painful concession for Democrats and led to complaints that liberals were
caving to conservative Republicans too much. But Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told his party to
look at the big picture and save the compromise immigration legislation. The result [if Leahy's amendment
passes]: no equality [and] no immigration bill. Everyone loses, said Schumer during the May markup. The security

Schumer said. As much as it

pains me, I cannot support this amendment if it will bring down the bill .Sen. Dianne
and prosperity of our nation is too vital, too rare to let [the bill] fail now,

Feinstein, D-Calif., who voted no during markup to maintain the bipartisan support for the legislation, referenced
the Supreme Court pending decision at the time in late May saying the Supreme Court may just settle all of this
may make this question moot. Now she appears to be right. Gays and Lesbians will be allowed to sponsor their

now, not because of Senator Leahys amendment, but because of the Supreme Court.
Leahy agreed and said on the Senate floor there
is no need for his special amendment to protect gays and lesbians and will not
partners

Immigration Overhaul Clears Pivotal Vote in Senate Today,

be seeking a floor vote on his amendment. Last month I was forced to make one of the most difficult decisions in
my 38 years as a senator, Leahy said of his decision to withdraw his amendment. but with the Supreme Courts
decision today, it appears that the anti-discrimination principle that Ive long advocated will apply to our
immigration laws and to binational couples and their families can now be united under the law. According to
UCLAs Williams Institute 24,700 same-sex couples are bi-national, meaning one of the citizens is a U.S. citizen and
one is not.

The DOMA ruling makes immigration passage more likely

Freese 6-28-2013 - Education reporter for VTDigger; B.A. in international relations from
Pomona College; former associate for ReThink media; (Alicia, LEAHY DISCUSSES HIS ROLE
ON IMMIGRATION REFORM, DOMA, NSA LEAKS Vtdigger.com
http://vtdigger.org/2013/06/28/leahy-discusses-his-role-on-immigration-reform-doma-nsaleaks/ //SRM)

The Defense of Marriage Act ruling, which paves the way for same-sex couples to gain access to the same
federal rights available to heterosexual couples, nullified one of Leahys most difficult decisions, made last month,
and one of a tiny handful of votes he regrets, cast nearly 17 years ago, according to the senators own reckoning.

came after Leahy backed down from offering a controversial

amendment to the immigration bill in his committee that would have allowed people
in same-sex marriages to sponsor their spouses for green cards . But the ruling
arrived before Leahy had to decide whether to offer the amendment once the
bill reached the floor. The DOMA case will give couples those immigration rights,
The courts decision

freeing the senator from having to choose between risking losing support
for the immigration bill or failing to prioritize the rights of same-sex
couples. Leahy voted for DOMA in 1996. He said Friday he erroneously believed the vote would move Vermont
closer to marriage equality by mollifying lawmakers who were rigidly opposed to the idea. I thought what I was
doing was keeping us from going to a more sweeping thing, which would be a federal standard of what states could
do on marriage, and I wanted to protect Vermonts ability to do whatever we wanted. In retrospect it was too
sweeping. Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill want offer a constitutional amendment to undo the DOMA ruling.
Several of those people have approached Leahy, inquiring about the chances that the Judiciary Committee would
take up such an amendment. The senator pantomimed his response, cocking his head and bringing a hand to his
chin in feigned deliberation. Not good, he recalled telling them.

Will Pass AT: Boehner

Boehner will support immigration reform its in his best
interest and he has the methods to do so
Zelier 7-01 [Julian, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton

University and the author of "Jimmy Carter" and "Governing America, Will Speaker
Boehner make history?, <http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/01/opinion/zelizerspeaker-boehner/?hpt=hp_t5>]
(CNN) -- House Speaker John Boehner is facing a huge moment in his career.
Now that the Senate has passed the immigration bill, all eyes have turned to the House, where some right-wing
members of the GOP are prepared to scuttle the bipartisan deal that has been carefully crafted in the upper
chamber. According to Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole, "We have a minority of the minority in the Senate voting for

This is a test
for Boehner, a massive opportunity for him to rebuild a languishing
speakership. At this point, the verdict of history probably would not be very kind to him. Boehner has
this bill. That's not going to put a lot of pressure on the majority of the majority in the House."

struggled to move legislation through his chamber, as the recent embarrassing failure of the farm bill showed. His
biggest victories have primarily been symbolic, like the legislation dealing with abortion that has no chance of
passing the Senate. If his goal is to bring together the various factions of his party into common accord behind key
legislation, he has repeatedly failed. How can Boehner have any success with immigration? After watching the
collapse of the deal with farm legislation, it seems difficult to fathom how he can stitch together a majority that will
stay on board with this bill. When the bet is between failure and success, most Washington observers would bet on

Boehner does have some tools at his disposal. Most importantly, he

can work with external organizations to lobby House Republicans, namely,
religious and business organizations. Both these groups have shown
strong support for immigration reform and they have considerable clout in
gerrymandered districts that President Obama can never reach. A large
number of religious groups, including evangelical Christians, have called
on Congress to pass the reform. Ralph Reed, one of the most influential members of the religious
right in recent years and who is the chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, said: " As people of faith,
this is not just an economic and security issue; it is a moral issue. This bill,
failure. Yet

while not perfect, is an important starting point to reforming and modernizing U.S. immigration law so it reflects
faith-based principles of compassion for the alien, the primacy of the family, respect for the rule of law, and

protecting U.S. security and sovereignty." This strategy has worked before. When Southern
Democrats were filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious organizations helped the Johnson administration

Business groups, traditionally a

driving force for immigration liberalization, can also help Boehner. Given
their immense clout within the party as well as within specific districts,
business groups should flex their financial muscle to pressure members
into voting yes. Boehner needs to threaten House Republicans that he
could work out a deal with Democrats and moderates in the party. Boehner has
generally adopted a model of leadership in which he follows the lead of his caucus. If enough
Republicans don't agree with a path to citizenship and believe that
passing this legislation will threaten their majority, then he should follow
their demands. But another model of congressional leadership is to try to
shape his caucus rather than having it shape him. As the Emory political scientist
persuade Midwestern Republican senators to vote for cloture.

Randall Strahan detailed in his book, "Leading Representatives," there is a history of speakers, such as Henry Clay,

This is
a strategy that could produce historic legislation. This is the path that Speaker Tip
Thomas Reed and Newt Gingrich, who have taken enormous risks to push their caucus in new directions.

O'Neill took, to the chagrin of many liberals, when he worked with President Reagan's administration to pass the tax
cut of 1981. Rather than standing in the way of the tax cut, O'Neill decided to sign on and demanded goodies for
Democratic constituencies. House Democrats, who had little love for Reagan, had little choice but to join their

With the case of immigration, Boehner

could enter into a dramatic bipartisan alliance that would leave him with
speaker, knowing that they were going to lose.

much greater national clout. Even the threat of an alliance might be

sufficient to move enough conservative House Republicans, who sense that defeat
is inevitable and decide that they might as well win some credit for the victory. Finally, there is always
the power of pork. When Lyndon Johnson, as Senate majority leader, had to craft a deal over the Civil
Rights Act of 1957, one of the tools he used to win over Western senators to vote in ways that were helpful to him
was to convince Southerners to support a major water project in Arizona. Today, the tools of pork are not as
voluminous. A stringent budget and limits on earmarks have taken away some of the tools that the leadership
depends on. Yet there is still pork to go around. While tea party Republicans allegedly don't like this, nothing could
be further from the truth. In 2011, an investigation by Newsweek found how, despite their rhetoric, tea party
Republicans have made the same kind of demands for money in their districts as others. Virginia's Eric Cantor,
House majority leader, for instance, pressed for transportation funding in his home state even while deriding

All these tools offer Boehner some path and muscle

to make the impossible possible. If the immigration bill goes down to
defeat in the House it would be a huge blow to those desperately seeking a path to
citizenship, to the national standing of the GOP and to Boehner. His power as a legislative
leader would totally vanish, and other than tea party Republicans, there
would be little support for him. All speakers face historic turning points,
and immigration is Boehner's. The outcome of the debates will overshadow all the budget wars and
Congress for its spending habits.

everything that follows. Whether the speaker is up to meeting this challenge remains to be seen in the coming
weeks.

Boehner will support

Fox News 6-13 [Schumer needles Boehner, claims House will pass Senate
immigration bill, <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/30/schumer-needlesboehner-claims-house-will-pass-senate-immigration-bill >]
In a bold prediction that immediately agitated Republicans, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer claimed
Sunday that the House ultimately will pass the Senate's comprehensive
immigration bill -- despite House Speaker John Boehner's claims to the
contrary. Schumer, needling the House speaker during an interview on "Fox News Sunday," claimed that
Boehner will be pressured by the "dynamics" of the debate. "I believe that
by the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill," Schumer said.
Further, he claimed Boehner would have to rely largely on Democrats to
pass it. This would constitute a violation of the so-called "Hastert rule" -- an unofficial policy named after former Speaker
Dennis Hastert, under which the House only passes bills with a majority of the majority party on board. Violating that "rule" could
damage Boehner's support inside the party, and Boehner has indicated he has no plans to do so. Boehner said Thursday that "we're
going to do our own bill" and it will reflect "the will of our majority." In reaction to Schumer, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel also
told FoxNews.com that the speaker and his caucus have been "perfectly clear" on their intentions. "The House will not simply take
up and pass the Senate bill," he said in an email. "Our legislation will reflect our principles, particularly on border security. Wishful
thinking, frankly, is not a strategy for getting a bill to the president's desk." But Schumer, speaking after the

Senate passed its version on Thursday, predicted several factors could

change Boehner's mind. First, he said the coalition of both religious and
business groups could pressure the House to act. Further, he said the
national Republican leadership could do the same, citing the political
importance of passing immigration legislation. Schumer, D-N.Y., also said
supporters of the bill would be insistent. "We're not going to let this issue
go away," he said.

Boehner will support immigration reform

Beutler 6-27 [Brian, Senate Passes Immigration Reform Bill, Hot Potato To
Boehner <http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/senate-passesimmgration-reform-bill-hot-potato-to-boehner.php>]
Days after President Obama was elected to serve a second term in office, a
chastened House Speaker John Boehner did a huge about face on
immigration reform. This issue has been around far too long, Boehner told ABC News. A comprehensive

approach is long overdue, and Im confident that the president, myself,

others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for
all. Coming from a man whod loudly opposed much more modest immigration measures in the past, and who ostensibly controls the floor of the
House of Representatives, his remarks represented a breakthrough and a signal that
if Republicans would change one thing in the aftermath of the election, it
would be their hardline position on immigration. Now, Boehner will have
either have to put his money where his mouth is, or acknowledge
implicitly that Republicans learned less than even they claimed to have
learned from their defeat in 2012.

Boehner will pass the Immigration bill unless he wants

Republicans to be a minority party for a decade
Logiurato, Brett 6/30/13

http://www.businessinsider.com/immigration-reform-bill-senate-chuck-schumerjohn-boehner-2013-6;
Political reporter for Business Insider. He graduated from Syracuse University in 2011 with
degrees in newspaper and online journalism and political science.

Speaker John Boehner has said he will not put any immigration bill on
the floor for a vote without support from a majority of the Republican
conference something the Senate bill does not have.Schumer
predicted that the Republican Party's national leaders will pressure
Boehner to pass a bill, lest he wants the GOP to "be a minority party for a
decade."Schumer said he didn't think the House's step-by-step approach to immigration reform would work since it's not
House

likely that the House will address a pathway to citizenship in that approach. A bill without a pathway to citizenship is a non-starter
for many Senate Democrats.

Will Pass AT: GOP Block

Republicans will push immigration reform for own partys sake.
Weiner 6/30/2013. (Rachel, political web editor for Washington Post. Pelosi:
Republicans need immigration reform to win presidency again Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/30/pelosirepublicans-need-immigration-reform-to-win-presidency-again/)
Republicans will have to pass immigration reform if they want to ever win
another presidential race , House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

(D-Calif.)

said

Sunday.

believe that the members of Congress will do what is right for our
country, she said
race.

on NBCs Meet the Press. And its certainly right for the Republicans if they ever want to win a presidential

Her comments echoed those of Sen. Chuck Schumer

Sunday

(D-N.Y.), who told Fox News

that Republican leadership would push the House to pass reform for

the partys sake.

Will Pass AT: House Wont Include Citizenship

House will include path to citizenship
Wolfgang 6-30 [Ben, House GOP to Senate: No rush on immigration,
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/sen-charles-schumer-housewill-pass-senates-immigr/>]
As the immigration reform debate moves to the House, Republicans have all but rejected the Senates

Key sponsors of the

Senate legislation, however, arent giving up hope. They say House
Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and other Republican leaders eventually
will embrace a broader package that includes a path to citizenship for
illegal immigrants and enhanced border security. I believe by the end of
this year, the House will pass the Senate bill. I know thats not what they
think now, and theyll say, Oh, no, thats not whats going to happen, but
I think it will, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said during an interview on Fox
comprehensive approach and instead are embracing a package of targeted bills.

News Sunday. Mr. Schumer is a member of the so-called Gang of Eight, the bipartisan group of senators who
helped shepherd the immigration bill through the Senate last week. Fourteen Republicans joined Senate Democrats
in passing the measure, the most significant step forward for immigration reform in nearly three decades.

Supporters and analysts have hailed the legislation as proof that

bipartisan solutions to complex problems are possible , with Republican heavyweights
such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida having played integral roles in drafting the

President Obama over the weekend

set a timetable for the House to pass an immigration reform bill by the
end of July.
legislation alongside Mr. Schumer and other Democrats.

Will include path to citizenship, Gutierrez ensures

Burnett 6-29 [Sara, Gutierrez says House must hold vote on immigration,

<http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/social-issues/gutierrez-says-house-must-hold-vote-onimmigration/nYZJd/>]
CHICAGO Congressman Luis Gutierrez said Saturday supporters of
comprehensive immigration reform must make their voices heard as the
debate shifts to the Republican-led House of Representatives, where the bill's
prospects are uncertain. Gutierrez joined fellow Illinois Democrat U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin at a meeting of the National Association of
Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Chicago. He said he has been working closely with some Republican congressmen on draft
legislation and that he will continue to do so in hopes of picking up more GOP support. "I believe that in the

House of Representatives the Republican majority and the speaker have

not grasped the enormity of this petition . They just haven't," Gutierrez said. "They don't
understand the breadth and the depth (of) people that want this to get
done, and the power that stands behind this movement for comprehensive
immigration reform." Durbin was part of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that drafted the legislation approved Friday
by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The measure would strengthen security along the U.S./Mexico border and provide a path to
citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants unlawfully living in the U.S. It also includes the DREAM Act, which would make
college affordable for people who entered the country illegally. Durbin has pressed that legislation for more than a decade. On
Saturday, he credited young people who came forward to share their personal stories for the measure's passage. But House Speaker
John Boehner has already said the chamber won't take up the Senate bill, opting instead to consider its own legislation. One

major sticking point will be the path to citizenship, a key component of the
Senate plan. Supporters say any comprehensive immigration legislation
must include a process for immigrants in the country illegally to become
citizens. But many conservatives oppose it because they believe it amounts to amnesty for criminals. They also say it's unfair
to immigrants who entered the U.S. legally. Gutierrez, from Chicago, said Saturday the House
legislation he's working on will also include a path to citizenship. He said he

believes it makes sense for the House to have its own process that reflects the Republican majority. But he said it "must be one in
which we're given a vote."

Will Pass AT: House Wont Pass Senate Bill

House will pass Senates bill
Fox News 6-13 [Schumer needles Boehner, claims House will pass Senate
immigration bill, <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/30/schumer-needlesboehner-claims-house-will-pass-senate-immigration-bill >]
In a bold prediction that immediately agitated Republicans, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer claimed
Sunday that the House ultimately will pass the Senate's comprehensive
immigration bill -- despite House Speaker John Boehner's claims to the
contrary. Schumer, needling the House speaker during an interview on "Fox News Sunday," claimed that
Boehner will be pressured by the "dynamics" of the debate. "I believe that
by the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill," Schumer said.
Further, he claimed Boehner would have to rely largely on Democrats to
pass it. This would constitute a violation of the so-called "Hastert rule" -- an unofficial policy named after former Speaker
Dennis Hastert, under which the House only passes bills with a majority of the majority party on board. Violating that "rule" could
damage Boehner's support inside the party, and Boehner has indicated he has no plans to do so. Boehner said Thursday that "we're
going to do our own bill" and it will reflect "the will of our majority." In reaction to Schumer, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel also
told FoxNews.com that the speaker and his caucus have been "perfectly clear" on their intentions. "The House will not simply take
up and pass the Senate bill," he said in an email. "Our legislation will reflect our principles, particularly on border security. Wishful
thinking, frankly, is not a strategy for getting a bill to the president's desk." But Schumer, speaking after the

Senate passed its version on Thursday, predicted several factors could

change Boehner's mind. First, he said the coalition of both religious and
business groups could pressure the House to act. Further, he said the
national Republican leadership could do the same, citing the political
importance of passing immigration legislation. Schumer, D-N.Y., also said
supporters of the bill would be insistent. "We're not going to let this issue
go away," he said.

Senate immigration reform will pass

Scicchitano 6-27 [Paul, Dick Morris to Newsmax: Immigration Is 'Political Hot
Potato' for Boehner, <http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/boehner-morrisimmigration-house/2013/06/27/id/512379>]
Political guru and best-selling author Dick Morris tells Newsmax that House Speaker
John Boehner has been handed a "political hot potato," but the lower chamber will
likely find a way to pass its own immigration reform bill. " I think an immigration bill will
probably pass," predicted Morris in an exclusive interview on Thursday.
"The question is, will it be a Democratic bill or a Republican bill?" Morris, a

former political adviser to former President Bill Clinton, said that each party has its own ideas of what constitutes

a Republican bill, which would have the

distinguishing feature that you could not proceed with amnesty or
legalization until after there is evidence that the border is secured ," said
Morris. "But very few Democrats in the House would support that bill ," he said. Coimmigration reform. "We would like of course to pass

author of the book "Screwed!: How Foreign Countries Are Ripping America Off and Plundering Our Economy and

Boehner faces a tough sell on immigration

within his own GOP ranks. "Boehner needs to make sure he has 218
Republican votes to vote for that bill, otherwise he won't be able to pass it," Morris explained.
"And the problem is, there may be enough Republicans that say, 'I'm not
going to vote for any bill at all regardless of what's in it.'" Boehner may be
forced to work with House Democrats if Republicans are unwilling to embrace immigration
reform. "If that's the case, then he has to go to Plan B, which is to pass a bill with
Democratic support," Morris explained. "And for each Democrat that he gets, he'll
How Our Leaders Help Them Do It," Morris said

lose Republicans from the bill because he'll have to move to the left." He
predicted that Boehner will end up with a very different bill if he has to
move the legislation to the left. "At that point, what he would do is pass a bill
that does not put securing the border first, but rather closely resembles the Senate bill
and pass that largely with Democratic votes but with a smattering of
Republicans, just as it happened in the Senate," said Morris. That could be politically
dangerous. "If he has to pass a Democratic bill with a smattering of Republicans, he's going to endanger his

he probably cannot get a majority of

the Congress a majority of the House from the Republicans for any
immigration bill at all," Morris added. He also said that Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who staked
speakership," asserts Morris. "The problem he has is that

his political capital on the Senate bill, is likely to reap political rewards. "I think Rubio emerges as a winner," Morris
said, noting that the GOP may also be more likely to make inroads among Hispanic voters based on the landmark
legislation. "I think it all hinges on what happens in the House," he said.

House will pass immigration reform by Senate

Reuters 6-30 [Senator Charles Schumer: GOP-led House will pass immigration

reform, <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/30/senator-charles-schumer-gop-ledhouse-will-pass-immigration-reform/>]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) The Republican-controlled House of Representatives will
bow to political pressure and pass the immigration bill approved by the
Democratic-led Senate by the end of the year, Democratic Senator Charles
Schumer predicted on Sunday. Schumer, a member of the bipartisan Senate group that crafted the immigration
measure, said House Republicans who are now vowing they will not pass the
Senate measure will ultimately be convinced by political concerns about
the partys future. I believe that by the end of this year, the House will
pass the Senate bill. I know thats not what they think now. And theyll say, Oh no, thats not whats going to
happen. But I think it will, Schumer told the Fox News Sunday program. Senior House Republicans rejected Schumers
prediction. Republican Speaker John Boehner has said the House will write its own immigration bill rather than bringing up the
Senate bill passed on Thursday, which is supported by Democratic President Barack Obama. Fourteen Senate Republicans joined
Senate Democrats in backing a Senate bill that features a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already in the United
States, an approach vehemently opposed by many conservative House Republicans who view it as rewarding law-breakers.

Some Republican leaders worry that rejecting the Senate bill could further
alienate Hispanics, a fast-growing bloc of voters who overwhelmingly
supported Obamas re-election in 2012, and could handicap the party in
future presidential elections. Schumer said House Republicans eventually will allow
a vote on the Senate bill to get the issue off their backs and ease the
pressure from immigration reform supporters including religious, civil
rights and business groups. Within several months, Speaker Boehner will find two choices: no bill or let a bill
pass with a majority of Democratic votes and some Chamber of Commerce-type Republicans. And hell find that the better choice,
the New York senator said.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform will pass, includes path to

citizenship
Richter 6-30 [Greg, Diaz-Balart: House Can Pass Immigration Reform,
<http://www.newsmax.com/politics/diaz-balart-immigration-reformhouse/2013/06/30/id/512672>]
The House of Representatives can pass a comprehensive immigration
reform bill, just as the Senate did last week, says Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart,
R-Fla. So far, the House has worked on individual bills. But some Republicans have said they won't back a compromise bill with

the Senate, nor will they vote for the Senate's bill. "Youre going to see ups and downs, youre going to see ugly things. Youre going to
see things that we dont like," Diaz-Balart on Bloombergs Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt." "In order to pass legislation, I
think thered have to be something similar to what weve been working on," he said. Five separate bills have passed the House so far,
dealing with guest workers, law enforcement and other issues. But White House domestic policy adviser Cecilia Munoz said on
"Political Capitol" that the Senate plan will pass the Senate, agreeing with Sen. Chuck Schumer's words on

"Fox News Sunday." "The

reason this is going to happen is because there is so

much support all over the country," Munoz said "The country is for this
and I think ultimately the House of Representatives will be, too." A path to
citizenship will be part of the House's plan, Diaz-Balart said. "We have to deal
with the reality, whether we like it or not, that there are millions of people
who are here," he said. "Those that have committed crimes have to be dealt with in one way: zero tolerance. Theyve got to
be out of here. And then give those who have been here for many, many years, who have been working, a way to earn their way into
legalization."

AT: Thumpers

CIR Top of the Docket

Immigration reform top priority
Potts 4/9- Immigration reform should be a top priority April 9 2013
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/eastex/opinion/immigration-reform-should-be-atop-priority/article_8335bb86-bdbe-586f-80f2-91fc34e89a77.html
It seems that immigration reform is the only thing on the agenda in
Washington, D.C., these days. Watch the news programs and they are filled with stories about it. A
bipartisan committee of U.S. senators, known as the Gang of Eight, have been trying to
work out a bill that will pass both the senate and the congress . From reports,
they seem to be making progress. Now our president has stepped in and wants to put his
imprint on the bill. He had four years to start something on this subject, and he did nothing. Now that it
seems it might gain a little traction, he wants to step in and put his two cents worth in. In the last few weeks he

has made comments that he wants this bill passed quickly. Why? There are just too many
questions that need to be answered before this bill should be passed. We do not need another law passed quickly
and rammed down our throats, like Obamacare. This one should be read, so we know what is in it, before it is
passed. From the polls Ive seen,

most people want to be sure that our borders are

secure before anything is passed. Securing our borders will be a hard task. How will it be done? Can it be done?
How much will it cost us?

AT: Thumpers (General)

Turn thumpers divert the publics not Obamas attention from
CIR
Davis 5/22 (Julie Hirschfeld Davis; May 22, 2013; Obama Probes Create

Immigration Magic as Bill Advances; Bloomberg;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/obama-probes-create-immigrationmagic-as-bill-advances.html)//KDUB
The trio of investigations causing headaches for President Barack Obamas
administration has also provided a honeymoon period for the marquee
element of his domestic agenda: revising immigration laws . The
congressional probes into various government agencies diverted attention
at a critical time, allowing the Senate Judiciary Committee a respite from the spotlight
as it reached critical compromises on the measure and approved it on a
bipartisan 13-5 vote on May 21. The bill would allow the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the U.S.
without authorization a chance at citizenship. Its like magic -- you distract the audience
while the real trick is being done -- and I think right now, while Americans focus on
President Obamas unending difficulties, its good news for the Gang of Eight
working on immigration, said Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, referring to the four Republicans and
four Democrats who crafted the bill.

Wont hurt Obamas PC

Roff 6-13 [Peter, Obamas Scandal Strategy: Flood the Zone,
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/06/13/obamas-scandal-aday-strategy-nsa-state-department-sex-and-benghazi>]
With so much smoke being created by all these missteps is it possible
there is actually a fire to go along with it? Each week brings with it a new scandal, something exciting
to attract the attention of the public and the media and the opposition. This may be the point. With
some much coming to light it's hard to keep track of who did what to
whom, in which agency, and why or why not. It's also hard to keep feeding new, salacious,
attention-grabbing facts to the media every day in order that pro-Obama partisans cannot use a lull in a particular

All
this hurts the president's poll numbers but will not really damage his
presidency; that will only happen when something concrete is found and
placed in the center ring of the circus of public opinion. The hope of some GOP operatives to
the contrary, the "Ship of State" has not yet hit the rocks. The Obama
presidency can survive bad news for as long as it wants as long as it
retains the ability to change the subject.
investigation to claim "Show's over Nothing more to see here. Keeping moving along people, keep moving."

AT: IRS Scandal Thumper

IRS scandal has died down, not linked to Obama
Bandler 6-24 [Beverly, The IRS Non-Scandal Scandal,
<http://consortiumnews.com/2013/06/24/the-irs-non-scandal-scandal/>]
The Internal Revenue scandal has turned out not to be a scandal. As a
Washington Post headline read: The Obama IRS scandal retreats to the fever swamps. The
radical Right looked in vain for a smoking gun that would link Barack
Obama to the charge that the IRS had targeted Tea Party groups that were seeking tax-exempt status as social welfare
organizations. Even the term targeting turned out to be pejorative. It was more a case of putting a few similar applications in the same pile so they
would receive consistent treatment. As commentator William Boardman noted early on: Much

of the media goes on

reporting as fact the partisan spin placed on a scandal that was not
really a scandal at all. MSNBCs Lawrence ODonnell also deserves credit for distinguishing facts from spin from the
beginning of the story. Even the mainstream media after much initial sloppy, kneejerk reporting finally realized that they and the American public were
being played by the Republican Party. (The White House also doesnt get high marks for calm or clarity in its
first reactions.) The collapse of the scandal became undeniable when Rep. Elijah
Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight
Committee, released the full transcript of an interview with a mid-level IRS
bureaucrat in Cincinnati who explained that the isolation of Tea Party-related applications for tax-exempt status was just a
local decision to provide consistent handling of similar cases. With that disclosure in defiance of the efforts by Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, RCalifornia, to keep the exculpatory transcript secret the

last air went out of the pumped-up IRS

scandal. After release of the transcript, all that was left was a recognition that the scandal had entered a
post fact phase, as political commentator Jonathan Chait observed, adding that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnells

American Enterprise speech on June 21 was an attempt to reframe the issue in a way that it can survive the utter absence of incriminating facts. One
method [McConnell] employs is to flip around the burden of proof. Before

Republicans were going to prove

that Obamas administration was involved. All of the evidence suggests it
wasnt. So now McConnell is framing the question as Obama trying to prove he wasnt involved [a] kind of covered retreat, signaling the IRS
scandals turn into a vague trope that conservatives use with other members of the tribe to signal some dark beliefs they dont need to back up.

AT: NSA Thumper

NSA doesnt affect Obama politically
Lindberg 6/25 (Tod Lindberg - June 25, 2013; The NSA Scandal Was Good for
Obama; Real Clear Politics;
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/25/the_nsa_scandal_was_good_for
_obama_118964.html)//KDUB
The first thing to be noted is that the NSA story turned out not to be a scandal, except in
the Kinsleyan sense of the term: there doesnt appear to have been anything illegal
going on, though of course one could raise the question of where our political
system ought to be drawing the line on whats legal in relation to a
massive data collection program. And in fact, many did raise this question, from

both the libertarian/Tea Party right and from the segment of progressive opinion that still gets worked up over the
depredations of the military-industrial complex (which seems to have been Snowdens angle). So much so that the
NSA revelations became occasion for the latest round of speculation on the perennial subject of the potential
convergence of the libertarian right and civil-liberties left into a cohesive force with the potential to change the
countrys political balance of power. But thenthe details started coming out. No, the government has not been
reading everybodys emails and maintaining records of the contents of Americans cell phone calls. No, the program

it was
not something of which Congress was unaware; in fact, information about the
program was available to all members of Congress (which drastically limited the
was not a rogue operation but rather was conducted with the judicial oversight as the law provides. No,

capacity of members of the House and Senate to adopt their reflexive posture of wounded outrage). And yes, the

Obama defended
the program vigorously, noting at one point that he is no Dick Cheneymeaning, presumably,
program probably did have something to do with foiling actual terrorist plots. President

someone who believes the constitutional commander-in-chief powers and other executive powers allow a president
almost unlimited freedom in fighting our enemies.

His administration wasnt going to act

lawlessly, but rather with a full backstop of court orders and congressional
notification. His reference annoyedconservative commentators, but the annoyance collapsed on the
incoherence of the substantive critique: Since Cheney acted lawfully, Obama is too Dick Cheney (not that theres
anything wrong with that). Anyway, Obama was clearly trying to dampen the anger on his partys leftwhich had
the politically useful effect of reminding everyone that there is a left wing of the Democratic Party to which he
stands in contrast. Meanwhile, the national-security wing of conservative opinion, much of itwell-informed and
including some card-carrying libertarians (who, after all, do believe that national security is something you need
government for), was mostly stepping up to defend the NSA program and denounce the leaker. Collectively, this
group has substantial media reach. No one on the right exactly praised Obama, at least not that I could find. In fact,
the IRS scandal became Exhibit A for why people might rationally worry more than they otherwise would about
possible government misuse of data the NSA swept in. But

the defense of the program per sea

the emerging scandal-based

program of which Obama had taken ownershipundermined

portrait of a White House either not really in control of the government or sinisterly so. The irony is
rich: The NSA scandal was supposed to be a story about a government out
of control; it became an example of a government tightly in control of a

sensitive program. Finally, the libertarian/civil liberties-Left coalition didnt emerge as any more than the sum of its
parts. Partisan loyalties still seem to come first. Pay no attention to the bumper stickers on cars five years older or

So the NSA non-scandal was

actually pretty good for Obama. His job approval ratings may be taking a
dip, but his core constituency is still with him. And the mongers of the preNSA scandals will likely have a harder time driving a message in the
absence of significant new revelations.
more that say If youre not outraged, you arent paying attention.

NSA doesnt hurt Obama

Kaus 6-09 [Mickey, The NSA Squirrel!, <http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/09/thensa-squirrel/>]

Has the White House hit on the perfect scandal for the
President? The NSA snooping revelations create a huge fuss that distracts the press and
King of the Squirrels:

prevents the public (especially conservatives) from learning the grueseome details of the 1000 page Schumer-Rubio
immigration disaster now on the Senate floor yet

doesnt hurt Obamas approval ratings like

the IRS scandal does. It may even be helping them. Who gave Glenn Greenwald that scoop
anyway? [Update: This guy-ed Recalculating ...] I question the timing!

AT: Snowden Thumper

Snowden doesnt derail Obamas agenda
AP 6/29 (EDITH M. LEDERER; 6/29/13; Susan Rice: Snowden leaks haven't
weakened Obama; AP; http://news.yahoo.com/susan-rice-snowden-leaks-haventweakened-obama-060217333.html)//KDUB
UNITED NATIONS (AP) U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice dismissed claims that Edward
Snowden's highly classified leaks have weakened the Obama presidency
and damaged U.S. foreign policy, insisting that the United States will remain "the
most influential, powerful and important country in the world. " Rice's
remarks were her only public ones on Snowden and came in an interview
with The Associated Press as she prepared to leave the U.N. post and start her new job Monday as
President Barack Obama's national security adviser. She said it's too soon to judge whether
there will be any long-term serious repercussions from the intelligence
leaks by the former National Security Agency contractor who fled to Hong Kong and then Russia after seizing
documents disclosing secret U.S. surveillance programs in the U.S. and overseas, which he has shared with The

don't think the diplomatic consequences, at

are that significant," she said. U.S. Defense Secretary
Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have called
Snowden's leaks a serious breach that damaged national security . Hagel said
Thursday an assessment of the damage is being done now. " There will always be difficult issues
of the day," Rice said, "and frankly this period is not particularly unique ." "I think the Snowden
Guardian and Washington Post newspapers. "I
least as they are foreseeable now,

thing is obviously something that we will get through, as we've gotten through all the issues like this in the past,"
she said in the interview Thursday before heading to a lunch in her honor hosted by Secretary-General Ban Ki-

The United States has charged Snowden with espionage and

demanded his extradition, but China and Hong Kong let him fly to Moscow
and the Russians have so far refused. The Snowden case has not only
raised tensions with Moscow and Beijing but with many Americans
concerned about the NSA collecting their Internet and phone data . Rice
dismissed commentators who say Snowden's disclosures have made
Obama a lame duck, damaged his political base, and hurt U.S. foreign
policy, saying: "I think that's bunk." "I think the United States of America is and will remain the
moon.

most influential, powerful and important country in the world, the largest economy, and the largest military, (with) a

Rice said Obama has

"significant ambitions and a real agenda" for his second term , pointing to major
network of alliances, values that are universally respected," she said.

speeches last week on disarmament and nonproliferation and this week on the impact of climate change.

Snowden not a priority for Obama

AP 6/28- Associated Press Obama recasts chase for Snowden as unexceptional

June 28 2013 http://news.yahoo.com/obama-recasts-chase-snowden-unexceptional073112725.html;_ylt=A2KJ2ParHdNRtCIA_C_QtDMD

The last thing President Barack Obama wants to do is turn Edward
Snowden into a grand enemy of the state or a Daniel Ellsberg-type hero who speaks truth to
power. In the shifting narrative of the Obama administration, the man whose leaks of top-secret material about
government surveillance programs have tied the national security apparatus in knots and brought charges under

unworthy of international
intrigue or extraordinary pursuit by the U.S. government. A "29-year-old
hacker," in the words of Obama; fodder for a made-for-TV movie, perhaps,
but not much more. "This is not exceptional from a legal perspective ," the
the Espionage Act has now been demoted to a common fugitive

president said Thursday of Snowden's efforts to avoid capture by hopscotching from Hawaii to Hong Kong to Russia.

"I'm not going to have one case of a suspect who we're trying to extradite

suddenly being elevated to the point where I've got to start doing
wheeling and dealing and trading on a whole host of other issues simply
to get a guy extradited," the president told reporters in Senegal. It was the second time in a week that
the administration had toned down its rhetoric as Snowden remained out of reach and first China and then Russia
refused to send him back. Just Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry was talking tough against China and calling

Kerry was calling

for "calm and reasonableness" on the matter, and adding, "We're not
looking for a confrontation. We are not ordering anybody." There are
plenty of reasons for Obama to pull back, beyond his professed desire to
avoid international horse-trading for the leaker. The president, in his own words, has "a
whole lot of business to do with China and Russia." Why increase tensions in an already
uneasy relationship when Obama is looking for Russia's cooperation in finding
Snowden a traitor whose actions are "despicable and beyond description." By Tuesday,

a path to peace in Syria, for example? In addition, less-heated dialogue could make it easier to broker Snowden's
return because, despite the latest shrugs, U.S. officials very much want him. "There's a lot of signaling going on,"
said Steve Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists. "If
the White House were issuing ultimatums, then Russia might feel obliged not to cooperate. But if it's merely one
request among many others, that might make it easier to advance to a resolution."The president also may have a
U.S. audience in mind for his comments. Obama's Democratic base includes plenty of defenders of civil liberties
who are sympathetic to Snowden's professed goal of making government more transparent. Benjamin Pauker,
managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, said the president was loath to elevate Snowden to a state enemy or
"an Ellsberg-type truth-teller," referring to the 1971 leaker of the Pentagon Papers, which showed the U.S.
government had misled the public about the war in Vietnam. Ellsberg himself recently called Snowden's revelations
the most significant disclosures in the nation's history. The administration, though, would rather marginalize
Snowden, a former National Security Agency systems analyst who is thought to have custody of more classified

"Calling him a hacker, as opposed to a government contractor or

an NSA employee, brings him down a notch to someone who's an irritant,
as opposed to someone who has access to integral intelligence files ," Pauker
documents.

said. "To externalize him and brand him with a black-hat hacker tag distances him from the government." The
disdainful talk isn't just coming from the White House. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, called Snowden "a high school dropout who had a whole series of both academic troubles
and employment troubles" after a recent closed hearing on the leaks. The committee's top Democrat, C.A. "Dutch"
Ruppersberger from Maryland, called Snowden "a legend in his own mind" for claiming to be able to use NSA
systems to access any email or phone call anywhere something the NSA's director has said can't be done. There

benefits for Obama in cutting down Snowden, who turned 30 last

week. An unsuccessful full-court press for Snowden's return would only show
the limitations of Obama's international influence . It's not the first time a president has
tried to reset expectations by first elevating and then playing down the importance of an
international fugitive who eluded capture, at least for a time.
may also be face-saving

AT: Nukes Thumper

Religious community supports Obamas nuke policy
CNA 7/2 (Catholic News Agency; Jul 2; US bishops support nuclear disarmament,
Middle East peace efforts; http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/us-bishopssupport-nuclear-disarmament-middle-east-peace-efforts/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed
%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews-us+(CNA+Daily+News+-+US))//KDUB
Washington D.C., Jul 2, 2013 / 12:13 pm (CNA).- In a letter to President Barack Obama, two
leaders of the U.S. bishops voiced support for continued efforts towards
nuclear disarmament, as well as peace between Israel and Palestine. In Berlin, you recently reiterated a
vision of a world without nuclear weapons, a vision that the Catholic Church has long supported, wrote Cardinal

Cardinal Dolan
is the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops , while Bishop
Pates heads the conferences Committee on International Justice and
Peace. The two bishops recalled that Blessed Pope John XXIII pushed for an
end to nuclear weapons across the globe in 1963. Twenty years later, the U.S. bishops
Timothy M. Dolan of New York and Bishop Robert E. Pates of Des Moines in a June 25 letter.

conference issued a pastoral letter entitled The Challenge of Peace, which repeated the goal of nuclear
disarmament. Today,

we again pledge support of U.S. efforts to achieve mutual

reductions in the stockpiles of nuclear weapons, to adopt the Comprehensive Test Ban

Treaty, and to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation. The bishops also stressed the importance of vigorous
leadership by the U.S. in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They thanked the president for his trip to the Holy Land in
March and for charging Secretary of State John Kerry with the urgent task of bringing the parties to the negotiating
table. Reiterating their support for a two-state solution in the region, they promised their continued prayers for
peace. We

know that many consider the conflict intractable, but we believe

that peace is possible, they said, encouraging persistent U.S.
leadership and pledging their untiring support.

Media support balances Obama on nukes

Mali 6/16 (Meghashyam Mali - 06/16/13; Celebs push Obama to eliminate
nuclear weapons; The Hill; http://thehill.com/video/policy-areas/305861-celebspush-obama-to-eliminate-nuclear-weapons)//KDUB
Hollywood celebrities are pressing President Obama to honor his pledge to
eliminate nuclear weapons ahead of his meeting with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin at the G8
summit in Belfast. A video from the group Global Zero released last week features
prominent stars from film and television repeating Obamas speech from Prague in
2009 outlining his vision for nuclear disarmament. Today, I state clearly and with
conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a
world without nuclear weapons, said Obama in the speech . The video
opens with his voice, followed by stars including Michael Douglas, Naomi
Watts, Matt Damon and Robert DeNiro delivering the rest of the address .
The video concludes again with Obama saying The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these

A statement from the group on their website said the video was
part of an international campaign urging President Obama to set the
worlds course to zero nuclear weapons by negotiating further cuts in the
weapons.

massive U.S.-Russian Cold War stockpiles and bringing other leading nuclear powers into international nuclear arms
negotiations for the first time in history. The

message from national security experts

and citizens around the world is clear: the only way to eliminate the global
nuclear danger is to eliminate all nuclear weapons, said Michael Douglas in the
statement. It's time to set the world's course to zero. Obamas Prague address called for

reducing the stockpiles of nuclear nations, preventing other countries from developing
weapons, safely securing nuclear material and developing safer nuclear energy. In 2010, Obama and Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that limited the number of deployed

The administration has continued to discuss nuclear weapons

reduction with the Russians in Obamas second term.
warheads to 1,500.

Thumper is non unique ideological commitment

Edelman and Joseph 6/24 (Eric Edelman was undersecretary of defense for

policy from 2005 to 2009. Robert Joseph was undersecretary of state for arms
control and international security from 2005 to 2007; June 24, 2013; Obamas folly
on nuclear disarmament; News Observer;
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/24/2986677/obamas-folly-on-nucleardisarmament.html)//KDUB
Addressing the vast disparity in these forces was a point of consensus in
the ratification debate, with the Senate calling on the president to pursue an agreement
to secure and reduce tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner.
Separately, in its recent markup of the Defense Authorization Act, the House Armed Services Committee drew
attention to Russian violations of existing arms control agreements as a barrier to further reductions. For these and

the president is likely to forgo the treaty route in pursuit of an

agreement with Russia. Doing so would be inconsistent with the conditions the Senate set for its
consent to New START. Yet the president seems determined to go to lower numbers ,
other reasons,

either by circumventing the formal treaty process with an executive agreement or, if that fails because of Russian

The Obama administrations intention to lead by

example reflects its deep ideological commitment to disarmament . No other
objections, by unilateral reductions.

country is following the U.S. lead. None has followed in adopting a policy of developing no new nuclear warheads.
None has followed in allowing its nuclear weapons infrastructure to rust out from within as a consequence of budget
cuts and policy neglect. And none will be persuaded by the latest presidential endorsement of nuclear zero.

Commitment checks
NYT 6/22 (THE EDITORIAL BOARD; June 22, 2013; A Modest Nuclear Agenda;

NYT; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/a-modest-nuclearagenda.html?_r=0#h[IhfHms,2])//KDUB
Whatever the shortcomings of his approach, Mr. Obama is essentially
instructing the Pentagon to downgrade the role of nuclear weapons in
Americas security strategy. It remains to be seen how this will be achieved. But there are sound
budgetary, as well as strategic, reasons to act. Americas nuclear arsenal costs the country
$31 billion a year and will cost billions more if modernization proceeds. There is little doubt that President
Obama remains committed, as he said in Berlin, to a world without
nuclear weapons no matter how distant that dream might be. But bold
results will require a bolder plan of action.

AT: Climate Change Thumper

Climate change won Obama pc Gore approval
Delamaide 6/27 (Darrell Delamaide; June 27, 2013; Obamas pledge on
climate change still ambivalent; Market Watch;
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamas-pledge-on-climate-change-stillambivalent-2013-06-27)//KDUB
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) Barack Obama has always been good at speeches and
the one on climate change this week earned high praise from no less an
expert than global-warming guru Al Gore.This was a terrific and historic speech,
the former vice president and presidential candidate blogged, by far the best address on
climate by any president ever. The occasion of Obamas speech was to announce that the
Environmental Protection Agency will set new standards for carbon-dioxide emissions at coal-fired power plants.

Gore praised this as a good step, but urged Obama to keep using the bully pulpit for further
measures on emissions. The hard truth is that the maximum that now seems
politically feasible still falls short of the minimum necessary to actually
solve the climate crisis, said Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on
climate change. However, the action by the EPA is long overdue. Utilities have been busy switching to gasfired generation for years in anticipation of this measure and have been frustrated by the governments dawdling.

AT: Gun Control Thumper

No push for gun control
Morrissey 3/26- Ed, CBS poll shows support for gun control push fading March
26 2013 http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/26/cbs-poll-shows-support-for-guncontrol-push-fading/
A week ago, CNN reported that its polling showed that momentum for gun control had halted,
and support had begun to decline, falling below a majority . Todays CBS poll
reaches the same conclusion, leaving the soon-to-be-filibustered bill in the US Senate in
danger of becoming an orphan: Soon after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced
an assault weapons ban would not be part of a gun control bill, a new CBS News poll shows support for
stricter gun control laws overall has dropped since the shootings at Sandy
Hook Elementary School. Currently, support for stricter gun control laws
stands at 47 percent today, down from a high of 57 percent just after the
shootings. Thirty-nine percent want those laws kept as they are, and
another 11 percent want them made less strict. Todays level of 47% for making gun laws
more stringent is the lowest it has been since April of last year (39%). The endorsement of the status quo (39%) is
likewise the highest it has been since the same point in time. Eleven years ago, the split was 56/30 in favor of
tougher gun laws and that was while the federal assault-weapons ban was still in place. Furthermore,

the
push for stronger laws appears to be a partisan and regional issue, but
not quite in the manner portrayed by gun-control activists . Only in the northeast

does gun control get a majority, at 58/30, even though the incident that has acted as a catalyst took place in a
Northeastern state with an assault-weapons ban already in place. In the Midwest and South, the splits are virtual
ties, belying the notion that this is somehow a Southern problem. Its also within the margin of error among
independents at 43/39, and Republicans are solidly opposed at 29/52. Democrats, on the other hand, want stricter
gun control by more than a 2:1 ratio, 66/30.

AT: Syria Thumper

Obamas push for Syria fading
BBC 6/13- Obamas half-hearted push into Syria June 13 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22900710
For those who have welcomed President Barack Obama's reluctance to embroil the US in
Syria, he has just taken a step deeper into the mud. But those who think his
policy has so far been lily-livered and hesitant will only applaud slowly, and without much
enthusiasm. They will argue he is still doing too little, too slowly.

Internal Links

Obama Pushing
Obama pushing immigration with political capital now
Hesson 6-17 [Ted, Who Wants Credit for Immigration Reform if It Passes,
<http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-rubio-cruz-credit-blameimmigration-reform/story?id=19420961#.Uc8urRvD-P9>]

If an immigration bill in the Senate eventually becomes law, there will certainly be a lot of people looking to take
credit -- or dole out blame, depending on your perspective. You can put President Obama and Republican Sens.
Marco Rubio (Florida) and Ted Cruz (Texas) at the top of that list. Here's why: 1. The Backroom Dealer

President Obama supports the immigration reform bill in the Senate but he's
largely let the group of Democrats and Republicans that wrote the legislation stand in the spotlight. Behind
the scenes, however, he's been working to influence the process, according to a
New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza (quoted here). The article cites a senior Obama
administration official: "No decisions are being made without talking to us
about it," the official said. "This does not fly if we're not O.K. with it." That
Obama wants to guide the bill isn't shocking. What's more interesting is that the
administration is now advertising its involvement in the dealmaking. It
leaves the impression that the president wants credit for this bill when it's
signed into law.

Obama pushing for immigration reform

The Washington Post 6/29- Obama pushes House GOP on Immigration

reform June 29, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/postpolitics/wp/2013/06/29/obama-pushes-house-gop-on-immigration-reform/

President Obama on Saturday urged House leaders to produce immigration
reform legislation by August, emphasizing that it is critical to move
forward on a sweeping overhaul of the nations border control laws. The ball
is in the Houses court, Obama said during a news conference two days after the Senate voted 68-32 to pass a

comprehensive immigration bill that includes new border security measures and a 13-year path to
citizenship for the nations 11 million illegal immigrants. I do urge the House to try to get this
done before the August recess, he added. Theres more than enough time. This things been
debated amply and theyve got a number of weeks to get it done. Nows the time. House Republican leaders have
said they will not accept the Senate bill, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has not said if hell pursue a

Obama said he called Boehner and

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to encourage them to make progress
as soon as possible. Speaking at the news conference here during his week-long Africa tour, Obama
said, One thing I know about why the United States is admired around
the world is that people understand the United States is a nation of
immigrants. Like South Africa, were a multi-cultural, multi-racial nation and that
makes us stronger. Our diversity is a source of strength. We need to get
this right.
comprehensive bill or move forward with smaller bills.

Obamas pushing now its just been behind the scenes

Harris et al 6/25

[John F. Harris, Jake Sherman, Elizabeth Titus, June 24, 2013 writers for Politico President
Obama in the Doldrums http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obama-second-term-doldrums-93295.html]

And the White House is taking credit for the immigration push under way
in Congress. He won Latinos by a huge majority, a senior White House
official told POLITICO. If he hadnt done that, immigration would not be
happening. More broadly, the official said that despite Democratic grousing that
Obama could do more, the president has been far more involved behind the

scenes than people realize. This official also dismissed the notion that
Obama does not command loyalty or fear on Capitol Hill. We dont
have a problem with our Democrats, the official said. Our Democrats
stay with us.

Obamas spending a ton of PC on the bill just behind the

scenes
McHugh 6/22 [Katie McHugh, writer for the Daily Caller, June 22, 2013 Obama throws support behind
immigration reform, pathway to citizenship http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/22/obama-throws-support-behindimmigration-reform-pathway-to-citizenship/]

In his weekly video address Saturday, President Barack Obama again

voiced his support for the bipartisan, commonsense immigration reform
bill pending in the Senate, calling it an important step toward fixing our
broken immigration system. The bill, officially titled the Border Security,
Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, includes a key
provision meant to create a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million
illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. a measure Obama fully
supports.

Its a bill that would provide a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million individuals who are

in this country illegally a pathway that includes passing a background check, learning English, paying taxes and a
penalty, then going to the back of the line behind everyone trying to come here legally, the president said. Obama
also cited the Congressional Budget Offices Tuesday report, adding that reforming our immigration system would
reduce our deficits by almost a trillion dollars over the next two decades. The pending bill, he said, will boost our
economy by more than 5 percent, in part because of businesses created, investments made, and technologies

The White House has played an energetic if partially

hidden role in determining the bills formation. Top administration officials
review each amendment to the bill, blocking amendments of which they
disapprove and using their influence to push ones they approve, according
to one report. Texas Republican Sen. Jon Cornyn found his amendment demanding a 90 percent trigger
invented by immigrants.

for border security meaning a halt to amnesty until the U.S.-Mexico border was 90 perent secured defeated
after Obama, working with New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer, intervened. Instead, the Senate approved as
much as $30 billion for construction of 700 miles of border fencing, but the funds have yet to be guaranteed.

The bill isnt perfect. Its a compromise. Nobody is going to get

everything they want not Democrats, not Republicans, not me, Obama
said in his Saturday statement. But its consistent with the principles
that I and others have laid out for commonsense reform. Thats why
Republicans and Democrats, CEOs and labor leaders, are saying that now
is the time to pass this bill. We can do this, because we are a nation of
laws and a nation of immigrants; a place enriched by the contributions of
people from all over the world, and stronger for it, Obama continued.
Thats been the story of America from the start.

Obama pushing Congress to pass immigration

Saenz 6-22 [Arlette, Obama Urges Congress to Pass Immigration Reform,

<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/obama-urges-congress-to-passimmigration-reform/>]
As the Senate is poised to make a key vote on an immigration compromise
Monday, President Obama pressed Congress Saturday to pass immigration
reform. The United States Senate is debating a bipartisan, commonsense
bill that would be an important step toward fixing our broken immigration
system, Obama said in his weekly address Saturday. The bill isnt perfect. Its a

compromise. Nobody is going to get everything they want not Democrats, not Republicans, not me. But its consistent with the
principles that I and others have laid out for commonsense reform. The president said the bill would lead to stronger enforcement.
A smarter legal immigration system. A pathway to earned citizenship. A more vibrant, growing economy thats fairer on the middle
class. And a more stable fiscal future for our kids. We can do this, because we are a nation of

laws and a nation of immigrants; a place enriched by the contributions of

people from all over the world, and stronger for it. Thats been the story
of America from the start. Lets keep it going, he said. On Friday, a bipartisan
immigration amendment on border security was filed in the Senate, setting up a major vote on immigration reform for Monday to
determine whether they should proceed with the full bill. The amendment enhances the border security provisions in the bi-partisan
Gang of Eight plan by doubling the number of border patrol agents from its current size of 21,000 to 40,000 officers as well as
completing a 700 mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. The compromise, which was sponsored by two Republican senators
Bob Corker of Tenn. And John Hoeven of N.D. could help solidify the votes needed for the plan to pass the Senate. Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid hopes to pass the bill before the July 4 recess, but the plan has an uncertain fate in the House of Representatives
as many members are calling for stricter border security measures. House Speaker John Boehner said earlier this week that he
would not take an immigration bill to the House floor unless it has support from a majority of House Republicans.

PC High
DOMA decision gives Obama tons of polcap
Fox 6/29 (Fox News; June 29, 2013; Obama-Court alliance on gay marriage sets
up tough road ahead for same-sex union foes; Foxnews;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/29/obama-court-alliance-on-gay-marriagesets-up-tough-road-ahead-for-same-sex/)//KDUB
The Supreme Court's rulings this past week on gay marriage signal that
social conservatives looking to advance their fight against same-sex
unions could be in for a rocky road ahead. In its more modest decision this week, the court
issued a narrowly tailored ruling that had the effect of reinstating gay marriage in California. But it was the
decision on the Defense of Marriage Act that provided the strongest
language, and the best indication of where the court's majority stands on
the broader issue -- whenever it returns to the nation's most powerful
justices for review. The majority opinion, authored by swing justice Anthony Kennedy, was
unequivocal, at times suggesting efforts to limit gay marriage are morally
indefensible. The opinion said the DOMA law, which defined marriage as between a man and woman,

"humiliates" the children raised by gay couples. "Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened,

The court's
conservative justices fumed at this language, with Justice Antonin Scalia accusing his
colleagues of deeming gay marriage foes "enemies of the human race." The opinion, though, was an
outright victory for Obama -- who has actually endured a string of defeats
before the high court this year. Perhaps the biggest blow came Tuesday when the court stopped
by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," the majority wrote.

the Justice Department from singling out certain states for challenges to their voting laws. One report estimated the

Obama
won big. The court effectively backed him up on two controversial moves -the decision not to defend the Clinton-era marriage law in court, and the
president's personal endorsement of gay marriage last year. Importantly, on
the merits of the gay marriage debate, the ruling put two of the three
branches of the federal government on the same page. Going forward, the
ruling establishes an Obama-Supreme Court alliance that will loom large
over future efforts to restrict same-sex marriage. On that point, conservative justices and social
administration lost two-thirds of the cases it had before the court this session. But on gay marriage,

conservative activists blasted the high court for the scope of its opinion. Scalia, who voiced seething frustration,
accused the court of overstepping its bounds in order to "pronounce the law." Further, he said that assertions that
DOMA would humiliate children and impose inequality will in effect stack the deck against any state trying to limit
gay marriage going forward.

Obama PC Key to CIR

Conflicts make Obamas political capital key to immigration
reform
Bresnahan and Raju 6-11 [John and Manu, Senate Democrats divided on
immigration, <http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/senate-democratsimmigration-reform-92616_Page2.html>]

But this Congress, Schumer has sought to make nice with Republicans as hes attempted to negotiate deals on guns
and immigration. Hes effectively ceded the partisan messaging even though he still runs the DPCC, allowing other
Democrats to wield a cudgel against Republicans over the budget and other issues. With the gun bill stalled,
Schumer has invested the lions share of his time and political capital in immigration reform ahead of one day when
he may ascend to Senate Democratic leader. Ive heard some who say we should not change consider any
further changes to the bill, dare the other side to vote against. I reject that approach, Schumer said on the floor

Democrats now hold a

54-46 Senate majority, and they could lose two or three of their own when
it comes time for final passage before the July Fourth recess. Schumer along
Tuesday. Were not interested in scoring a political victory to help one party.

with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has his eyes on winning upward of 19 Republican senators, but to do that,

Democrats will have to agree to tougher border security provisions. House

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he would like to see an
immigration bill on the House floor before the end of the year, but he has
said his chamber will not simply take up and accept the Senate plan.
Many House Republicans are resistant to a comprehensive bill even one in the
works by a separate bipartisan group in the House. Some Democrats privately gripe that
Schumer has been too quick to placate Republicans given that the House
remains incredibly unpredictable. The thinking is that a fierce public
relations campaign and the bully pulpit from President Barack Obama
could be enough to propel a handful of Republicans to support the bill
largely intact, and pressure the House into action.

Obamas political capital key

Davis 5/23- Julie Hirschfield, Obama Probes Create Immigration Magic as Bill
Advances May 23, 2013 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/obamaprobes-create-immigration-magic-as-bill-advances.html
His comments underscore the congressional hurdles that loom for revising immigration laws -- obstacles that
Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said will be harder for Obama to surmount if the
scandals continue to undercut his credibility. It may help them now that people arent

paying as much attention to the debate on the immigration bill because of the investigations, but long-term its a
big problem, Bonjean said. The

presidents political capital diminishes as these

crises continue, and eventually hes going to have to cash in that capital
to get people to cast tough votes and push this thing through.

Political capital key

Landler and Parker 6/11- Mark and Ashley, White House correspondent for
the New York Times and Washington-based reporter for New York Times, Obama
Backs Bill to Overhaul Immigration as Debate Is Set June 6, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/politics/with-senate-set-to-vote-obamamakes-immigration-pitch.html?
pagewanted=1&ref=immigrationandemigration&_r=0

As the Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to begin debating an overhaul of the nations
immigrations laws, President Obama offered a wholehearted endorsement

of
the bipartisan proposal, which presents him with a chance to reach the
kind of landmark accord with Republicans that has eluded him on the
budget and gun violence. For Mr. Obama, who has picked his shots in the immigration debate
to avoid stirring partisan anger on Capitol Hill, it was a moment of promise and peril. While he
threw his weight behind the bill, he conceded that it would not satisfy all sides and said he
anticipated a bruising fight over issues like border security and the path to citizenship. The
president, however, may have more leverage than in previous battles, not least
because many Republicans believe rewriting the immigration laws is critical for the long-term viability
of their party given the nations demographic shifts, even if doing so risks alienating parts of their
base. Republican willingness to weigh significant changes in immigration

policy was evident in the 84-to-15 vote to begin what is expected to be a

monthlong debate on the bill, a lopsided majority that comprised 52 Democrats, 2
independents and 30 Republicans. The opponents were all Republicans. Advocates hailed the vote as
an encouraging sign for the measures eventual passage. But Senate veterans warned that the
procedural victory did not preclude Republicans from ultimately rejecting the legislation, which would
provide a path to citizenship for 11 million people who are in the country illegally. This bill isnt
perfect; its a compromise, the president said at a carefully choreographed White House appearance
with advocates of reform. Going forward, nobody is going to get everything they want. Not
Democrats, not Republicans, not me. Though the Senates Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of
Kentucky, often an impediment to Democratic initiatives, voted to allow debate, he said he would vote
against the bill unless major changes were made. These include, but are not limited to, the areas of
border security, government benefits and taxes, he said. The House speaker, John A. Boehner, said he
feared that the Senate bill doesnt go far enough. Speaking on ABC News before the vote, Mr.
Boehner said he had real concerns with the Senate bill, especially on border security and internal
enforcement. A vote to allow a debate is no guarantee of a bills passage: the Senate cleared that
threshold on legislation to tighten the nations gun laws, but its key provision, to tighten background
checks on gun buyers, still went down to defeat. At the same time, this procedural vote was larger
than one in 2007, when the Senate last debated immigration reform, and Mr. Obama was clearly
determined to seize the moment. If youre serious about actually fixing the system, then this is the
vehicle to do it, Mr. Obama declared. If youre not serious about it, if you think that a broken system
is the best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to try to block it. Speaking in the East Room,
Mr. Obama surrounded himself with supporters of the bill, including a former police chief in Los Angeles
and New York, William J. Bratton; Thomas J. Donahue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce;
Julin Castro, the mayor of San Antonio; Steve Case, an entrepreneur and a founder of AOL; and
Richard L. Trumka, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. While Mr. Obama speaks about the

need to overhaul the immigration system at schools and factories across

the country, the East Room event was his most concerted push for it since he spoke in Las Vegas
in January, around the time a group of Republican and Democratic senators presented a draft
framework for legislation. That speech, analysts said, drew a positive response from
some influential Republican lawmakers, and the White House appeared to be trying to
replicate the experience. But they warned not to overestimate Mr. Obamas role in the debate now. It
propels it forward, but this has already got a lot of juice, said Angela Maria Kelley, an expert on
immigration at the Center for American Progress. In the Senate, theres a lot of clarity about peoples
positions. Other experts said Mr. Obama had learned from hard experience during the health
care and budget debates about the right time to lie low and the right time to insert himself

in the process. Theres no question that the president has a delicate

dance, said Ben Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Council. Hes got
to strike the right tone and the right balance of using the office effectively
and not trampling on the process thats currently under way. A senior White
House official said Mr. Obamas involvement was important because the bills
success would hinge on winning the support of Hispanic voters, and
there is no Republican with the credibility to sell this to that community
only the president can.

Obamas PC is key to getting it 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]
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

Washington
will devote lots of time to little more than housekeeping matters. Congress could
bolstering of border security arent added as the bill moves through the Senate. In other words, official

pass a few appropriations bills, reauthorize farm programs and raise the federal borrowing limit to avoid the disaster that would

Thats a big
problem for Mr. Obama. The more time that passes, the less political capital
come with default. What that means is that not much more than the basics are on track to succeed this year.

hell have to muscle through his priorities. Unless he acts quickly , he

could lose his chance to make his presidency truly historic. He needs more accomplishments to distinguish himself.
More practically, 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 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.

Obamas PC is CRITICAL to overcoming obstacles to passage

Washington Times 4-18 (Obama told to step aside on reforming

immigration; its Congress turn, key Democrat says

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/18/obama-told-to-step-aside-onreforming-immigration/)
Anticipating the legislative fights to come, members of the Gang of
Eight emphasized that their plan bolsters national security through the
proposed E-Verify system and stronger border security and also ensures
that American workers get the first crack at open jobs. The status quo threatens our
security, damages our economy, disregards the rule of law and neglects our humanitarian responsibilities, said
Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican. A problem of that magnitude that affects so many of our interests will never
be easy to address but never more necessary to address either. Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, also went on
a public relations blitz, assuring conservative radio outlets that the proposal, among other things, does not lead to
amnesty. Mr. McCain also said the bill will go through the normal legislative process starting with committee
hearings next month but that the eight senators are poised to act together and defeat any amendment that would
kill the bill outright. We are also committed to vote against amendments or proposals or changes that would kill
the bill, Mr. McCain said. Were not saying its a perfect piece of legislation, and we think it can be improved on,
but we also know opponents will be proposing amendments that, if passed, could collapse this very fragile coalition

Gutierrez, too, predicted difficult sailing for the

legislation, and he said that will be when Mr. Obama can best play a role.
Look, theres going to come some hard times and were going to need
him to use that bully pulpit, I believe, in the future, he said. Its going to get
stymied, theres going to be hiccups, you guys have been around long
that weve been able to achieve. Mr.

enough, were going to need him there, so he is critical and essential to

this process.

Focus Link
Momentum is critical distracting focus from CIR destroys any
chance of passing the bill
Defrancesco Soto 4-25 (Dr. Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto is an NBC Latino

and MSNBC contributor, Senior Analyst for Latino Decisions and Fellow at the Center
for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of
Texas, at Austin. Opinion: Delaying immigration reform will kill it
http://nbclatino.com/2013/04/25/opinion-delaying-immigration-reform-will-kill-it/)
Herein lies the rub. In order for the rational part of our thinking to kick in, we need time. With regards to the
immigration discussion, time would allow folks to see that not going through with an immigration reform makes us

too much time is a thief of momentum. And immigration

reform, as any type of complex legislation, lives and dies on momentum .
less safe. However,

What we have is a Catch-22. Time allows cooler heads to prevail. In the case of immigration reform that means
seeing the likes of Rand Paul understand that pressing pause on immigration reform is counterproductive to our

time also allows for momentum to fizzle. The question in

moving forward with immigration reform is whether to proceed more
slowly or charge ahead. Neither strategy is ideal, but the charging ahead
is the lesser of two evils. If immigration reform is placed on the back
burner, even for a couple of weeks, it will die. There is only so much
attention that law makers can give to any one area before their attention
gets pulled elsewhere. Also, if lawmakers do not pass immigration reform
before summer recess, the emotional voices of those that think that
immigration makes us less safe could overpower the debate. The last thing
national security. But

immigration reform needs is the health care town hall meetings from 2009. Time usually heals all. But in the case of

To see immigration reform

become a reality the Gang of Eight, the White House, and immigration
advocates must charge forward with their reasoned arguments highlighting the greater good of
immigration reform. Now more than ever, time is of the essence.
immigration reform time turns out to be more of a foe than a friend.

Adding anything new to the agenda will kill his focus on

current issues
Deseret News 4-8 (President Obama's domestic agenda guns, immigration,
budget on the line this week
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765626404/Obamas-domestic-agenda-on-theline-this-week.html)

The White House tried to play down the significance of the week's overlapping events to the president's broader
objectives, with Obama spokesman Jay Carney saying the administration is always trying to move forward on "the
business of the American people." Said Carney: "Every one of these weeks is full of the possibility for progress on a

Obama's advisers know the window for broad legislative

victories is narrower for a second-term president. Political posturing is
already underway for the 2014 midterm elections, which will consume
Congress next year. And once those votes for a new Congress are cast, Washington's attention turns to
range of fronts." But

the race to succeed Obama. Patrick Griffin, who served as White House legislative director under President Bill

Obama's legislative efforts this year are likely to be the "sum and
substance" of his second-term agenda. "I think it would be very tough to
put another item on the agenda on his own terms," said Griffin, adding that unexpected
Clinton, said

events could force other issues to the fore.

Rubio k2 CIR
Rubio key to immigration
Walsh 6/11- Deirdre, CNN Senior Congressional Producer Split House GOP
threatens immigration reform, Boehner's future June 11, 2013
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/politics/immigration-house/
Two of the Senate's GOP "Gang of Eight" members -- Marco Rubio of Florida and
Jeff Flake of Arizona, who are pushing the Senate's bipartisan plan -- faced off
with well over 100 Republican members of the conservative Republican
Study Committee (RSC). Rubio is considered key to bringing
conservatives on board , and Flake used to be a member of the RSC. The
meeting only seemed to harden conservative opposition. Alabama GOP Rep. Mo

Brooks summed up the reaction of many House GOP members who attended the session, telling CNN
those senators explaining the merits of that plan "were doing their best to put lipstick on a pig."
Georgia Rep. Tom Price, a leading conservative, told reporters it was "highly unlikely" the majority of
House Republicans would vote for a bill similar to the Senate deal that permits citizenship after a series
of conditions are met because he and GOP colleagues don't trust the Obama administration to enforce
the laws currently on the books. While many House conservatives agree

immigration reform is a critical priority for Congress, they part with

President Barack Obama, Senate Democrats, and some in their own party
who believe allowing eventual citizenship to those in the country illegally is part of
the solution. They vow that they won't support any bill that adds to the deficit and they want to see
a tougher approach to border security. But there is a bloc of House GOP members -- including 2012
vice presidential candidate Rep Paul Ryan of Wisconsin -- that is pushing for a similar bipartisan
approach that the Senate is taking up this week, which includes a path to citizenship. The group
represents a minority within the House GOP conference. That bipartisan effort suffered a significant
setback last week. A working group, similar to the Senate's "Gang of Eight," has been on the verge of
unveiling legislation for months, according to multiple sources . But Rep. Raul Labrador, one of

the four GOP members in the group, abruptly dropped out. Like Rubio, who is
needed to attract Republican votes in the Senate, reform backers hoped
Labrador would play the same role in the House.

Rubio key to passing immigration

Navarette 6/5- Ruben, CNN Contributor, Rubios wild immigration ride June 5,
2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/opinion/navarrette-rubioimmigration/index.html
So began the education of Marco Rubio. The Florida senator is the de-facto leader of the
Gang of Eight, the bipartisan group of senators pushing for immigration
reform. Rubio has become the face of immigration reform. He is the most articulate
advocate and the game's most valuable player in large part because he is
charged with rounding up Republican votes. Meanwhile, if Rubio were to
withdraw support for the bill, it wouldn't just be a game changer. It would be game
over.He recently worried allies by characterizing the bill as not strong enough and said that more border security
measures have to be added. While Rubio courts Republicans, the Democratic members of the gang

(Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois or Bob Menendez of New Jersey) need to arm-twist Democrats
to make sure they're on board. Many of the Senate's Democrats don't seem enthusiastic about a path to citizenship
for 11 million illegal immigrants.

Boehner k2 CIR
Boehner key to passing immigration
Rodriguez 5/30- Gabriel, Graduate of New College of Florida with degree in
Economics, Immigration Reform 2013: John Boehner is Congress's Only Hope May
5 2013 http://www.policymic.com/articles/44481/immigration-reform-2013-johnboehner-is-congress-s-only-hope
The House was always thought of as the more difficult chamber for any
immigration bill, but some have not given up hope on the turbulent
negotiations that have taken place, seeing a possible way forward after the
dust clears. But it all depends on Speaker John Boehner (R-Iowa). The House
is currently locked in negotiations to produce some form of bill but it has
been a difficult struggle. Although principles of the bill have been worked
out by the bipartisan House version of the Gang of Eight, every single
contentious detail they hit has threatened to sink the process. On Wednesday,
the latest hurdle was overcome after a dispute over a health care provision involving immigrants was
solved. But the next hill to climb involves the E-verify employment verification system, one of the key
carrots handed out to Republicans to sweeten the bill. It is a trigger, meaning that if the system is
not up and running in five years, it will shut down the entire legalization system. Democrats have
begrudgingly gone along with the measure, but are not happy about its critical link to the entire
program. So Democratic legislators want to make sure that E-Verify system is not subject to the rough
dimension of congressional appropriations, basically protecting the system from suddenly having its
funding cut or withheld by a congressperson who decides they dislike the legalization process. This
would set in action the trigger process and destroy the entire project. According to Politico,

Republicans are privately saying they are not going to bend on this point.
If this becomes an issue, this could be the hill that the bipartisan House
bill dies on. There are rumblings that if the talks collapse, the House will still want
to pass some kind of bill before the Senate passes one. If the Senate passes a bill
with strong support (the latest goal is 70 senators), there will be enormous
pressure on Boehner to pass it from Republican Party elites and political
strategists, who desperately want to have an issue they can point to try to make
inroads with much-needed voting blocks such as Hispanic voters. If the talks
collapse, Boehner could use several other GOP-based bills and ram them
through the chamber before the Senate bill passes. This would allow the whole

thing to go to conference committee, were the differences between the two bills out be ironed out, and
a "compromise" bill would be send back to both Houses of Congress .

Boehners key
Zelizer 7/1 Professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and CNN
contributor (Julian, Will Speaker Boehner make history?, CNN Publication, 7-1-13,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/01/opinion/zelizer-speaker-boehner)//TQ
(CNN) -- House Speaker John Boehner is facing a huge moment in his career. Now that the
Senate has passed the immigration bill, all eyes have turned to the House, where some right-wing members of the
GOP are prepared to scuttle the bipartisan deal that has been carefully crafted in the upper chamber. According to
Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole, "We

have a minority of the minority in the Senate

voting for this bill. That's not going to put a lot of pressure on the majority
of the majority in the House." This is a test for Boehner, a massive opportunity for

him to rebuild a languishing speakership. At this point, the verdict of history probably would not be very kind to him.

Boehner has struggled to move legislation through his chamber , as the recent
embarrassing failure of the farm bill showed. His biggest victories have primarily been

symbolic, like the legislation dealing with abortion that has no chance of passing the Senate. If his goal is to
bring together the various factions of his party into common accord behind key legislation, he has repeatedly failed.
How can Boehner have any success with immigration? After watching the collapse of the deal with farm legislation,

When
the bet is between failure and success, most Washington observers would
bet on failure. Yet Boehner does have some tools at his disposal. Most
importantly, he can work with external organizations to lobby House
Republicans, namely, religious and business organizations. Both these
groups have shown strong support for immigration reform and they have
it seems difficult to fathom how he can stitch together a majority that will stay on board with this bill.

considerable clout in gerrymandered districts that President Obama can never reach. A large number of religious
groups, including evangelical Christians, have called on Congress to pass the reform. Ralph Reed, one of the most
influential members of the religious right in recent years and who is the chairman of the Faith and Freedom
Coalition, said: "As people of faith, this is not just an economic and security issue; it is a moral issue. This bill, while
not perfect, is an important starting point to reforming and modernizing U.S. immigration law so it reflects faithbased principles of compassion for the alien, the primacy of the family, respect for the rule of law, and protecting
U.S. security and sovereignty." This strategy has worked before. When Southern Democrats were
filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious organizations helped the Johnson administration persuade

Business groups, traditionally a driving force for

can also help Boehner. Given their immense clout within
the party as well as within specific districts, business groups should flex their financial
muscle to pressure members into voting yes. Boehner needs to threaten
House Republicans that he could work out a deal with Democrats and
Midwestern Republican senators to vote for cloture.
immigration liberalization,

moderates in the party. Boehner has generally adopted a model of leadership in which he follows the lead of his
caucus. If enough Republicans don't agree with a path to citizenship and believe that passing this legislation will
threaten their majority, then he should follow their demands. But another model of congressional leadership is to
try to shape his caucus rather than having it shape him. As the Emory political scientist Randall Strahan detailed in
his book, "Leading Representatives," there is a history of speakers, such as Henry Clay, Thomas Reed and Newt
Gingrich, who have taken enormous risks to push their caucus in new directions. This is a strategy that could
produce historic legislation. This is the path that Speaker Tip O'Neill took, to the chagrin of many liberals, when he
worked with President Reagan's administration to pass the tax cut of 1981. Rather than standing in the way of the
tax cut, O'Neill decided to sign on and demanded goodies for Democratic constituencies. House Democrats, who
had little love for Reagan, had little choice but to join their speaker, knowing that they were going to lose. With the

Boehner could enter into a dramatic bipartisan alliance that

would leave him with much greater national clout. Even the threat of an
alliance might be sufficient to move enough conservative House
Republicans, who sense that defeat is inevitable and decide that they might as well win
case of immigration,

some credit for the victory.

Ryan k2 CIR
Obama not key; Paul Ryan key to influence Republicans
Bohan 6-26 [Caren, Can Paul Ryan sell immigration reform to conservatives?,
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-immigration-ryanidUSBRE95P18020130626>]
(Reuters) - Paul Ryan, the Republican congressman and former vicepresidential candidate best known for his war on spending, is emerging as
his party's leading champion of immigration reform in the U.S. House of
Representatives. With Senate passage of a sweeping immigration bill
imminent, Ryan has been meeting with House conservatives to persuade
them that reform of the immigration system, including a path to citizenship for illegal
immigrants, is an economic necessity and critical to fixing the nation's fiscal problems. Ryan, a potential 2016
presidential contender, sees himself as a "bridge builder" between
immigration advocacy groups and reluctant Republicans, he said in an
interview with Reuters. He argues that the immigration system is broken and must be overhauled. "It doesn't

work for national security. It doesn't work for economic security," Ryan said. While bi-partisan support is propelling comprehensive
immigration reform in the Senate, the Republican-controlled House will take a piecemeal approach, with passage of any "pathway to
citizenship" a longshot, at best. Supporters believe the 43-year-old lawmaker, who hails

from a moderate district in southern Wisconsin, two hours north of

Chicago, can make a difference because of his stature as a leading
conservative voice and a possible White House candidate. Anti-tax activist Grover
Norquist said the sheer amount of time Ryan has spent talking with House
Republicans about budget issues gives him the credibility to court them
on immigration reform. "I would bet you a nickel that he has had more face time with each member than anyone
else in the caucus," said Norquist, an influential conservative who also believes immigration reform is vital to the economy.

Republican strategist Whit Ayres calls Ryan "one of the most effective
messengers the Republican party has in the House," adding that "If Paul
Ryan talks, the House Republicans will listen." That assessment may be overly optimistic,

considering the large number of House Republicans from conservative districts who see legalization of illegal immigrants and
offering them a path to eventually become U.S. citizens as an "amnesty." But Ryan said a Republican-backed amendment to the
Senate bill to boost security on the U.S.-Mexico border improves the chances that the House and Senate could ultimately agree on a
compromise version of the legislation. The amendment "brings the Senate bill closer to the House's position and that gives me the
belief that we have a better chance at getting this law fixed at the end," he said. Unlike Republican Senator Marco Rubio, an architect
of the Senate immigration bill and a potential rival for Ryan if both seek the presidency, Ryan is not writing legislation or
participating in a congressional working group on the issue. But both Ryan and Rubio face risks from the divisiveness of the
immigration issue among Republicans. Support for immigration reform could cost either man votes with conservatives who will
nominate a 2016 Republican candidate. On the other hand, the influence of Hispanic-Americans in U.S. elections could make it
harder for any candidate who opposes immigration reform to win the White House. Mitt Romney, who chose Ryan as his running
mate in 2012 to shore up his conservative credentials, won less than 30 percent of the Hispanic vote, prompting Republican leaders
to re-think the party's traditional wariness of immigration reform. Should Ryan run in 2016, his support for immigration reform will
distance him from Romney's position during the campaign that illegal immigrants ought to "self-deport." Pressure on Republicans
from shifting demographics are evident in Ryan's own Wisconsin district, which has the second largest Latino population among the
state's districts. But Ryan is not a new convert to immigration reform and he says politics are not driving his embrace of it. His work
on it goes back to his days as an aide to Jack Kemp, the late congressman who saw immigration as part of a free-trade agenda. In
April, Ryan teamed up with his friend, Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who is a staunch supporter of immigration reform,
to tout the issue at an event in Chicago. He has also co-sponsored immigration reform bills in the past. Like Rubio, the son of Cuban
immigrants, Ryan talks of the work ethic of immigrants and the high proportion who start businesses. He often tells of his Irish
ancestors who fled the potato famine in the 1850s and started a family farm in Wisconsin. In the interview, he cited future budget
deficits as a reason for urgency on immigration reform. With 10,000 baby boomers retiring from the workforce each day, "our
economy is going to need more labor in the future," he said. Ryan said he believes the country needs

a system "designed for the economy, to bring workers in to do jobs that

people won't do or to bring their high-tech intellectual capital." The fiscal
argument helped fuel momentum for the Senate immigration bill when the
Congressional Budget Office estimated it would reduce deficits by $197 billion over a decade because of additional workers paying
income and payroll taxes. If Ryan is worried about a conservative backlash on immigration, he is showing no signs of it. He has
offered to debate anyone who says an "earned" path to citizenship is the equivalent of amnesty. And the man who has sparred for

years with Democrats on budget issues believes he can play a role in getting the two parties to work together. "I think when you get
Democrats to listen to Republicans and Republicans to listen to Democrats you can find the common ground," he said. Alex

Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute said Ryan could give other
Republicans political cover to support immigration reform. "Nobody is
going to question the conservative credentials of Paul Ryan," he said .

GOP k2 Immigration
GOP leaders key to immigration
Hunt 6/16- Albert R., Bloomberg View, Republicans to Watch on Immigration
June 16, 2013http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/us/17ihtletter17.html?
ref=immigrationandemigration

Republicans have an opportunity for a get-out-of-jail moment with the fastest-growing slice of the U.S.
electorate, Hispanics. An immigration bill is likely to pass the Senate by the end of the month. The

size and shape of the measure and the tone of the debate will be framed
by Republicans in the next 10 days. That may have a small impact on recalcitrant House

Republicans. It will have a larger impact on reinforcing or modifying the hostility of Hispanics to
Republicans. Party leaders dont expect to win the Hispanic vote theyve put themselves in such a
hole that it may take a generation or two to do that but to clear the deck and begin a conversation
with these voters on other issues. There are three Republican blocs to watch in the Senate this week
and next: The Presidential Aspirants Marco Rubio of Florida is an architect of the bill before the Senate
and is simultaneously trying to assuage the partys far-right base. This balancing act must keep him
awake at night. He had been pulling it off until last week, when he began playing more games that
infuriated John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, his Republican partners on
the measure. Whatever the rhetoric and however he votes on some amendments, Mr. Rubio still
is likely to support the bill in the end. That wont be the case with Senators Rand Paul
and Ted Cruz. Mr. Paul, the freshman Kentucky conservative libertarian, does remarkably well in some
of the hypothetical polls on the 2016 race. Hes trying to carve out a role as a bridge with House
Republicans on immigration. That wont work; it suggests he wont want to make a big deal of the
issue. Mr. Cruz, a Texas freshman who is the most natural Tea Party candidate for 2016, has no such
inhibitions, and seems to relish making his fellow Cuban-American, Mr. Rubio, squirm. He has called the
path to citizenship the sine qua non element of any measure for Hispanics the most divisive
aspect of the legislation, and says he is proud to be called Obamaphobic. In the Senate,
liberal-moderate Republicans are dinosaurs. There are, however, as many as a dozen
Republicans who are periodically interested in bipartisan consensus and want to support an
immigration bill. These include Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Bob Corker and Lamar
Alexander of Tennessee, Rob Portman of Ohio, Dean Heller of Nevada and Kelly Ayotte of New
Hampshire. This group generally is sensitive to finding compromises that arent deal killers for
Hispanics and that can win broader Republican support. Were not there, but I think we can find the
sweet spot, said Mr. Corker, declaring that he very much wants to vote for the legislation. Now the
important negotiations are over a tougher border security measure that, unlike the proposal by
Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, would not impede the creation of a path to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants who already are in the United States. A mischievous Rubio proposal would
require immigrants to be proficient in English before becoming citizens. Mr. Graham, noting a list of
criteria for citizenship that includes paying back taxes, learning English, understanding civics and
keeping a job, said, Hell, half my family wouldnt qualify. Only a handful of Democrats will defect. If

these Republican senators hold and generally back a middle ground on

votes over the next week or so, the bill will muster the necessary 60
votes, even in the unlikely event that Mr. Rubio peels off. An immigration

overhaul appeals to some on the right like Jeff Flake, the freshman senator from Arizona, and Paul D.
Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Budget Committee. If supporters can get an
additional half-dozen staunch Senate conservatives like Tom Coburn of
Oklahoma, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia or Orrin G.
Hatch of Utah they could approach 70 votes on final passage and create
momentum as the measure moves to the House. Mr. Hatch, a consummate deal
maker before the Tea Party made him fear for his political life in his re-election bid last year, backed
the bill in committee after winning concessions to bring in more high-technology workers. Now hes
part of a group that is trying to restrict public benefits for immigrants with ideas that are harsher than
most Democrats can accept. When the bill passes the Senate it will put enormous pressure more
than most now realize on House Republicans. Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr. Ryan and

possibly the House whip, Kevin McCarthy, whose California district is onethird Hispanic, want to pass legislation that is acceptable to the Hispanic
community. A large majority of the House Republican caucus does not.
Conservatives insist on applying the so-called Hastert rule, which allows consideration only of bills that
have a majority of the Republican caucus . If this is irreconcilable, here is a prediction,

based more on instinct than reporting: Mr. Boehner, if necessary, will

sacrifice his speakership rather than be party to the death of the
immigration overhaul. He realizes that, even though it may not much
affect congressional elections next year, his party cannot continue to lose
70 percent of the Hispanic vote and be competitive nationally.

AT: PC Not Key/PC Theory Not True

PC key to agenda - Obama does use it effectively- but its finite
and Obama perceives and acts like it is regardless
Burnett, 13
Bob Burnett, Founding Executive @ CiscoSystems, Berkeley writer, journalist,
columnist @ huffington post, 4/5, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobburnett/keystone-xl-obama_b_3020154.html

On April 3 and 4, President Obama spoke at several San Francisco fundraisers. While he didn't specifically mention
the Keystone XL pipeline, the tenor of his remarks indicated that he's likely to approve the controversial project.

Obama seems to be most influenced by his inherent political pragmatism.

I've heard Barack Obama speak on several occasions. The first was February 19, 2007, at a San Francisco oreelection fundraiser with a lengthy question and answer session. Towards the end of the event a woman asked then
presidential-candidate Obama what his position was on same-sex marriage. For an instant, Obama
seemed surprised; then he gathered himself and responded he was aware of strong feelings on both sides of this
issue and his position was evolving. Five years later, in May of 2012, President Obama announced his support for
same-sex marriage. What took Obama so long to make up his mind? No doubt he needed to clarify his own moral
position -- although the Protestant denomination he was baptized into, the United Church of Christ, announced its

the president carefully weighed the

political consequences and, last May, thought the timing was right. Over the last six years I've
support for same-sex marriage in 2005. But I'm sure

realized Barack Obama has several personas. On occasion he moves us with stirring oratory; that's Reverend
Obama, the rock star. Once in a while, he turns philosophical; that's Professor Obama, the student of American

Obama has
learned that, as president, he only gets a fixed amount of political capital
history. On April 3, I saw Politician Obama, the pragmatic leader of the Democratic Party.

each year and has learned to ration it. In 2007, he didn't feel it was worth
stirring up controversy by supporting same-sex marriage; in 2012 he
thought it was. He's a cautious pragmatist. He doesn't make snap decisions or
ones that will divert his larger agenda. Intuitively, most Democrats know this about the
president. At the beginning of 2012, many Democratic stalwarts were less than thrilled by the prospect of a second
Obama term. While their reasons varied, there was a common theme, "Obama hasn't kept his promises to my
constituency." There were lingering complaints that 2009's stimulus package should have been bigger and a
communal whine, "Obama should have listened to us." Nonetheless, by the end of the Democratic convention on
September 6, most Dems had come around. In part, this transformation occurred because from January to
September of 2012 Dems scrutinized Mitt Romney and were horrified by what they saw. In January some had
muttered, "There's no difference between Obama and Romney," but nine months later none believed that. While
many Democrats were not thrilled by Obama's first-term performance, they saw him as preferable to Romney on a

Obama got a bad rap from some Dems because they

believed he did not fight hard enough for the fiscal stimulus and affordable healthcare. In
March of 2011, veteran Washington columnist, Elizabeth Drew, described Obama as: ... a somewhat left-ofcenter pragmatist, and a man who has avoided fixed positions for most of his life. Even his
wide range of issues. In 2009,

health care proposal -- denounced by the right as a 'government takeover' and 'socialism' -- was essentially

When he cut a deal on the tax bill, announced on December 7 [2010], he

pragmatically concluded that he did not have the votes to end the Bush tax cuts for
the wealthiest, and in exchange for giving in on that he got significant
moderate or centrist.

concessions from the Republicans, such as a fairly lengthy extension of

unemployment insurance and the cut in payroll taxes. Making this deal also left
him time to achieve other things -- ratification of the START treaty, the repeal of don't
ask, don't tell. Drew's description of the president as a "left-of-center pragmatist" resonates with my sense of him.
He is a political pragmatist who, over the past five years, has learned to
guard his political capital and focus it on his highest priorities. In this year's

State-of-the-Union address half of the president's remarks concerned jobs and the economy. We gather here
knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded. Our
economy is adding jobs -- but too many people still can't find full-time employment. Corporate profits have rocketed
to all-time highs -- but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have barely budged. It is our generation's task,
then, to reignite the true engine of America's economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class. He also spoke
passionately about the need to address to address global warming, "For the sake of our children and our future, we
must do more to combat climate change." But it's clear that's a secondary objective. At one of the Bay Area
fundraisers, President Obama observed that his big challenge is to show middle-class families that, "we are working
just as hard for them as we are for an environmental agenda." Obama isn't going to block the Keystone XL pipeline
because he doesn't believe that he can make the case his action will help the middle-class.

He's conserving

his political capital. He's being pragmatic.

Issues tradeoff for Obama

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/KenWalshs-Washington/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 presidents fate is clear : his proposals are subject to pivotal voters preferences. So
if 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 influence without lobbying, then, is not much influence 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 his
a proposal),

Persuasion deals in the coin of self-interest with men who have some freedom to reject what they find

todays White House

affords its occupants an unrivaled supply of persuasive carrots and sticks .
counterfeit. (Neustadt, 1990: 40) Fortunately for contemporary presidents,

Beyond the offices 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

when it comes to the armtwisting, brow-beating, and horse-trading that so often characterizes legislative
battles, modern presidents are uniquely well equipped for the fight. In the following we
numerous other options under the chief executives control. Plainly,

employ the omnibus concept of presidential political capital to capture this conception of presidents positive

Specifi- cally, we define presidents political capital as

the class of tactics White House officials 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., AustenSmith 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
power as persuasive bargaining.

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 floating value .

Even a favorably situated president enjoys only a finite supply of political
capital ; he can only promise or pressure so much . What is more, this capital
ebbs and flows 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 influence them.

AT: PC Not Key (Ideology)

Prefer our studies examines both presidential and
congressional influence their studies dont.
Lebo 10. [Matthew J., Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, and
Andrew O'Geen, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, The Presidents Role in
the Partisan Congressional Arena Journal of Politics -- online]
A similar perspective on the importance of legislative victories is shared by White House Chief of Staff Rahm
Emanuel. His observation that When a party fails to govern, it fails electorally, is indicative of a view in
Washington that electoral fortunes are closely tied to legislative outcomes. This view is echoed in theories of

the
consequences of presidential failure to members of his party are largely
unexplored in empirical research. Also, while the fairly deep literature on the
causes of presidential success has focused a lot on the partisan
environment within which the presidents legislative battles are won and
lost, it pays less attention to theories of congressional parties . Our
political parties in Congress (e.g., Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005; Lebo, McGlynn, and Koger 2007). But

attempt to combine these theories with a view of the president as the

central actor in the partisan wars is meant to integrate the literatures
the two institutions

on

Even as the study of parties in Congress continues to deepen our understanding of that

the role of the president is usually left out or marginalized . At the same
time, research that centers on the presidents success has developed with little crossover. The result is
that well-developed theories of parties in Congress exist but we know
much less about how parties connect the two branches. For example, between
branch,

models of conditional party government (Aldrich and Rohde 2001; Rohde 1991), Cartel Theory (Cox and McCubbins

we have an advanced understanding of how

parties are important in Congress, but little knowledge of where the
president fits. As the head of his party, the presidents role in the partisan
politics of Congress should be central.
1993, 2005), and others (e.g., Patty 2008),

AT: Hirsch
Wins dont spill over- bruising effort doesnt generate capitaltheir author
Michael Hirsch, Daily Beast, 1-19-2010
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/19/the-politics-of-hubris.html

There was nothing new about this, of course. It falls into the age-old annals of hubris, the same excess of pride that got Achilles and

Obama apparently did buy into the idea that he was a Man of Destiny
possessed bottomless supplies of political capital . But he really had no
more political capital than any first-year president, and he was straining his reserves just dealing
with the stimulus and financial reform, much less fixing Afghanistan. I first became worried about this
Agamemnon in trouble with the gods.
and, being one,

bridge-too-far problem last year while covering financial reform on the Hill, when various congressional staffers told me their bosses
didn't really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the legislation with loopholes.

Health care

was sucking all the oxygen out of the room and from their brains, the aides said. Obama and his
team seemed barely focused on transforming the financial systemexcept now, belatedlyand left a lot of the infighting to
regulators like Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Obama had spoken admiringly of Ronald
Reagan as a transformational president. And yet at what would seem to be a similar historical inflection pointwhat should have
been the end of Reaganite free-market fundamentalism and a laserlike scourging of Wall StreetObama seemed to put this once-in-

he has a terrific fight on his hands

over health care, that Obama is talking about seriously breaking up the structure of Wall Street. The big-bank lobby will
a-lifetime task on a back burner. It is only now, a year later, when

dig in big time of course, and seek to buy everyone it can on Capitol Hill, which means that the president will need even more

when the president did do h ealth c are

whatever version of it squeaks through nowhe seemed to be getting such a meager result
for so bruising an effort that it will be a long time before anyone has the
stomach to set it right legislatively.
political capital that he no longer has. Just as bad,

Regardless of general capital, the plan pushes immigration off

the agendaHirsch concedes this matters even if capital isnt
true
Michael Hirsh, National Journal, 2/7/13, Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital,
www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital20130207
Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of
course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing
to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used
up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the real
problem was that the plan was unpopular , the economy was bad, and the president
didnt realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against biggovernment intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in
2009 and 2010haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount
of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pocketsgovernment-imposed health care

Cue the tea

party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on
pushing an issue that was out of sync with the countrys mood. Unlike Bush,
Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform
was that it distracted the governments attention from other issues that
coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus.

Various
congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didnt really have the
time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform
legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room ,
people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform.

the aides said.

AT: Winners Win

Even if a confrontational strategy is key, that doesnt mean the
plans singular win spills-overits more likely to undermine
Obamas careful strategy on that issue
Ryan Lizza, 1/7/13, Will Hagel Spike the G.O.P.s Fever?,
www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/how-much-will-the-nominationof-chuck-hagel-hurt-obamas-second-term-agenda.html
Obamas victory has made almost no difference in changing the
psychology or incentives of the members of the G.O.P. who matter most: the
But

House Republicans. The idea that a bloc of conservative, mostly Southern, Republicans would start to coperate
with the President on issues like tax policy and immigration may have rested on a faulty assumption. The past few
weeks of fiscal-cliff drama have taught us that breaking

the fever was the wrong

metaphor . There is no one event even the election of a Presidentthat can change a
political party overnight. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and House Republicans feel
that they have as much of a mandate for their policies as Obama does for his. Shouldnt House Republicans care
that their views on Obamas priorities, like tax cuts for the rich and immigration, helped cost Romney the White
House and will make it difficult for their partys nominee to win in 2016? In the abstract, many do, but thats not
enough to change the voting behavior of the average House Republican, who represents a gerrymandered and very

A better metaphor for the coming battles with Congress may

be what Woody Hayes, the college-football coach, famously called three yards and a cloud of
conservative district.

dust : a series of grinding plays where small victories are earned only
after lots of intense combat. While the fiscal-cliff showdown demonstrated
that theres potential for bipartisan deal-making in the Senate, passing
any Obama priority through the House of Representatives is nearly
impossible unless the political pressure is extremely intense . The fiscalcliff bill passed the House only when Speaker John Boehners members realized that their only alternative was
blowing up the settlement negotiated by Joe Biden and Mitch McConnelland accepting all the blame and

offers the White House a general template for the

coming fights over spending, immigration, and gun controlthree issues where there is
very little consensus between Obama and most House Republicans. Deals
consequences. That episode

will have to be negotiated in the Senate and gain the imprimatur of some
high-profile Republicans. Then a pressure campaign will have to be
mounted to convince Boehner to move the legislation to the floor of the
House under rules that allow it to pass with mostly Democratic votes. Its
easier to see how this could happen with the coming budgetary issues,

which have deadlines that force action, than for the rest of Obamas agenda, which is more likely than not to simply
die in the House.

Winners win is wrong--leading scholar says so

Jackie Calmes, "In Debt Talks, Obama Is Ready to Go Beyond Beltway," NEW YORK
TIMES, 11--12--12, LN.
That story line, stoked by Republicans but shared by some Democrats, holds that Mr. Obama is
too passive and deferential to Congress, a legislative naf who does little to nurture personal

relationships with potential allies - in short, not a particularly strong leader. Even as voters re-elected Mr.
Obama, those who said in surveys afterward that strong leadership was the most important quality for a president

Edwards III, a leading scholar of the

presidency at Texas A & M University who is currently teaching at Oxford University, dismissed such
criticisms as shallow and generally wrong. Yet Mr. Edwards, whose book on Mr.
Obama's presidency is titled "Overreach," said, "He didn't understand the limits of
what he could do." "They thought they could continuously create
opportunities and they would succeed, and then there would be more
success and more success, and we'd build this advancing-tide theory of
legislation," Mr. Edwards said. "And that was very nave, very silly. Well, they've
learned a lot, I think." "Effective leaders," he added, "exploit opportunities rather
than create them." The budget showdown is an opportunity. But like many, it
holds risks as well as potential rewards. "This election is the second chance to be what he promised in 2008,
overwhelmingly chose Mr. Romney. George C.

and that is to break the gridlock in Washington," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a Reagan White House chief of staff,
who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and later expressed disappointment. "But it seems like this is a replay of 2009
and 2010, when he had huge majorities in the House and Senate, rather than recognizing that 'we've got to figure
out ways to work together and it's not just what I want.' " For now, at least, Republican lawmakers say they may be
open to raising the tax bill for some earners. "We can increase revenue without increasing the tax rates on anybody
in this country," said Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia and a leader of House conservatives, on "Fox

The challenge for Mr.

Obama is to use his postelection leverage to persuade Republicans - or to
help Speaker John A. Boehner persuade Republicans - that a tax compromise is in
their party's political interest since most Americans favor compromise and higher taxes on the
News Sunday." "We can lower the rates, broaden the base, close the loopholes."

wealthy to reduce annual deficits. Some of the business leaders the president will meet with on Wednesday are
members of the new Fix the Debt coalition, which has raised about $40 million to urge lawmakers and their
constituents to support a plan that combines spending cuts with new revenue. That session will follow Mr. Obama's
meeting with labor leaders on Tuesday. His first trip outside Washington to engage the public will come after
Thanksgiving, since Mr. Obama is scheduled to leave next weekend on a diplomatic trip to Asia. Travel plans are still
sketchy, partly because his December calendar is full of the traditional holiday parties. Democrats said the White
House's strategy of focusing both inside and outside of Washington was smart. "You want to avoid getting sucked
into the Beltway inside-baseball games," said Joel Johnson, a former adviser in the Clinton White House and the
Senate. "You can still work toward solutions, but make sure you get out of Washington while you are doing that."

The president must use his leverage soon, some Democrats added, because it
could quickly wane as Republicans look to the 2014 midterm elections, when the opposition typically
takes seats from the president's party in Congress.

PC finite- legislative wins dont spillover empirics, true for

Obama, too polarized

Todd Eberly is coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the
Department of Political Science at St. Mary's College of Maryland. His email is
teeberly@smcm.edu. This article is excerpted from his book, co-authored with
Steven Schier, "American Government and Popular Discontent: Stability without
Success," to published later this year by Routledge Press., 1-21-2013
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital20130121_1_political-system-party-support-public-opinion/2
As Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of the United States, he faces the stark reality that little
of what he hopes to accomplish in a second term will likely come to pass . Mr. Obama
occupies an office that many assume to be all powerful, but like so many of his recent predecessors, the
president knows better. He faces a political capital problem and a power trap. In the post-1960s
American political system, presidents have found the exercise of effective leadership a difficult task. To
lead well, a president needs support or at least permission from federal courts and Congress; steady allegiance from public
opinion and fellow partisans in the electorate; backing from powerful, entrenched interest groups; and accordance with contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of
government. This is a long list of requirements.

If presidents fail to satisfy these requirements, they face the

prospect of inadequate political support or political capital to back their power

assertions. What was so crucial about the 1960s? We can trace so much of what defines contemporary politics to trends that emerged then. Americans' confidence in
government began a precipitous decline as the tumult and tragedies of the 1960s gave way to the scandals and economic uncertainties of the 1970s. Long-standing party coalitions
began to fray as the New Deal coalition, which had elected Franklin Roosevelt to four terms and made Democrats the indisputable majority party, faded into history. The election of

two parties began ideologically

divergent journeys that resulted in intense polarization in Congress, diminishing the
possibility of bipartisan compromise. These changes, combined with the growing influence of money and interest groups and the steady
"thickening" of the federal bureaucracy, introduced significant challenges to presidential
leadership. Political capital can best be understood as a combination of the president's party support in Congress, public approval of his job performance, and the
Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of an unprecedented era of divided government. Finally, the

president's electoral victory margin. The components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval,
congressional support and partisan affiliation provide less backing for a president than in times past.

In recent years, presidents'

political capital has shrunk while their power assertions have grown,

making the

president a volatile player in the national political system. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush joined the small ranks of incumbents defeated while seeking a second term. Ronald
Reagan was elected in two landslides, yet his most successful year for domestic policy was his first year in office. Bill Clinton was twice elected by a comfortable margin, but with less
than majority support, and despite a strong economy during his second term, his greatest legislative successes came during his first year with the passage of a controversial but crucial
budget bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. George W. Bush won election in 2000 having lost the popular vote, and though his impact
on national security policy after the Sept. 11 attacks was far reaching, his greatest domestic policy successes came during 2001. Ambitious plans for Social Security reform, following his
narrow re-election in 2004, went nowhere. Faced with obstacles to successful leadership, recent presidents have come to rely more on their formal powers. The number of important
executive orders has increased significantly since the 1960s, as have the issuance of presidential signing statements. Both are used by presidents in an attempt to shape and direct
policy on their terms. Presidents have had to rely more on recess appointments as well, appointing individuals to important positions during a congressional recess (even a weekend
recess) to avoid delays and obstruction often encountered in the Senate. Such power assertions typically elicit close media scrutiny and often further erode political capital. Barack
Obama's election in 2008 seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50
percent mark since Lyndon Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative
accomplishments during his first year and early into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his
political capital waned. His impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party
movement, the collapse in his approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided government. By mid-2011, Mr. Obama's job approval
had slipped well below its initial levels, and Congress was proving increasingly intransigent. In the face of declining public support and rising congressional opposition, Mr. Obama, like his
predecessors, looked to the energetic use of executive power. In 2012, the president relied on executive discretion and legal ambiguity to allow homeowners to more easily refinance
federally backed mortgages, to help veterans find employment and to make it easier for college graduates to consolidate federal student loan debt. He issued several executive orders
effecting change in the nation's enforcement of existing immigration laws. He used an executive order to authorize the Department of Education to grant states waivers from the
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act though the enacting legislation makes no accommodation for such waivers. Contrary to the outcry from partisan opponents, Mr. Obama's
actions were hardly unprecedented or imperial. Rather, they represented a rather typical power assertion from a contemporary president. Many looked to the 2012 election as a means
to break present trends. But Barack

Obama's narrow re-election victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhat-diminished Republican
hardly signals a grand resurgence of political capital

majority House and Democratic majority Senate,

his
.
The president's recent issuance of multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in
Congress, the president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode his political capital. Only by solving the
problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power trap.

Presidents

in recent years

have been unable to

prevent their political capital from eroding . When it did, their power assertions often got them into further political
trouble. Through leveraging public support, presidents have at times been able to overcome contemporary leadership challenges by adopting as their own issues that the public already
supports. Bill Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W. Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed them to secure important policy changes in Mr. Clinton's

short-term
legislative strategies may win policy success for a president but do not serve as an
antidote to declining p olitical c apital over time, as the difficult final years of both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
presidencies demonstrate. None of Barack Obama's recent predecessors solved the political capital problem or avoided the power trap. It is the
central political challenge confronted by modern presidents and one that will likely weigh heavily
case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Mr. Bush's tax cuts and education reform that at the time received popular approval. However,

on the current president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.

Comparative- our internal link is MORE likely

David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst, 1/19/13, Obama 2.0: Smarter,
tougher -but wiser?, www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-obamatwo/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Smarter, tougher, bolder -his new style is paying off politically. But in the long run, will it also pay off in better governance? Perhaps

there are ample reasons to wonder, and worry.

to resolve major issues like deficits, immigration, guns and energy, the president and
Congress need to find ways to work together much better than they did in the first term. Over the
past two years, Republicans were clearly more recalcitrant than Democrats, practically declaring
war on Obama, and the White House has been right to adopt a tougher
approach after the elections. But a growing number of Republicans concluded after
they had their heads handed to them in November that they had to move away from extremism
toward a more center-right position, more open to working out
compromises with Obama. It's not that they suddenly wanted Obama to succeed; they didn't want their party to
-and for the country's sake, let's hope so. Yet,
Ultimately,

fail. House Speaker John Boehner led the way, offering the day after the election to raise taxes on the wealthy and giving up two

decades of GOP orthodoxy. In a similar spirit, Rubio has been developing a mainstream plan on immigration, moving away from a

the hope, small as it was, to take a brief timeout on

hyperpartisanship in order to tackle the big issues is now slipping away.
ruinous GOP stance. One senses that

While a majority of Americans now approve of Obama's job performance, conservatives increasingly believe that in his new
toughness, he is going overboard, trying to run over them. They don't see a president who wants to roll up his sleeves and
negotiate; they see a president who wants to barnstorm the country to beat them up. News that Obama is converting his campaign
apparatus into a nonprofit to support his second term will only deepen that sense. And it frustrates them that he is winning: At their
retreat, House Republicans learned that their disapproval has risen to 64%.

Conceivably , Obama's tactics could

pressure Republicans into capitulation on several fronts. More likely, they will be
spoiling for more fights . Chances for a "grand bargain" appear to be
hanging by a thread.

Links

Generic

Link Uniqueness (General)

Obama is ignoring Latin America trade and engagement are
declining
Oppenheimer 5-8 (Andres Oppenheimer is a Miami Herald syndicated

columnist and a member of The Miami Herald team that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize.
He is the author of Castro's Final Hour; Bordering on Chaos, Cronicas de heroes y
bandidos, Ojos vendados, Cuentos Chinos and most recently, Saving the Americas.
Andres Oppenheimer: What Obama didnt say about Latin America. Miami Herald.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/08/3387818/andres-oppenheimer-obamashould.html)
Ive read with great attention President Barack Obamas article in The Miami Herald earlier this week on how to
improve U.S. relations with Latin America. It was pretty disappointing. The article, headlined Improving our
Partnership and published after Obamas return from a trip to Mexico and Costa Rica, says that this is a moment

it
showed the absence of any U.S. plans to drastically expand trade ties with
Latin America like the Obama administration has done with Asia and
Europe or any sign that, in his second term, Obama will pay greater
attention to this hemisphere. Before we get into what Obama should do, lets take a quick look at
of great promise for our hemisphere and is full of feel-good talk about the future of the Americas. But, sadly,

the facts. In his article, Obama stated that about 40 percent of U.S. exports are currently going to Latin America,
and that these exports are growing at a faster pace than U.S. shipments to the rest of the world. Also, Obama
celebrated that the U.S. Congress is finally close to approving comprehensive immigration reform. While thats a
U.S. domestic issue, it would have a positive economic impact on Mexico and Central America, since millions of
newly legalized immigrants would be able to visit their native countries, and would most likely be sending more
money to their families back home. But here are some of the facts that Obama failed to mention in his article:

U.S. total trade with Latin America has actually fallen as a percentage of
total U.S. trade over the past decade. While 39 percent of overall U.S. trade was with the
Western Hemisphere in 2000, that percentage fell to 38 percent in 2012, according to U.S. Department of
Commerce data. Despite

Obamas May 23, 2008, campaign promise to launch a new alliance of the

Americas, he has not started any major hemispheric free trade initiative. By
comparison, every recent U.S. president had started or at least tried to start a hemisphere-wide trade deal.

Obama has launched the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade talks with
mostly Asian countries, and a similar Trans-Atlantic Partnership free trade
negotiation with the 27-member European Union, but has not announced
any plans for a Trans-American Partnership. Granted, he has helped ratify free trade deals

with Colombia and Panama, which had been signed by his predecessor. And, sure, the Trans-Pacific Partnership plan
includes a few Latin American countries, such as Mexico, Peru and Chile, but they are a minority within the
proposed new bloc. In his May 2 trip to Mexico, Obama failed to meet Mexicos request to be included in the U.S.proposed Trans-Atlantic partnership free trade talks with the European Union. The Mexican governments had asked
that Mexico and Canada be included in the Trans-Atlantic Partnership plan, so that the proposed deal could become
a North American-European Union deal. But the White House response was, not yet. Despite Obamas 2011
announcement of a plan to increase to 100,000 the number of Latin American students in U.S. colleges, and to
100,000 the number of U.S. students in Latin American universities his most ambitious initiative for the region
progress on the project has been slow. The plan calls for significant private sector funding, but Obama has invested
little time, or political capital, in it. Fund-raising has been left in charge of the State Department, whose boss
Secretary of State

John Kerry has shown scant interest in Latin America.

Obama will not increase US economic relations to Latin

America
Mike Allison 5/2/13 associate professor in the political science department at the

University of Scranton in Pennsylvania US President Barack Obama Returns to Latin

America
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/2013430105115612555.html

leaders and people of Central America as well as

Mexico are highly interested in what the President has to say about
comprehensive immigration reform. Guatemala will also be interested in learning whether
As a result of these issues, the

there has been any progress on its request for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). El Salvador, on the other hand,
awaits word on whether TPS for its citizens will be extended past its expiry in September. How the US treats people,
whether documented or not, within its borders is a test of democracy and human rights. However, as in Mexico,
Obama needs to somehow make the strengthening of democracy and the promotion of human rights priorities in
the US' relations with Central America. Honduras has been unable to recover from the June 2009 coup that removed
President Manuel Zelaya from office; with the highest homicide rate in the world, police officers, lawyers, teachers,
journalists, taxi drivers, gays and lesbians, and democracy and human rights activists are now being killed at
alarming rates. The executive, legislative and judicial branches are all at loggerheads with one another and are
perhaps more the problem than the solution. While popular, President Daniel Ortega continues to erode democratic

It is unlikely that
Obama is going to announce a significant increase in US
economic assistance to the region and the US already has free trade agreements with
Mexico (NAFTA) and Central America (DR-CAFTA). The US is unlikely to agree to significant
drug policy reforms, such as decriminalisation and regulation, desired by so many. Nor is the US
likely to cut security assistance to Honduras and Mexico even as their forces continue to
structures in Nicaragua following his questionably legal re-election in 2011.

be involved in wide-scale abuses, including extrajudicial executions. Obama could make a difference, however,
returning democracy and human rights to the top of the agenda. In a 1989 conference of the Council of the
Americas, President George HW Bush said that a commitment to democracy and market economies would help
define relations between the US and Latin America. At the first Summit of the Americas to take place in Miami,
Florida, in 1994, President Bill Clinton and the heads of state of every Latin American country, except Cuba, agreed
on an ambitious plan to deepen democracy and human rights, to achieve economic growth and improve income
redistribution within market economies, eliminate poverty and discrimination, and secure environmentally
sustainable development. Progress on each of those issues was uneven, at best, during the Clinton and George W
Bush administrations. President Obama's trip to Mexico and Costa Rica provides an opportunity for the US and the
region to recommit themselves to strengthening democratic institutions and respecting human rights.

Obama isnt involved in Latin America policy now

Roett 2012 (Riordan, director of the Latin American Studies program at the Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. What Will Obama's Second
Term Mean for Latin America? Inter-American Dialogue.
http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3135)
"While the president's re-election is welcome in general terms , it is difficult to
imagine Latin America will receive greater attention in the next four
years. Congress remains deeply divided. The administration's foreign
policy priorities will continue to focus on China, the Middle East and the
ongoing fiscal challenges. Given the strong turnout by the Latino community, one
area that should receive priority is continued immigration reform, but it is the third rail for
the Republican majority in the House. In general, the democratic governments of the region
will welcome the president's election without great expectation for major policy initiatives.
The populist regimes will continue to denounce any democratically elected administration.

The deadlock over Cuba will continue unless there is a dramatic

leadership shift to a new generation. The major policy initiative that would be
welcome in the region is on drug policy, but that issue will remain taboo."

Obamas not spending PC on L.A. now

Isacson 2011 (Adam, senior associate at WOLA. President Obamas Upcoming
Trip to Latin America Washington Office on Latin America.

http://www.wola.org/commentary/president_obama_s_upcoming_trip_to_latin_ameri
ca)
Though Latin Americans perceptions of the United States have improved since a low point during the Bush
administration,

our country is no longer the central player in the economic lives

of most Latin American countries, either through trade or aid.

As a result, it

carries much less political weight. Though it is not his intention, President Obamas trip will underscore

that

the era of unquestioned U.S. leadership has ended , as the President himself
acknowledged at the 2009 Summit of the Americas, when he emphasized building an equal partnership with the
regions states. Not all of the messages will be positive, however. In a time of reduced power and deep budget cuts,
President Obama will be arriving largely empty-handed.

There is relatively little new economic

aid to offer ; much of what the Administration can propose is re-programming to meet priority needs,
improved coordination, and technical assistance. These are important, but not a substitute for new assistance and
new initiatives .

Not only can we expect few offers of new economic aid, we can

expect few commitments to spend substantial political capital.

The

administration, though supportive, is unlikely to make a major political commitment to help Latin America address
what, according to opinion polls throughout the region, are its main concerns: public security, unemployment, weak
institutions, and migration.

U.S. not increasing engagement now

Isacson, Adam 3/10/11 Senior Associate at the Washington office on Latin
America
(http://www.wola.org/commentary/president_obama_s_upcoming_trip_to_latin_ameri
ca)
Not all of the messages will be positive, however. In a time of reduced power and deep budget cuts, President
Obama will be arriving largely empty-handed. There is relatively little new
economic aid to offer; much of what the Administration can propose is reprogramming to meet priority needs, improved coordination, and technical
assistance. These are important, but not a substitute for new assistance and new initiatives. Not only
can we expect few offers of new economic aid, we can expect few
commitments to spend substantial political capital. The administration,
though supportive, is unlikely to make a major political commitment to help Latin
America address what, according to opinion polls throughout the region, are its main concerns: public security,
unemployment, weak institutions, and migration. While crime and violence will be mentioned in Brazil and El
Salvador, the most President Obama is likely to offer is a commitment to maintain modest existing levels of
assistance for police and judicial institution-building. On the economy and jobs, the President will visit Chile and
Brazil, whose growth rates dwarf our own. In his visit to El Salvador, whose economy is only beginning to recover
from the financial crisis that hit the United States, the President is likely to support targeted anti-poverty efforts, but
no major new initiatives. Strengthening institutions requires supporting reformers both in government and civil
society, including human rights defenders and leaders of unions and social movements something on which the
U.S. record is mixed. On migration a third-rail political issue in todays Washington we can expect little. (El
Salvador seeks a long-term resolution of the status of the two hundred thousand Salvadorans still here on a
temporary protected basis, but no immediate solution is at hand.) We will hear words like partnership and
engagement used quite heavily and repeatedly in the course of this trip. This is certainly the right tone to take.
But those words have little meaning, though, if they dont come with a commitment to expend resources both
political and financial to help our partners address their own concerns, even if it occasionally displeases a
domestic political constituency. True partners are also willing to admit when their policies are not working, rather
than forge blindly ahead as we have done in Cuba, the drug war, our trade policy and elsewhere .

Latin
America no longer revolves around the U.S. sun, and our policy toward
the region can no longer act as though it does. Lets hope that the tone and content of
the Presidents visit reflect that.

U.S. isnt increasing engagement in aid or trade now

Isacson, Adam 3/10/11 Senior Associate at the Washington office on Latin

America
(http://www.wola.org/commentary/president_obama_s_upcoming_trip_to_latin_ameri
ca)
When President Obama travels to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador from March 19th to
23rd, he will encounter a vastly different region than the one his predecessors
visited. A generation ago, the region was a bit like a solar system, its
countries revolving tightly around the sun of U.S. political, economic
and military power. Today, that power is diminished. The planets are
now determining their own independent orbits, some are becoming suns
in their own right, and other stars (China, India, Europe) are exerting
more gravitational pull. Though Latin Americans perceptions of the United States have improved
since a low point during the Bush administration, our country is no longer the central player in
the economic lives of most Latin American countries, either through trade
or aid. As a result, it carries much less political weight. Though it is not his intention,
President Obamas trip will underscore that the era of unquestioned U.S. leadership has ended, as the
President himself acknowledged at the 2009 Summit of the Americas, when he emphasized building an equal
partnership with the regions states.

Obamas reducing aid to Latin America

Meyer, Peter J and Sullivan, Mark P. Analyst and Specialist in Latin American
Affairs
6/26/12 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf)
Obama Administrations FY2013 foreign aid budget request would continue
the recent downward trend in assistance to Latin America and the
Caribbean. The Administration has requested some $1.7 billion for the region to be provided through the
The

State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). If Congress appropriates funding at
the requested levels,

Latin America and the Caribbean would receive nearly 9%

less assistance than the region received in FY2012, and about 11% less than in FY2011. The
proposed cuts are widespread, affecting nearly every foreign aid account.
Colombia, Haiti, and Mexico would see some of the largest absolute dollar
declines, but would remain the top three regional recipients, collectively accounting for some 55% of the aid to
the region. Beyond the assistance provided through the State Department and USAID, many Latin American and
Caribbean nations will continue to receive additional aid from agencies such as the Department of Defense, the
Inter- American Foundation, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Peace Corps.

Foreign Policy Changes Drain PC

Foreign policy changes drain PC
Helen V. Milner (B. C. Forbes Professor of Politics and International Affairs at
Princeton University and the director of the Niehaus Center for Globalization and
Governance at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School) and Dustin H. Tingley
(Assistant Professor of Government at Harvard University) Who Supports Global
Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic
Policy International Organization 65, Winter 2011, pp. 3768
In democracies, governments have to build domestic support for the use of
foreign policy tools. In the United States, which we focus on in this article, presidents must
build legislative coalitions because of the separation of powers system.
Presidents are not free to simply design the optimal policy for foreign
engagement; instead they must obtain domestic approval . Legislators may
have their own preferences about foreign policy, given the impact policy
has on their local constituencies and therefore their reelection prospects.
Legislators may find it politically costly to yield to the presidents foreign
policy concerns. Foreign policy, then, results from some combination of these domestic and international
pressures.

Presidents must expend PC to achieve foreign policy goals

Helen V. Milner (B. C. Forbes Professor of Politics and International Affairs at

Princeton University and the director of the Niehaus Center for Globalization and
Governance at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School) and Dustin H. Tingley
(Assistant Professor of Government at Harvard University) Who Supports Global
Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic
Policy International Organization 65, Winter 2011, pp. 3768
Presidential Power and Foreign Policy Concerns Studies of foreign policy often claim that the president is the

Legislators follow the presidents lead because presidents

have more intense preferences and better knowledge about foreign policy .
dominant actor. 30

In this theory, presidents have strong preferences over policies such as aid and trade because these are important
foreign policy tools, and presidents are responsible for responding to foreign policy challenges. However, as Krasner

Congress provides an important check on the ability of the

president to implement his foreign policy goals: The political needs and constituencies of
has noted,

Congressmen are different from those of the President.... Because Congressmen represent geographically specific
areas, they are bound to have different concerns from the presidents. While the President can be held accountable
for the broad effect of policy, rarely can members of the legislature. To get reelected, members of Congress must

presidents need to convince

legislators to vote for their foreign policy choices often against the
legislators preferences. Such presidential influence is likely to arise from
several sources, including the linking of national security concerns to
trade or aid ~that is, playing the security card! and the offer of side
payments to legislators. 32 As we discuss later, the African Growth and Opportunity Act ~AGOA!
serve relatively narrow constituencies. 31 By this account,

provides an interesting case where President Bill Clinton had to use both strategies to craft a winning legislative
coalition to advance a foreign policy priority. Following other scholars, we argue that legislators often listen to or are
persuaded by the presidents foreign policy concerns and, following party loyalty vote in accord with the president.
Presidents propose foreign policy to meet external pressures, and legislators vote in favor if they come from the
presidents party and against if they are from the opposition party. 33 The ability of presidents to get their
preferences realized in Congress, despite other influences, has been examined. 34 Fleisher, Krutz, and Hanna show

that presidents rate of success in getting their legislation in foreign

policy passed is extremely high, and higher than in domestic policy. 35 These data

suggest that presidents foreign policy concerns can often override the
local constituency interests of legislators.

Foreign Aid Unpop

Congress wants to cut foreign aid to L.A. now

Meyer and Sullivan 2012 (Peter and Mark, Analyst in Latin American Affairs;
Specialist in Latin American Affairs. U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and
the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2013
Appropriations Congressional Research Service.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf)
Foreign assistance is one of the tools the United States has employed to
advance U.S. interests in

Latin America and the Caribbean , with the focus and

funding levels of aid programs changing along with broader U.S. policy goals. Current aid programs reflect the
diversity of the countries in the region. Some countries receive the full range of U.S. assistance as they continue
to struggle with political, socio-economic, and security challenges. Others, which have made major strides in
democratic governance and economic and social development, have largely outgrown U.S. assistance but
continue to receive some support for new security challenges, such as strengthening citizen security and
combating transnational organized crime

. Although U.S.

relations with the nations of

Latin America and the Caribbean have increasingly become less

the provision of U.S. assistance as a result of this progress

, foreign aid continues to

defined by

play an

important role in advancing U.S. policy in the region. Congress authorizes

and appropriates foreign assistance to the region,

and conducts oversight of

aid

programs and the executive branch agencies charged with managing them. Current efforts to reduce budget
deficits in the aftermath of the recent global financial crisis and U.S. recession have triggered closer examination
of competing budget priorities.

Congress has identified foreign

potential area for spending cuts,

assistance as a

placing greater scrutiny on the efficiency and

U.S. aid programs. Spending caps enacted as part of the Budget Control Act of
downward pressure on the aid budget for the foreseeable future.

effectiveness of

2011 (P.L. 112-25)1 could place

Renewable Energy Unpop

Pushing renewables decimates Obamas pc
Friedman 6/26 (DAN FRIEDMAN DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER; June 26, 2013;
Cool hand Bam Prez: I'll take on climate control measures by myself; Daily News
New York; lexis)//KDUB
Obama said he would tell the Environmental Protection Agency to impose the first limits on carbon
pollution from power plants by 2015, one of a series of steps to tackle global warming
without approval from a mostly opposed Congress. Wearing no jacket, the President rolled up his

sleeves in 91-degree heat and stifling humidity at the start of his outdoor speech at Georgetown University. Noting
2012 was the warmest year in U.S. history, he dismissed skeptics who question whether human activity causes
rising temperatures. "I don't have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real," Obama said.
"We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel
safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm." The plan drew cheers from environmentalists and
attacks from lawmakers of both parties representing energy-producing states. " It's

clear now that the

President has declared a war on coal," said Sen. Joe Manchin, (D-W.Va.), whose
state relies on the coal industry. "It's simply unacceptable that one of the key elements
of his climate change proposal places regulations on coal that are completely impossible to meet with existing

Obama raised the prospect of rejecting plans for the

Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. He said his
administration will block it unless it does "not significantly exacerbate the
problem of carbon pollution." The President said he directed the EPA to work
with states and industries to set local pollution standards and new goals
for carbon reduction. He outlined plans to raise federal investment in renewable energy. Obama
technology." Also Tuesday,

promised tougher fuel economy standards for trucks and called for an "end of public financing for new coal plants
overseas." Despite the steps, Obama said a carbon buildup means the Earth will keep warming. "The fact that sea
levels in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago - that didn't cause Hurricane
Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and under
water," he said.

OAS Unpopular
House Conservatives dont support OAS
The Economist 11 (Partnership, and its obstacles: Barack Obamas fitful
attempts to strike a new tone in relations with Latin America face new obstacles
from Republicans in Congress, The Economist Print edition publication, 9-3-11,
http://www.economist.com/node/21528271)//TQ

SHORTLY after he took office in 2009, Barack Obama attended a 34-country Summit of the Americas in Trinidad
where he pledged a new era of partnership between the two halves of the region, in place of stale debates and
old ideologies. Honouring this promise has not been easy: Mr Obama has had other priorities, both abroad and at
home, and events in the region, such as a coup in Honduras just two months after the Trinidad summit, revived

the administration has taken some modest

initiatives in Latin America. But now the new partnership risks falling
victim to partisan infighting in Washington. In July the Republican majority on
a committee of the House of Representatives deleted funding for the Organisation of
American States (OAS) from next year's budget. Conservatives dislike the OAS's
secretary-general, Jos Miguel Insulza, a Chilean social democrat, whom they accuse of
some of those old debates. Nevertheless,

complicity with threats to democracy and media freedom from leftist autocrats, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chvez.
The Republicans have similarly used their powers to hold up the appointment of administration nominees for

At the same time,

American ambassadors have been expelled from, or not accepted in, Venezuela,
diplomatic jobs whom they consider too conciliatory towards Mr Chvez and his friends.
Ecuador and (in 2008) Bolivia.

Latin America Economic Engagement Popular

Congress supports engagement with Latin America
Palmer 12 (Reuters. Boehner urges deeper US engagement in Latin America
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/usa-trade-boehneridUSL1E8G81HM20120508)
WASHINGTON, May 8 (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress' top Republican on Tuesday called
for deeper U.S economic engagement with Latin America , but also expressed
concern over Iranian influence in the region and the "alarming willingness" of some governments to abandon
international norms. "In both Colombia and

Mexico, and the entire hemisphere, the U.S. must be

clear that we will not disengage in the fight for free markets and free,
secure people," U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said in remarks prepared for
delivery at the U.S. State Department. "We must be clear that we will be there, with our friends and partners in the
region, committed to fighting and winning the war for a free, stable, and prosperous hemisphere," Boehner said,
speaking to the Council of Americas, an organization representing companies that do business in the region.
Boehner is due on Tuesday to receive an award from the group for his work last year on winning congressional
approval of free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

Cuba

Cuba Policy Unpopular (General)

Changing policy toward Cuba requires lots of PC
Williams 13 (A foreign correspondent for 25 years, Carol J. Williams traveled to
and reported from more than 80 countries in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin
America. A foreign correspondent for 25 years, Carol J. Williams traveled to and
reported from more than 80 countries in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin
America. May 03, 2013 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/03/world/la-fg-wncuba-us-terror-list-20130502)
Politicians who have pushed for a continued hard line against Cuba
cheered their victory in getting the Obama administration to keep Cuba on
the list. U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a South Florida Republican whose efforts to isolate and punish the Castro
regime have been a central plank of her election strategy throughout her 24 years in Congress, hailed the State

Aramesh, a national
blamed the continued branding of Cuba as a
terrorism sponsor on politicians pandering for a certain political base. He
also said President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry have failed to make a
priority of removing the impediment to better relations with Cuba . As much as
Department decision as reaffirming the threat that the Castro regime represents. Arash
security analyst at Stanford Law School,

Id like to see the Castro regime gone and an open and free Cuba, it takes away from the State Departments
credibility when they include countries on the list that arent even close to threatening Americans, Aramesh said.
Political considerations also factor into excluding countries from the state sponsor list, he said, pointing to
Pakistan as a prime example. Although Islamabad very clearly supports terrorist and insurgent organizations, he
said, the U.S. government has long refused to provoke its ally in the region with the official censure. The decision to
retain Cuba on the list surprised some observers of the long-contentious relationship between Havana and
Washington. Since Fidel Castro retired five years ago and handed the reins of power to his younger brother, Raul,
modest economic reforms have been tackled and the government has revoked the practice of requiring Cubans to
get exit visas before they could leave their country for foreign travel. There was talk early in Obamas first term of
easing the 51-year-old embargo, and Kerry, though still in the Senate then, wrote a commentary for the Tampa Bay
Tribune in 2009 in which he deemed the security threat from Cuba a faint shadow. He called then for freer travel
between the two countries and an end to the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba that has manifestly failed for nearly 50

The political clout of the Cuban American community in South Florida

and more recently Havanas refusal to release Gross have kept any
warming between the Cold War adversaries at bay. Its a matter of
political priorities and trade-offs, Aramesh said. He noted that former Secretary of State Hillary
years.

Rodham Clinton last year exercised her discretion to get the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq, or MEK,
removed from the governments list of designated terrorist organizations. That move was motivated by the hopes of
some in Congress that the group could be aided and encouraged to eventually challenge the Tehran regime. Its

a question of how much political cost you want to incur or how much
political capital you want to spend, Aramesh said. President Obama has
decided not to reach out to Cuba, that he has more important foreign
policy battles elsewhere.

Changing Cuba policy requires disproportionately large

amounts of PC
Aho 13 (Matthew Aho, Inter-American Dialogue's Latin America Advisor. What
Does Obama's Second Term Hold for U.S.-Cuba Relations? January 23, 2013. Cuba
Study Group. http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/our-opinions?
ContentRecord_id=c20ad778-24cd-46df-9fb23ebc664ed58d&ContentType_id=15d70174-0c41-47c6-9bd5cc875718b6c3&Group_id=4c543850-0014-4d3c-8f87-0cbbda2e1dc7)

ultimate
authority rests with a White House that has proceeded cautiously on Cuba
during President Obama's first term. Aside from easing some travel restrictions, there have been only
While John Kerry's views on U.S.Cuba relations have favored engagement over isolation,

two emergent themes on Cuba policy: support for private-sector efforts to increase the flow of information to the

Cuba policy changes still

require expenditures of political capital disproportionate to the island's
strategic and economic importance. Barring game-changing developments
such as release of USAID subcontractor Alan Grossexecutive action
during Obama's second term will likely focus on furthering goals laid out
during his first. Here, however, John Kerry's leadership could prove vital and create new opportunities for
Cuban people; and support for private economic activity on the island.

U.S. business.

Cuban policy changes require a large investment of political

capital
Miroff 13 (Nick Miroff covers Cuba for GlobalPost. He is also a contributor to

National Public Radio, and has written for the Washington Post, Mother Jones,
Sporting News, the San Francisco Chronicle, and other publications. Can Kerry
make friends with Cuba? January 2, 2013. Global Post.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/cuba/121231/kerrycuba-secretary-of-state-obama)
Kerry has also favored lifting curbs on US travel to the island, and opening up
American tourism to the only country in the world the US government restricts its own citizens from visiting. For the
rest of Latin America, where leaders say they're eager for Washington to modernize its view of the region and
engage in new ways, Cuba remains a litmus test for the Obama presidency,
according to Julia Sweig, director of Latin American Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. The strategic
benefits of getting Cuba right would reverberate throughout the Americas, said Sweig, calling Kerry ideally suited
to the task. Kerry's instincts and experience in Latin America are to see past lingering and often toxic ideology in

Regardless of
Kerrys record on Cuba policy in the Senate, analysts say he will face
several obstacles to major change, not least of which will be the man likely to
replace him as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Sen. Bob
Menendez (D-New Jersey), a Cuban American. If Menendez becomes chairman, then the committee
responsible for shaping US foreign policy in the upper house will be led by
a hardliner who wants to ratchet up not dial back the US squeeze on
Havana. So while Kerry may have some latitude to adjust Cuba policy from inside the White House, Latin
the US Congress and bureaucracy in favor of pragmatism and problem solving, she said.

America experts dont expect sweeping change like an end to the Cuba Embargo which requires Congressional
action. On Latin America, in general, I think Kerry has a longer and broader vision, said Robert Pastor, professor of

Kerry is also a
political realist. Changing US policy is not a high priority for him, but not
changing US policy is the only priority for Bob Menendez , Pastor said. In 2011, Kerry
international relations at American University. But when it comes to Cuba, he cautioned,

delayed the release of nearly $20 million in federal funds for pro-democracy Cuba projects run by the US Agency for
International Development (USAID), questioning their effectiveness and insisting on greater oversight. There is no
evidence that the democracy promotion programs, which have cost the US taxpayer more than $150 million so
far, are helping the Cuban people, Kerry said at the time. Nor have they achieved much more than provoking the
Cuban government to arrest a US government contractor. The US government contractor is Alan Gross, jailed on
the island since December 2009. Cuban authorities arrested Gross while he worked on a USAID project to set up
satellite communications gear that would allow members of Cubas Jewish community to connect to the internet
without going through government servers. Cuba sentenced him to 15 years in prison, but now says its willing to
work out a prisoner swap for the Cuban Five, a group of intelligence agents who have been serving time in a US
federal prison. The Obama administration has refused to negotiate, calling on Havana to release Gross
unconditionally, and even US lawmakers who advocate greater engagement with Cuba say no change will be
possible as long as hes in jail. The Castro government insists its not willing to give up Gross for nothing. Carlos

a
resolution to the Gross case and other significant changes in US policy
would require a big investment of political capital by Kerry and Obama.
Alzugaray, a former Cuban diplomat and scholar of US-Cuba relations at the University of Havana, said

Many barriers to new legislation hurt PC Alan Gross, other

issues, and bipartisan opposition
LeoGrande 12

[William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation

titled Fresh Start for a Stale Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? for the conference
"Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato
Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]

But the Obama administration made very little headway in expanding

government-togovernment ties with Cuba. It resumed the semi-annual immigration

consultations Bush had suspended, but then suspended them again in January 2011. Initial talks on counternarcotics cooperation, joint medical assistance to Haiti, and Coast Guard search and rescue seemed to offer some

they stalled before reaching any new agreements. Only

talks on cooperation to mitigate oil spills in the Caribbean made any real
progress, and even then Washington insisted on conducting them
multilaterally rather than bilaterally. The proximate cause of the failure to
move bilateral relations ahead was the arrest of USAID subcontractor Alan
Gross in December 2009. But there were deeper causes for the loss of
momentum in Obama's new Cuba policy. One was the low priority given to
it in the face of the2 multiple foreign policy problems facing the
president wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation in Iran and
North Korea, revolutions sweeping North Africa. Even in Latin America, the
administration faced more pressing problems the coup in Honduras, drug
war in Mexico, and earthquake in Haiti. Another reason for the lose of
momentum was the political resistance the president faced in Congress,
not just from Florida Republicans like Ileana RosLehtinen and Mario DiazBalart, but from powerful Democrats like Senator Robert Menendez (NJ)
and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.). Nor was Obama willing to
promise of progress, but

make the dramatic change in policy direction that his campaign promises seemed to portend. He continued funding
the "democracy promotion" programs Bush had funded lavishly, including one to create an independent, satellitebased digital network in Cuba, outside the government's control the project that got Alan Gross arrested. More

Obama adopted the basic outlook of every U.S. president since

George H. W. Bush that Cuba would have to change its political and
economic system before the United States would change its policy in any
fundamental way. Consequently, for the last three years, U.S. policy has
been essentially frozen as regards state-to-state relations. Has anything
changed that would lead us to expect that U.S. policy will be any different
in the next four years?
fundamentally,

The Alan Gross controversy is a barrier to passing any policies

LeoGrande 12

[William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation

titled Fresh Start for a Stale Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? for the conference
"Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato
Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]

Even if the president decided that improving relations with Latin America
demanded a new U.S. initiative on Cuba, there remains the problem of
Alan Gross. The Obama administration has declared that no progress can
be made on state-to-state relations so long as Gross remains imprisoned ,
and has refused to discuss deeper cooperation even on issues of mutual
interest such as counter-narcotics cooperation and immigration. It would
be a stark and 53 unlikely reversal of policy for the White House to
launch any major new initiative on Cuba until Gross is released. From the time
Gross was arrested, the U.S. government's position has been that he did nothing wrong, was imprisoned unjustly,
and therefore should be released unconditionally. The19 Cuban position has been that by setting up wireless digital

networks for select groups of Cubans to connect to the internet by satellite, independently of Cuba's national
internet connections Gross engaged in an illegal effort to bring about regime change in Cuba the stated policy goal
of the Helms-Burton legislation authorizing USAID's "democracy promotion" program. In initial discussions,

Havana indicated that it might free Gross if

the USAID program was downsized and revamped to promote authentic
people-to-people projects rather than regime change. The Obama
administration was unresponsive, however, maintaining the program's
funding levels and objectives unchanged from the Bush administration.
When it became clear that the USAID program would not be revised, the
Cubans began to suggest that Gross be exchanged for the Cuban Five
intelligence agents imprisoned in the United States on various charges
since the late 1990s. Cuban officials have been careful not to equate the two cases, simply saying that if
facilitated by congressional intermediaries,

the United States wanted Gross to be released on humanitarian grounds, it would have to recognize Cuba's
humanitarian concerns regarding the Five, and there would need to be some reciprocity. Cuba has repeatedly
offered to 54 open a dialogue with the United States about the two cases, but the State Department has remained
adamant that there is nothing to discuss; Gross must be released unconditionally. The administration has rejected
any equivalency between Gross and the Cuban Five, and hence any exchange.

Republicans rally against appeasement of Cuba

Boothroyd 12 [Rachel, Republicans Vow to Halt Policy of Appeasement in
Venezuela, <http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7283>]
Caracas, September 23 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) Republican nominee for Vice-President of theU.S., Paul

Ryan, has
vowed that a Romney administration would get tough on Castro, tough
on Chavez and to end what he described as a policy of appeasement
applied by the Obama administration towards both Cuba and Venezuela.
Ryan made the comments from the Versailles Restaurant in Miami, Florida last Saturday, where he was accompanied by staunch
members of the anti-Castro lobby, including Republican Representative, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Ros-Lehtinen is a member of the
Cuban-American Lobby and the Congressional Cuban Democracy Caucus; organisations which claim to be aimed at speeding up
Cubas transition to democracy. "In a Mitt Romney administration, we will not keep

practising this policy of appeasement, we will be tough on this brutal

dictator (Castro). All it has done is reward more despotism... We will help
those pro-democracy groups. We will be tough on Castro, tough on
Chavez. And it's because we know that's the right policy for our country,
said Ryan. The nominee had reportedly travelled to Florida in a bid to win over the majority Latino vote two months ahead

of the US elections. Florida is currently thought to be a swing state and could prove a determining vote for the overall election
results. Results of a recent voter intention poll in the state carried out by NBC news show that Obama currently has a 5% lead over
Romney, with a voting intention of 49% to 44%. I learned from these friends, from Mario (Diaz-

Balart), from Lincoln (Diaz-Balart), from Ileana (Ros-Lehtinen), just how

brutal the Castro regime is, just how this president's policy of
appeasement is not working. They've given me a great education, lots of
us in Congress, about how we need to clamp down on the Castro regime,
said Ryan. According to Ros-Lehtinen, Ryan is now a loyal friend to those who campaign on Cuba-related political issues.

Obama must push congress to change policies

LeoGrande 12

[William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation

titled Fresh Start for a Stale Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? for the conference
"Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato
Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]

Congress has held a central role in U.S. policy toward Cuba ever since it
codified the U.S. embargo into law in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act of 1996 (Helms-Burton). To move beyond limited
improvements in relations on issues of mutual interest or limited
commercial activity that is, to move toward the full normalization of

diplomatic and economic relations the president would have to win

congressional approval to change the law.

Obama will need to work hard and spend PC to pass the plan,
even among democrats and agencies outside of Congress
LeoGrande 12

[William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation

titled Fresh Start for a Stale Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? for the conference
"Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato
Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]

Can Obama Break the Stalemate? Many of the same forces that prevented
Obama from a taking truly new approach to U.S. Cuban relations during
his first term will still be operative during his second. Seemingly more
urgent issues will demand his time, pulling his attention away from Cuba.
He will still face fierce congressional resistance to any Cuba initiative,
some from within his own party. Without pressure from above, the foreign
policy bureaucracy, especially the Department of State, will remain
paralyzed by inertia and fear. And, for the time being, Alan Gross is still in
prison. If Obama is going to finally keep the promise of his 2008 campaign
to take a new direction in relations with Cuba, he will need to give the
issue more sustained attention than he did in his first term. The damage
being done to U.S. relations with Latin America because of U.S.
intransigence on Cuba justifies moving Cuba higher up on the president's
foreign policy agenda. Only sustained attention from the White House and
a willing secretary of state will be able to drive a new policy through a
reluctant bureaucracy. Obama will also need to be willing to marshal his
forces on Capitol Hill to confront those who have developed a vested
interest in sustaining the policy of the past. Finally, the president will
need the courage to take the first step, proposing a humanitarian
initiative that leads to the release of Alan Gross, thereby opening the way
to a wide range of state-to-state cooperative agreements.

Removing or Changing Embargo Unpopular

Rolling back sanctions on Cuba would be politically
controversial

Lee 13

Senior Production Editor of Council on Foreign Relations (Brianna, U.S.Cuba Relations, Council on Foreign Relations Background Publication, 1-31-13,
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113)//TQ
Ending the economic embargo against Cuba would require congressional
approval. Opinions in Congress are mixed: A group of influential
Republican lawmakers from Florida, including former representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, his brother
Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are stridently anti-Castro. Still, many favor improving

relations with Cuba. In 2009, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, released a report calling for U.S. policy changes. He said: "We must recognize the ineffectiveness of our

Given the
range of issues dividing the two countries, experts say a long process
would precede resumption of diplomatic relations. Daniel P. Erikson of the Intercurrent policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests" (PDF).

American Dialogue says that though "you could have the resumption of bilateral talks on issues related to counternarcotics or immigration, or a period of dtente, you are probably not going to see the full restoration of diplomatic
relations" in the near term. Many recent policy reports have recommended that the United States take some

. 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
unilateral steps to roll back sanctions on Cuba

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.

Removing the embargo requires tons of PC

Hadar 09 (Leon, Leon T. Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the
Cato Institute in Washington DC. Obama Must Move beyond Pseudo-Events CATO
Institute. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obama-must-move-beyondpseudoevents)

But in reality, Obama can claim no concrete diplomatic accomplishments. Europes public and elites have been
mesmerized by Obamas personal charisma and multilateralist rhetoric; but NATO remains a relic of the Cold War
and its leading members have been reluctant to send more of their troops to help the United States fight in
Afghanistan. The resetting of Russian-American relationship may have symbolic value but has yet to produce any
major policy changes. Residents of the Middle East may have been impressed by Obamas peaceful intentions, but
there has been no sign of progress on resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis or in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian

notwithstanding all the anticipation for a change in US policy

toward Cuba, the US economic embargo that was imposed in 1962 still
remains in place. Indeed, as they to grade the new White House occupants first 100 days in office,
conflict. And

observers will find it difficult to conclude whether Obamas first foreign policys steps have really strengthened
American power in the world. On the progressive left, commentators and activists have been disappointed that
Obamas commitments to reverse Bushs foreign policy have not been carried out. Meanwhile, critics on the right
argue that, if anything, the efforts by Obama and his aides to project a less confrontational approach, like the one
embraced by former President George W. Bush, reflects a sense of weakness or even defeatism. But these critics
are wrong. The Bush administrations belligerent style of managing American relations with both friends and foes,
so full of empty bravado and a crusading militaristic spirit, has been one of the reasons for the erosion in US global
prestige in the last eight years. Obamas emphasis on quiet diplomacy and international engagement that is backed
by a genuine sense of confidence and a strong military should prove to be more effective in promoting US interests
abroad. One could imagine, for example, Obamas predecessor responding to the recent pirate attack off the coast
of Somalia by labeling the pirates as Islamofascists, adding them to the list of members of Axis of Evil, and
threatening tough American military retaliation. By contrast, Obamas measured response followed by a low-key but
precise military action is the kind of cool approach one expects from American presidents. That the leader of the
most powerful country in the world should be willing to listen to, and treat with respect, foreign critics of American
policy is a sign of self-assurance not timidity that Americans should welcome. But style and media

management aside, it is too early to conclude whether Obama will press ahead in transforming foreign policy
pseudo-events into real events. His continuing preoccupation with the economic crisis clearly limits his ability to

Doing away with the embargo with Cuba or

require costly fights with powerful forces in
Washington. For now, Obama is expending his political capital elsewhere.
launch dramatic diplomatic initiatives.

reassessing US policy in the Middle East would

There is no doubt that through his personality and life-story, coupled with the manufactured media events, friendly
gestures and cool style, Obama has been provided with an opportunity to change Americas global brand name. But
the expectations created by the new presidents media image and style of foreign policy need to be matched to

Such new initiatives in the foreign policy arena will force Obama
to use his political capital.
specific policy.

Changing the embargo is always controversial in congress and

drains PC
Sullivan 11

[January 4, 2011, Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs Defense and
Trade Division, in a study by the Congressional Research Service, Cuba: Issues for the 111th Congress
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40193.pdf]

although U.S. policymakers have

agreed on the overall objectives of U.S. policy toward Cubato help bring
democracy and respect for human rights to the islandthere have been
several schools of thought about how to achieve those objectives. Some
have advocated a policy of keeping maximum pressure on the Cuban
government until reforms are enacted, while continuing efforts to support
the Cuban people. Others argue for an approach, sometimes referred to as
constructive engagement, that would lift some U.S. sanctions that they
believe are hurting the Cuban people, and move toward engaging Cuba in
dialogue. Still others call for a swift normalization of U.S.-Cuban relations
by lifting the U.S. embargo. Legislative initiatives introduced over the past decade have reflected
these three policy approaches. Dating back to 2000, there have been significant
efforts in Congress to ease U.S. sanctions, with, one or both houses at
times approving amendments to appropriations measures that would have
eased U.S. sanctions on Cuba. Until March 2009, these provisions were
stripped out of final enacted measures, in part because of presidential
veto threats. In light of Fidel Castros departure as head of government, many observers have called for a
Debate on the Direction of U.S. Policy Over the years,

reexamination of U.S. policy toward Cuba. In this new context, there are two broad policy approaches to contend
with political change in Cuba: a status-quo approach that would maintain the U.S. dual-track policy of isolating the
Cuban government while providing support to the Cuban people; and an approach aimed at influencing the
attitudes of the Cuban government and Cuban society through increased contact and engagement.

Even loosening minor restrictions is super controversial

NYT 12 (New York Times. Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S.
Embargo http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cubacreate-support-for-easing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
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

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
investment or imports and exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses.

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 rules. When 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 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.

Castors visit to Cuba proves that congress is still arguing over

the embargo
Arja 6/3 [ Tanya Arja, writer for Fox News 13, Degree in Mass Communications from USF Rep. Castor stirs controversy
with visit to Cuba http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/21912643/2013/04/08/rep-castor-stirs-controversy-with-visit-to-cuba]
TAMPA (FOX 13) Congresswoman Kathy Castor just returned from Cuba after

spending four days there, and she says things are changing. Castor says
there are many opportunities in Cuba that the U.S. should consider. "The
United States of America should normalize relations and begin a
constructive dialogue with the island nation. Fidel Castro is no longer in
power, there is a generational change occurring in the government in
Cuba," Castor said. While in Cuba, Castor toured the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology.
She also went to a meeting with the Ministry of Energy. She says she was pleasantly surprised by what she heard.

"They have been in productive multilateral talks with the U.S., the
Bahamas, Jamaica, and Mexico to the point where they have adopted
many of the safety recommendations in America's oil spill report authored
by Senator Bob Graham," she said. Congresswoman Castor spoke with the Chief of Mission of the
U.S. Interests Section in Havana. They spoke at length about family reunification and visas for Cubans wishing to
visit family in Tampa Bay. "Cuba is the only country in the world that American citizens are refrained from traveling.
Americans are able to North Korea; with warnings, they can travel to Syria and Iran. And yet an hour from TIA, all of
our neighbors cannot visit and travel," Castor said. Castor says the status quo isn't working. "After 50 years of an
embargo and isolation, that has proven it doesn't work in bringing about a lot of change. It's time to try something

Castor is getting
some backlash for her visit. Ralph Fernandez is a Tampa criminal defense
attorney, and is also a staunch opponent of the Castro regime. He says he
spoke with Castor before she left. "I asked her to meet with U.S.
intelligence officials. I wanted her to know the dangers of her visit. But I
guess she couldn't find time. I think she's made a terrible mistake. It's
something that's quite disappointing," Fernandez said. He says nothing
has changed when it comes to Cuba and how the government operates.
"It's worse. Instead of being 50 years behind the times, it's 60 years. It's
like traveling to the Old West, expect people really live there. It's really
sad, " Fernandez said. Fernandez said as a Congresswoman, Rep. Castor has a responsibility to listen to
others. "It's a real simple formula. Should we send a lot of money and assets
to North Korea without expecting anything in return? If you checked no,
then you're with me on the Cuba issue. You need to see some progress
and progress is not just talking about things that never come to fruition
and materialize," Fernandez said. Rep. Castor says she plans to talk to
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to encourage talks on
trade and travel with Cuba. But Fernandez says the U.S. would lose out if
it invested in Cuba. "Cuba only seeks to be lent money so that they don't
pay it They have not paid a single account in their history while a Castro
has been there. They have not paid one lender back. Any nation that has
lent them, is out of money," Fernandez said. Fernandez says history doesn't lie. "Cuba was
new, and it's time to refresh our relationship benefits from meetings," she said. But

our enemy 30 years before Iran became our enemy. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure this out. Those

uneducated in history open the door for their own country to suffer the consequences and that's what she has

Castor says she expected the backlash, but stands by her

visit. "It's very easy for those who don't understand they're changing, to
say well, it's the same as ever. It's not the same as ever. It is changing and
that should be encouraged," Castor said. But she does know the U.S. can't
just rush in. "This should not be done with blinders on, however. There are
still many human rights challenges in Cuba, it's still to many a repressive
regime that does not allow citizens to enjoy all of the human rights that
we enjoy. "
done," Fernandez said.

Changing Travel Restrictions Unpopular

Republicans are skeptical of contact with Cubans
Kasperowicz 12 [Pete Kasperowicz, 10/3/12 House members blast student
visit with US fugitive in Cuba Graduated from University of Massachusetts Amherst
in 1992 http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/260003-house-members-blaststudent-visit-with-us-fugitive-in-cuba]
Three House Republicans are criticizing an educational trip to Cuba that
they say led to a meeting with a fugitive from U.S. justice last year, and
have called on President Obama to ensure that future visits do not allow
these sorts of meetings to take place. Travel to Cuba is allowed for several
specific reasons, including educational activities, although they require a license
from the State Department. But House Homeland Security Committee Chairman
Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Scott Garrett
(R-N.J.) said a 2011 trip went to far, and cited reports in The Daily Iowan
that said a University of Iowa student was allowed to meet with someone
wanted for a crime in the United States. "We are appalled that on at least
one occasion, 'educational activities' licensed by your administration
included a meeting between American university students and a fugitive
from U.S. justice," they wrote to Obama in a letter they released Tuesday. "Accordingly,
we ask that you determine how many such meetings have occurred since
the 2011 regulation changes regarding 'educational activities' and 'peopleto-people' travel, and that you take all appropriate measures to ensure
that licensed travel (through travel-related transactions to Cuba) do not
again facilitate meetings between U.S. travelers and fugitives wanted by
the United States." Their letter said it is unclear which fugitive the student might have
met with, but said there are several possibilities, including Joanne Chesimard, who killed a
New Jersey State Trooper, and Charles Hill, who killed a New Mexico State Trooper. It also
noted that Victor Gerena fled to Cuba after robbing a Wells Fargo armored car in
Connecticut, and William Morales, the leader of the terrorist group FALN. "It is a perpetual
shame that these and so many other fugitives from U.S. justice remain at large just ninety
miles from our shores," they wrote. "It is an abomination to surviving victims, their families,
and the families of those who were murdered, that an American fugitive remains free in
Cuba to apparently spout enemy propaganda to American students by virtue of a license
granted by your administration. "We sincerely hope that this is not an example

of the type of 'educational activities' anticipated by your 2011 changes

which weakened the regulations enforced by the Treasury Department,
and that you will strengthen efforts to guarantee that licensed travel to
Cuba will not be used as a tool of the Castro dictatorship to advance its
anti-American agenda."

Changing travel restrictions is highly controversial

Boyd 10 [Clark Boyd, a reporter for The World, July 20, 2010, Talking Travel: Congress debates Cuba travel
ban http://www.theworld.org/2010/07/talking-travel-congress-debates-cuba-travel-ban/]
Above, you can see a street in Trinidad, Cuba. Since 1988, Trinidad has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Of
course,

if you are an American, spending a single US dollar in Trinidad (or

anywhere else in Cuba) means breaking American law. Apart from special
circumstances, US travel to Cuba has been effectively banned for decades
now. But the US Congress is currently considering a measure that would
end the travel ban. Both sides have been arguing their case passionately.

Some say there is no reason to punish the Cuban people by depriving

them of needed US tourist dollars. Others say every dollar spent in Cuba
only props up the nations Communist government. In this episode of our Talking Travel
podcast, Lonely Planets Robert Reid and Tom Hall offer their assessments on what the lifting of the travel ban might
mean for you as a tourist, and for the Cuban people.

Reducing travel restrictions is a huge controversy and unlikely

to pass without pressure
Heflin 10

[Jay Heflin writer for The Hill, July 19, 2010 Debate Over Travel to Cuba Heats Up
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/109593-debate-over-travel-to-cuba-heats-up]

A congressional debate over whether all Americans should be able to

travel freely to Cuba appears to be heating up. The House Agriculture
Committee last month approved a measure that allows travel to Cuba and
eases restrictions on U.S. commodities sold there. The measure still needs
approval from the Foreign Affairs Committee before it can come to the
floor for a vote, but Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) has indicated
that he supports lifting the ban. I have long believed that the nearly fifty year old
travel ban to Cuba simply has not worked to help the Cuban people in any way, he
said in prepared remarks. It has not hurt the Castros as it was intended to do, but it
has hurt U.S. citizens. The legislation builds upon efforts by President
Obama in 2009 to ease travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans and would
allow virtually all Americans to visit the island. Proponents for ending the ban
contend it will boost trade between the two countries. But not everyone is on
board with opening the travel door to Cuba. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
on Friday reiterated his strong opposition to lifting the ban. I want to
make it absolutely clear that I will oppose and filibuster if need be
any effort to ease regulations that stand to enrich a regime that denies its
own people basic human rights, he said. The fact is the big corporate
interests behind this misguided attempt to weaken the travel ban could
not care less whether the Cuban people are free, Menendez said. They
care only about opening a new market and increasing their bottom line.
This is about the color of money, not the desire for freedom. Like
Menendez, opponents to the ban argue easing travel restrictions will
funnel money to the Castro regime and essentially fund activities that will
provide little benefit to the Cuban people. The very fact that a travel bill
has moved through the House Agriculture Committee makes one wonder
why American agriculture interests would even care about travel to Cuba,
Menendez said. One can only assume its about generating increased
tourism dollars for the Castro regime to buy more agricultural products.
Mauricio Claver-Carone, director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which
supports the travel ban, told The Hill that lawmakers in favor of easing
restrictions understand that the votes are not there and have resorted to
hiding the provision in noncontroversial bills to get it passed. What
theyre trying to do is package it with an agricultural bill in order to get it
through the back door, he said, adding, Theyre basically trying to
maneuver this any way they possibly can without addressing the travel
issue specifically. Last month, Claver-Carones organization joined nearly
500 organizations that oppose lifting the ban and warned Congress that
nothing good would come from allowing free travel between the two
countries. [The] below signatories believe that the freedom of Cuba will

not arrive by means of the pocketbook nor the lips of libidinous tourists,
who are aseptic to the pain of the Cuban family, their letter states,
adding, For that reason we suggest that you maintain a firm and
coherent policy of pressure and condemnation against the tyranny of
Havana. When, or if, the Foreign Affairs Committee will vote on the legislation
remains to be seen. A Berman spokesman did not respond to a call about timing for
the measure. Thats where the current question is at, Claver-Carone said. But
its pretty clear that they do not have the votes on the floor.

Huge opposition to relaxing travel restrictions

Padgett 10 (Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief

covering Latin America. In 1999 he moved to Florida to become TIMEs Miami &
Latin America bureau chief, reporting on the hemisphere from Tallahassee to Tierra
del Fuego. Will the White House Fight to End the Cuba Travel Ban? Time Magazine.
Aug. 23, 2010 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013820,00.html)
Proponents of doing just that insist there's more consensus than ever in the U.S. to ditch the Cuba embargo and its
travel ban, which, after almost 50 years, have utterly failed to dislodge the Castro regime. Opening Cuba to
Americans, they believe, will do more to stimulate democratization there than isolating it has. Even a majority of

for all the good vibes the bill's backers feel from the
White House right now, some note warily that Obama has been loath to
spend political capital in Cuba, or the rest of Latin America for that matter .
Cuban Americans now agree. Still,

Critics, for example, point to his decision last year to stop applying pressure against coup leaders in Honduras,

Embargo
supporters, including Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, are
already blasting Obama's plans to relax Cuba travel. "This is not the time
to ease the pressure on the Castro regime," Menendez said this month, insisting it will only
who'd ousted a leftist President, when conservative Republicans in Congress objected.

give the brothers "a much needed infusion of dollars that will only extend their reign of oppression." As a result,

when it comes time for the White

House to give the bill more full-throated support, "there's a fear they may
just decide that the fight's not worth it." But Democratic Congressman Howard Berman of
says one congressional aide who asked not to be identified,

California, a co-sponsor of the bill, says tearing down the travel ban is about more than Cuban rights it's also
about the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel freely abroad. "Letting U.S. citizens travel to Cuba is not a
gift to the Castros it is in the interest of our own citizens," Berman said after the House committee vote this
summer. "It's time to trust our own people and restore their right to travel." It's the sort of argument Obama usually
agrees with. But now he may need to show how strongly he concurs when Congress returns next month.

Oil Investment Unpopular

Strong congressional opposition to US investment in Cuban oil
Nerurkar and Sullivan 11 (Neelesh Nerurkar, Specialist in Energy Policy and
Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research
Service. Cubas Offshore Oil Development:
Background and U.S. Policy Considerations
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

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
years to develop.

Oil Spill Cooperation Unpopular

Oil spill cooperation with Cuba is INCREDIBLY unpopular and leads to
gridlock in Washington
Bert and Clayton 12 (Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow,
U.S.Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton, Fellow for Energy and National
SecurityAddressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill Policy Innovation Memorandum No.
15
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515 AJ)
An oil well blowout in Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S. response. Without changes in current U.S.
law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be
barred from deploying highly experienced manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels,
and dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil companies would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely
operated submersibles, and other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to
work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow response to a
Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental damage to Florida and the

Efforts to rewrite current law and policy toward Cuba, and

encouraging cooperation with its government, could antagonize groups
opposed to improved relations with the Castro regime. They might protest any
decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S.
companies operate in Cuban territory.
Southeast.

Removing Embargo Popular

Both the US public and Congress support lowering the
embargo
Lee and Hanson 1/31

[Brianna Lee and Stephanie Hanson, Senior Production Editor; both from the
Council on Foreign Relations, January 31, 2013, US-Cuba Relations http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cubarelations/p11113#p3]

What is U.S. public opinion on the isolation of Cuba? Some U.S.

constituencies would like to resume relations. U.S. agricultural groups
already deal with Cuba, and other economic sectors want access to the
Cuban market. Many Cuban-Americans were angered by the Bush
administration's strict limits on travel and remittances, though a small but
vocal contingent of hard-line Cuban exiles, many of them based in Florida, does not
want to normalize relations until the Communist regime is gone. "When they're
polled, the majority of Cuban-Americans say that the embargo has failed,
and support lifting the travel ban or loosening the embargo or some steps
along that continuum of liberalization and normalization," says Julia E.
Sweig, CFR director of Latin American studies. Ending the economic embargo
against Cuba would require congressional approval. Opinions in Congress are
mixed: A group of influential Republican lawmakers from Florida, including former
representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, his brother Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana RosLehtinen are stridently anti-Castro. Still, many favor improving relations with
Cuba. In 2009, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the top-ranking Republican on
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a report calling for U.S.
policy changes. He said: "We must recognize the ineffectiveness of our
current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S.
interests" (PDF).
Cuban-Americans have begun to support lifting the embargo and
increasing ties and are an important voting group
LeoGrande 12 [William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation
titled Fresh Start for a Stale Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? for the conference
"Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato
Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]

When FIU began polling Cuban-Americans south Florida in 1991, 87%

favored continuation of the U.S. embargo. By 2011, support had fallen to
56%. In 1993, 75% of respondents opposed the sale of food to Cuba and
50% opposed the sale of medicine. By 2011, solid majorities (65% and 75%
respectively) supported both. In 1991, 55% opposed unrestricted travel to
Cuba, whereas in 2011, 57% supported unrestricted travel for all
Americans and 66% supported unrestricted travel for Cuban-Americans
(Table 2). These changes in Cuban-American opinion were clearly linked to
demographic changes in the community. Exiles who arrived in the United
States in the 1960s and 1970s came as political refugees, motivated
principally by their opposition to the socialist course of the revolution.
Those who arrived in the Mariel exodus in 1980 and afterwards were more
likely to have left for economic reasons. Recent arrivals, especially those
who arrived in the post-cold war era, were far more likely to have
maintained ties with family on the island. A 2007 poll of Cuban-Americans
in south Florida found that 58.3% were sending remittances to Cuba, but

fewer than half of those who arrived before 1985 were sending money, whereas three quarters of more recent
arrivals were. The differences in age and experience among different waves of 12 migrants produced sharply

more recent arrivals being far more

likely to favor policies that reduce bilateral tensions and barriers to family
linkages, especially the ability to travel and send remittances (Table 3). Although
different opinions about relations with the island, with

these attitudinal differences have been clear for some time, they have not manifested themselves in CubanAmerican voting behavior, principally because a far higher proportion of the early arrivals have obtained U.S.
citizenship (Table 4), and thus still comprise a larger share of the Cuban-American electorate than more recent
arrivals (although by 2010, Cuban-Americans born in the United States were a larger voting bloc, comprising almost
half the Cuban-American electorate) (Tables 5 and 6). In addition, earlier arrivals are far more likely to be registered
to vote than more recent arrivals. Registration rates for those who arrived before 1985 are over 90%, whereas for
post-cold war arrivals who are citizens, the rate is only 60%.13 But, of course, the early wave of exiles is becoming
a smaller and smaller proportion of the community as new immigrants arrive every year and as natural mortality

more and more of the post-1980

immigrants obtain citizenship and begin to vote. In addition to
generational differences, an important reason for the gradual change in
Cuban-American opinion has been the deepening ties between CubanAmericans and their families on the island. During the 1960s and early
1970s, it was difficult if not impossible for families to maintain contact
across the Florida Strait. Travel to Cuba was prohibited by the U.S.
embargo, and the Cuban government would not allow "gusanos" to return
to visit. Direct mail service was cut off, and telephone connections were
notorious poor. Moreover, the prevailing opinion in both communities was
one of hostility. To Cubans who left, those who stayed behind were
communists. To Cubans who stayed behind, those who left were traitors.
takes its toll on the aging exiles. And with the passage of time,

People are opening up to Cuba prospect

Nathan, 13 James, Khalid bin Sultan Eminent Shcholar in Political Science, Auburn
University. End Appears Coming for Cuba Trade Embargo. Proquest.
U.S. legislation is designed to discourage travel to and make it hard to do
business in Cuba. And it is. By the time I secured a license from the Treasury, a visa from the Cubans, an

impossibly difficult space on an iffy charter and a room in a hotel that is forbidden to take an American credit card,
there were still four hours of clearances in punishing lines in a segregated terminal designed to dissuade even the

And, by law, you can't bring back a thing from Cuba -- no rum,
cigar, doll, t-shirt, nothing. I have a special global entry pass to get
through U.S. Customs. It worked. But the rest of the plane coming into Miami required another four
determined.

hours to get through customs. The old days of trying to do Castro in and to break the Cuban economy have tottered

To be sure, the hardline Cuban ethnic lobby has its

supporters. Susan Purcell came recently to the Alabama World Affairs
Council and spoke in favor of the embargo of Cuba. To me, the policy is self-defeating.
past their sell-by date.

Brian Latell spoke to the Alabama World Affairs Council in the fall of 2012, noting that "Cuban Americans are no
longer monolithic. There are Cuban-Americans groups and institutions that represent nearly the entire spectrum of

And CubanAmericans are increasingly for engagement, not isolation, of Cuba. In

Florida, the GOP again stood for the embargo in courting Miami and the
swing vote in one of the two most important swing states. Cuban
Americans, in record numbers, for the first time ever, went the other way.
opinion." Latell points out that Cuba is not isolated, except from the United States.

A new foreign policy team is forming up in Washington. Sen. John Kerry sponsored a bill to allow unfettered

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel is said to harbor doubts regarding the

trade embargo of Cuba. A "reset" is coming.
travel to Cuba.

Mexico

Link Uniqueness
Obama will not make any policy changes with Mexico or to
NAFTA
Mike Allison 5/2/13 associate professor in the political science department at the University
of Scranton in Pennsylvania US President Barack Obama Returns to Latin America
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/2013430105115612555.html

leaders and people of Central America as well as Mexico are

highly interested in what the President has to say about comprehensive
immigration reform. Guatemala will also be interested in learning whether there has been any progress
As a result of these issues, the

on its request for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). El Salvador, on the other hand, awaits word on whether TPS for
its citizens will be extended past its expiry in September. How the US treats people, whether documented or not,

in Mexico, Obama needs

to somehow make the strengthening of democracy and the promotion of
human rights priorities in the US' relations with Central America. Honduras has been unable to
within its borders is a test of democracy and human rights. However, as

recover from the June 2009 coup that removed President Manuel Zelaya from office; with the highest homicide rate
in the world, police officers, lawyers, teachers, journalists, taxi drivers, gays and lesbians, and democracy and
human rights activists are now being killed at alarming rates. The executive, legislative and judicial branches are all
at loggerheads with one another and are perhaps more the problem than the solution. While popular, President
Daniel Ortega continues to erode democratic structures in Nicaragua following his questionably legal re-election in

It is unlikely that Obama is going to announce a significant

increase in US economic assistance to the region and the US
already has free trade agreements with Mexico (NAFTA) and Central America (DRCAFTA). The US is unlikely to agree to significant drug policy reforms , such as
decriminalisation and regulation, desired by so many. Nor is the US likely to cut security
assistance to Honduras and Mexico even as their forces continue to be involved in wide-scale abuses,
2011.

including extrajudicial executions. Obama could make a difference, however, returning democracy and human
rights to the top of the agenda. In a 1989 conference of the Council of the Americas, President George HW Bush
said that a commitment to democracy and market economies would help define relations between the US and Latin
America. At the first Summit of the Americas to take place in Miami, Florida, in 1994, President Bill Clinton and the
heads of state of every Latin American country, except Cuba, agreed on an ambitious plan to deepen democracy
and human rights, to achieve economic growth and improve income redistribution within market economies,
eliminate poverty and discrimination, and secure environmentally sustainable development. Progress on each of
those issues was uneven, at best, during the Clinton and George W Bush administrations. President Obama's trip to
Mexico and Costa Rica provides an opportunity for the US and the region to recommit themselves to strengthening
democratic institutions and respecting human rights.

Mexico Econ Engagement Unpopular

Shifting focus from security to economic engagement is super
unpopular with Congress uniquely affects immigration bill
NYT 13 (New York Times. In Latin America, U.S. Focus Shifts From Drug War to

Economy May 4, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/americas/inlatin-america-us-shifts-focus-from-drug-war-to-economy.html?

pagewanted=all&_r=1&)
Last week, Mr. Obama returned to capitals in Latin America with a vastly
different message. Relationships with countries racked by drug violence
and organized crime should focus more on economic development and less
on the endless battles against drug traffickers and organized crime capos
that have left few clear victors. The countries, Mexico in particular, need
to set their own course on security, with the United States playing more of
a backing role. That approach runs the risk of being seen as kowtowing to
governments more concerned about their public image than the
underlying problems tarnishing it. Mexico, which is eager to play up its economic growth, has
mounted an aggressive effort to play down its crime problems, going as far as to encourage the news media to
avoid certain slang words in reports. The problem will not just go away, said Michael Shifter, president of the InterAmerican Dialogue. It needs to be tackled head-on, with a comprehensive strategy that includes but goes beyond
stimulating economic growth and alleviating poverty. Obama becomes vulnerable to the charge of downplaying the
regions overriding issue, and the chief obstacle to economic progress, he added. It is fine to change the narrative
from security to economics as long as the reality on the ground reflects and fits with the new story line.
Administration officials insist that Mr. Obama remains cleareyed about the security challenges, but the new
emphasis corresponds with a change in focus by the Mexican government. The new Mexican president, Enrique
Pea Nieto, took office in December vowing to reduce the violence that exploded under the militarized approach to
the drug war adopted by his predecessor, Felipe Caldern. That effort left about 60,000 Mexicans dead and appears
not to have significantly damaged the drug-trafficking industry. In addition to a focus on reducing violence, which
some critics have interpreted as taking a softer line on the drug gangs, Mr. Pea Nieto has also moved to reduce
American involvement in law enforcement south of the border. With friction and mistrust between American and
Mexican law enforcement agencies growing, Mr. Obama suggested that the United States would no longer seek to
dominate the security agenda. It is obviously up to the Mexican people to determine their security structures and
how it engages with other nations, including the United States, he said, standing next to Mr. Pea Nieto on
Thursday in Mexico City. But the main point I made to the president is that we support the Mexican governments
focus on reducing violence, and we look forward to continuing our good cooperation in any way that the Mexican

In some ways, conceding leadership of the drug fight

to Mexico hews to a guiding principle of Mr. Obamas foreign policy, in
which American supremacy is played down, at least publicly, in favor of a
multilateral approach. But that philosophy could collide with the concerns
of lawmakers in Washington, who have expressed frustration with what
they see as a lack of clarity in Mexicos security plans. And security analysts say the
government deems appropriate.

entrenched corruption in Mexican law enforcement has long clouded the partnership with their American

Putting Mexico in the drivers seat on security marks a shift in a

balance of power that has always tipped to the United States and , analysts
said, will carry political risk as Congress negotiates an immigration bill that
is expected to include provisions for tighter border security . If there is a
counterparts.

perception in the U.S. Congress that security cooperation is weakening, that could play into the hands of those who
oppose immigration reform, said Vanda Felbab-Brown, a counternarcotics expert at the Brookings Institution in
Washington.

NAFTA Revisions Unpopular

Democrats are strongly opposed to NAFTA revisions labor
concerns
Perez-Rocha and Trew 12 (Stuart Trew is the trade campaigner for the

Council of Canadians.Manuel Prez Rocha is a Mexican national and an associate

fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. They are both
contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus. Don't Expand NAFTA July 26, 2012. Foreign
Policy in Focus, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies.
http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta)
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

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 investorstate dispute settlement process that has proven so costly , in real terms and with
consultation with unions and producers in the three member countries.

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.

Human Trafficking Aid Unpopular

Human trafficking aid is ineffective and unpopular in congress
Seelke 13 (Clare Ribando Seelke; Specialist in Latin American Affairs; January 29,
2013; Mexico and the 112th Congress; Congressional Research Service;
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf)//KDUB
Many Mexican law enforcement activities with respect to combating alien
smuggling and human trafficking receive some degree of U.S. financial support.
One way to increase Mexico's role in migration enforcement may be for
Congress to consider additional investments in these programs. The United
States also could include migration control as an explicit priority within other
existing programs, such as the Mrida Initiative. On the other hand, Mexico is already
among the largest recipients of U.S. anti-TIP assistance in the Western
Hemisphere, and some Members of Congress may be reluctant to invest more
resources in such programs.

Offshore Drilling Unpopular

Offshore drilling cooperation with Mexico is contentious
Geman 6/25 (Ben Geman 6/25/13; White House cannot support House USMexico drilling bill; The Hill; http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/307769-whitehouse-cannot-support-house-us-mexico-drilling-bill)//KDUB
The White House said Tuesday that it opposes House legislation to implement a
2012 administration pact with Mexico on Gulf of Mexico drilling
cooperation, citing unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract from the bill. The formal
statement of administration policy backs the goal of the bill thats coming to the
House floor Wednesday to implement the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. But it cites
provisions in the GOP-crafted bill that exempts oil companies operating under
the pact from controversial federal rules that force energy producers to
disclose their payments to foreign governments . As a practical matter, this provision
would waive the requirement for the disclosure of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the
United States or foreign governments in accordance with a transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision
directly and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase transparency and accountability, particularly in the oil, gas,

The White House

statement, however, stops short of a veto threat despite saying it "cannot support" the measure. It says
the administration looks forward to working with Congress on an
implementing bill.
and minerals sectors, the White House Office of Management and Budget said.

Venezuela

General Unpopular
GOP hates engagement with Venezuela
Robertson 12 (Ewan Robertson, writer/journalist for Venezuelaanalysis.com,
Latin American Bureu , Correo del Orinoco Internacional, Green Left Weekly,
Emancipation and Liberation, and an activist in Venezuela, US Policy Increasingly
Out of Touch with Latin Americas New Political Reality April 11, 2012,
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6916)
Another aspect of Washingtons approach to Venezuela moving into 2012
has been the increase of aggressive rhetoric designed to de-legitimise the
government and open the possibility of more direct intervention. At a special Organisation of American States
(OAS) session held in Washington in March, Democrat Congressman Eliot Engel said Venezuelan democracy was
being trampled by the Chvez administration and advocated a robust OAS mission be sent to the country to

Not to be outdone by their Democratic

counterparts, Republicans have continued to wind up the rhetorical dial on
Venezuela. In a presidential nomination debate in Florida this January, Mitt Romney made a
commitment to punish those who are following Hugo Chvez and his ally
Fidel Castro, ex-president of Cuba. He claims that Obama has failed to respond with resolve to Chvezs
monitor the October presidential elections.

growing international influence, arguing in his October 2011 foreign policy white paper foreign policy white paper
that he would chart a different course in US policy toward Venezuela and other leftist governments in Latin
America.

Republicans rally against appeasement of Venezuela

Boothroyd 12 [Rachel, Republicans Vow to Halt Policy of Appeasement in
Venezuela, <http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7283>]

Caracas, September 23 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) Republican nominee for Vice-President of theU.S., Paul

Ryan, has
vowed that a Romney administration would get tough on Castro, tough
on Chavez and to end what he described as a policy of appeasement
applied by the Obama administration towards both Cuba and Venezuela.
Ryan made the comments from the Versailles Restaurant in Miami, Florida last Saturday, where he was accompanied by staunch
members of the anti-Castro lobby, including Republican Representative, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Ros-Lehtinen is a member of the
Cuban-American Lobby and the Congressional Cuban Democracy Caucus; organisations which claim to be aimed at speeding up
Cubas transition to democracy. "In a Mitt Romney administration, we will not keep

practising this policy of appeasement, we will be tough on this brutal

dictator (Castro). All it has done is reward more despotism... We will help
those pro-democracy groups. We will be tough on Castro, tough on
Chavez. And it's because we know that's the right policy for our country,
said Ryan. The nominee had reportedly travelled to Florida in a bid to win over the majority Latino vote two months ahead
of the US elections. Florida is currently thought to be a swing state and could prove a determining vote for the overall election
results. Results of a recent voter intention poll in the state carried out by NBC news show that Obama currently has a 5% lead over
Romney, with a voting intention of 49% to 44%. I learned from these friends, from Mario (Diaz-

Balart), from Lincoln (Diaz-Balart), from Ileana (Ros-Lehtinen), just how

brutal the Castro regime is, just how this president's policy of
appeasement is not working. They've given me a great education, lots of
us in Congress, about how we need to clamp down on the Castro regime,
said Ryan. According to Ros-Lehtinen, Ryan is now a loyal friend to those who campaign on Cuba-related political issues.

Congress perceives Venezuela as security threat

Boothroyd 12 [Rachel, Republicans Vow to Halt Policy of Appeasement in
Venezuela, <http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7283>]

With the presidential elections now drawing near, the Republican party is beginning to increasingly outline its
prospective domestic and foreign policy, which Romney has said would be principally based on an attempt to
implement a neo-liberal Reagan economic zone in Latin America and other regions, such as the Middle East.

The Republican presidential candidate has been outspoken in his criticism

of the anti-American views purported by the governments of Venezuela,
Cuba and Iran and has described them as one of the biggest threats to the
United States today. Earlier in July, Romney branded the Venezuelan
government as a threat to national security and accused the country's
president, Hugo Chavez, of spreading dictatorships and tyranny
throughout Latin America. The Republican National Committee also circulated a video of Obama
shaking hands with Chavez at the OAS Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago 2009 at the same time.

Romney has often claimed that the leader of Venezuela's Bolivarian

revolution has links to terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and has
access to weapons that could harm the US. He has never presented any evidence in
support of these accusations.

Venezuela Oil Investment/Coop Unpopular

Congress doesnt want to increase oil cooperation with
Venezuela- focusing on counter-narcotics and democracy
assistance instead
Sullivan 12- Mark P., Specialist in Latin American affairs Venezuela: Issues for
Congress August 30, 2012 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/198102.pdf
Because of Venezuelas oil wealth and relatively high per capita income level, the United States has traditionally

In recent years, assistance has

focused on counternarcotics and support for democracy programs. Table 2
only provided small amounts of foreign assistance to Venezuela.

below shows U.S. assistance level to Venezuela since FY2006. From FY2002 to FY2007, Venezuela received small

focusing on
counternarcotics cooperation and judicial reform support . Since FY2008, no
amounts of U.S. assistance under the State Departments Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI)

counternarcotics assistance has been requested for Venezuela, although in FY2009, the United States provided $0.5

For a number of
years, the United States has provided democracy-related assistance to
Venezuela through the U.S. Agency for International Development . In Table 2,
million in International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) assistance.

all funding for the Development Assistance (DA), Economic Support Funds (ESF), and Transition Initiatives (TI)

the United States has

supported democracy assistance in Venezuela through the U.S.
government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), but this type of
foreign aid accounts are for democracy-related funding. In addition,

support has not been typically reflected in U.S. foreign assistance funding statistics. From 2002 through December

USAID supported democracy projects in Venezuela through its Office of Transition

to provide assistance to monitor democratic stability and
strengthen the countys democratic institutions. According to USAID, more than
600 small-grant and technical assistance activities were funded by OTI
from 2002 through 2010. The objectives of the assistance, according to USAID, were to enhance
2010,

Initiatives (OTI)

access to objective information and peaceful debate on key issues, and to promote citizen participation and
democratic leadership.69 At the end of December 2010, USAIDs support for such activities for Venezuela was

Congress
appropriated $5 million in ESF each year in democracy assistance for
Venezuela, while for FY2013 the Obama Administration has requested $3
million in such assistance. According to the State Departments FY2013 Congressional Budget
transferred from OTI to USAIDs Latin America and Caribbean Bureau. In FY2011 and FY2012,

Justification, the assistance seeks to promote broad participation in the democratic process by promoting good
governance, raising awareness about social issues, increasing confidence in the democratic process, and

In terms of congressional action on FY2013 foreign

aid appropriations, the report to the House Appropriations Committee bill, H.R. 5857 (H.Rept. 112-494),
directs that $5 million in ESF be provided for democracy programs in
Venezuela, the same amount appropriated in FY2012, and $2 million more
than the Administrations request for $3 million In contrast, the report to the Senate
encouraging citizen participation.

Appropriations Committee bill, S. 3241(S.Rept. 112-172), recommends $3 million for democracy programs in
Venezuela to be administered by the National Endowment for Democracy

Increasing oil cooperation with Venezuela unpopular in

Congress because of Venezuela-Iran relations
Sullivan 12- Mark P., Specialist in Latin American affairs Venezuela: Issues for
Congress August 30, 2012 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/198102.pdf
The United States has imposed sanctions on Venezuelan companies
because of their alleged support for Iran, and also has imposed sanctions
on Venezuelan individuals because of their support for Hezbollah , the radical
Lebanon-based Islamic Shiite group supported by Iran. To date, the United States has imposed

sanctions on two companies in Venezuela because of connections to Irans

proliferation activities. In August 2008, the State Department imposed sanctions on the Venezuelan
Military Industries Company (CAVIM) pursuant to the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (P.L. 109-353)
for allegedly violating a ban on technology that could assist Iran in the development of weapons systems.149 The
sanctions prohibited any U.S. government procurement or assistance to the company. While these sanctions expired
in 2010, they were imposed once again on May 23, 2011, for a two-year period.150 In October 2008, the U.S.
Treasury Department imposed sanctions on an Iranian-owned bank based in Caracas, the Banco Internacional de
Desarollo, C.A., under Executive Order 13382 that allows the President to block the assets of proliferators of
weapons of mass destruction and their supporters. The bank is linked to the Export Development Bank of Iran
(EDBI), which the Treasury Department asserts has provided or attempted to provide services to Irans Ministry of

In May 2011, the United States imposed

sanctions on Venezuelas state oil company, Petrleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA),
pursuant to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and
Disinvestment Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-195) because the company provided $50 million worth of
reformate, an additive used in gasoline, to Iran between December 2010 and March 2011. Specifically, the
State Department imposed three sanctions on PdVSA to prohibit it from
competing for U.S. government procurement contracts, securing financing
from the Export-Import Bank, and obtaining U.S. export licenses . The
sanctions specifically exclude PdVSA subsidiaries (Citgo) and do not
prohibit the export of oil to the United States .152 Past Venezuelan comments about
Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.151

potential Iranian support for the development of nuclear energy

US relations with Venezuela unpopular

Sullivan 13- Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., 01/10, Venezuela:
Issues for Congress, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
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 antidrug obligations. Since 2006, the Department of State has prohibited the sale
of defense articles and services to Venezuela because of lack of
cooperation on antiterrorism efforts.

Congress wants to pose more sanctions on Venezuelas oil

sector- not increase economic engagement
Noriega 11 Roger F., senior State Department official from 2001 to 2005, is a

visiting fellow at AEI and managing director of Vision Americas LLC, Latin American
Action Agenda for the New Congress January 06, 2011
http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/legislative/latin-americanaction-agenda-for-the-new-congress/
Congress should provide sustained and focused oversight to uncover
illegal activities and should press Venezuela's oil-dependent regime to end
its aggressive conduct or face crippling sanctions. Because US diplomats are doing little
to confront this threat, Congress, law enforcement agencies, and the judicial

branch must take the lead in responding to the grave and growing threat
posed by Chvez, the anti-American caudillo (strongman). Bipartisan congressional leaders
have already indicated their serious concerns regarding the conduct of the
Chvez regime.[3] The appropriate congressional committees--including those
responsible for policy, intelligence resources, and law enforcement-- should combine efforts to
conduct a thorough review of Venezuela's aggressive posture and the
passive US response. Congressional inquiry will reveal the extent to which Chvez has transformed his
country into a bandit state. Demo-cratic institutions have been neutralized, so his reckless regime is unaccountable.

Billions of dollars in petroleum revenue have been looted by corrupt

officials, and the state oil company is suspected of laundering illicit funds .

Venezuela is willfully violating international prohibitions against aiding Iran's illegal quest for nuclear weapons and
uranium. Civilian and security officials are implicated in drug trafficking that threatens neighbors in the Andes, the
Caribbean, Central America, Mexico, and the United States, as well as countries in Africa and Europe. An $8-9 billion
arms buildup threatens to fuel an arms race in the region, and weapons have been shipped from Venezuelan caches
to terrorists in South America and the Middle East.[4] A once-proud democracy and reliable US friend has been
twisted into a hostile and potent criminal enterprise. Clearly, the response of US diplomats and the intelligence
community has been inadequate. Policymakers justify their inaction as a conscious ploy to avoid provoking Chvez,
failing to notice that US passivity has sent the message to Iran, China, and Russia that the United States does not

strides toward
terminating US access to Venezuelan oil by finding a new buyer in China,
provided Iran's terrorist state with a strategic platform from which to
operate near US shores, and resuscitated Cuba's implacable dictatorship .[5]
Some in Congress have advocated designating Venezuela as a terrorist
state. Although it is inconceivable that the State Department will abandon its passive stance in this way,
care if they join his conspiracy. Under Washington's nose, Chvez has made

Congress can question why US law enforcement agencies have yet to bring indictments against Chvez's circle of
corrupt cronies and to launch an inquiry against state-run Petrleos de Venezuela, SA (PDVSA). By exposing
suspected money-laundering activities conducted by PDVSA and a network of complicit bankers, US prosecutors can

The incoming chair of

the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), has
targeted PDVSA for abetting Iran's energy sector, which would subject
Venezuela's largest company to US sanctions. In a September 24, 2010, letter to PDVSA
attack the foundation of Chvez's criminal enterprise and his corrupt power base.

president Rafael Ramrez, congressional leaders demanded that the company prove that it is not doing business
with Iran. Evidence from sources within the Venezuelan regime clearly indicates that Chvez is making good on his

commitment to provide gasoline to Iran to help it circumvent sanctions. Any

serious US investigation will find that Chvez has engaged oil companies from China,
Algeria, and other countries in these suspect transactions.

General Popular
Congresss support for Venezuela runs high
Fox News 3-06 [Obama, US lawmakers see 'new chapter' in Venezuela after
Chavez's death, <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/obama-us-supportsvenezuelan-people-as-begin-new-chapter-after-chavez/>]
U.S. officials quickly cast Hugo Chavez's death as an opportunity for
America to rebuild a relationship with Venezuela and for the country itself to pursue
meaningful democratic reforms," with President Obama heralding a "new chapter" in the Latin American country's
history. Chavez, who had been battling cancer since 2011, died Tuesday after 14 years in power. An election is
expected to be held in 30 days the transition marks one of the first major challenges for newly appointed
8Secretary of State John Kerry. Obama kept a measured tone in a statement released Tuesday evening. "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 ,"

Obama
said. "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. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were
less reserved. Hugo Chavez was a tyrant who forced the people of Venezuela to live in fear, Rep. Ed
Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a written statement. His death dents the
alliance of anti-U.S. leftist leaders in South America. Good riddance to this dictator .

He said that, while

not guaranteed, closer U.S. relations with this key country in our
Hemisphere are now possible. Royces Democratic counterpart on the
committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., also said Chavezs death is an
opportunity for the people of Venezuela to chart a new course . This is a
moment to review and renew our relationships with Venezuela and nations throughout the Americas based upon

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.,

expressed hope for a peaceful transition with real, meaningful
democratic reforms.
fundamentally shared values that bind our entire hemisphere, he said.

Impacts

Turns Case

Turns Latin American Relations

Immigration Reform helps relations with Latin America
Meacham, Carl 6/13/13 director of the CSIS Americas Program ;
http://csis.org/publication/us-immigration-reform-good-americas-0

Latin American people and their governments are closely following the
U.S. immigration debate. This should come as no great surprise, as its outcome has the potential to affect millions of Latin
Americans, their families, and their future interactions with the United States. Comprehensive immigration reform
would be positively received among Latin American citizens and
governments, especially in those countries from which the majority of the U.S. immigrant population originates. First and foremost, a
bill that provides legal status to the 11 million undocumented immigrants
living in the United States would help to reverse the regions perception
that the U.S. government treats Hispanics as second-class citizens,
acknowledging what many feel is their existing right to U.S. residency and
eventual citizenship. Not unrelated is the effect comprehensive reform would have on the regions governments. Because passing
the bill would demonstrate the U.S. governments willingness to work on
issues important to its counterparts throughout the hemisphereeven
when those issues stir up conflict at homeimmigration reform could help redefine perceptions of the United
States in the region; passing the bill would send the message that the U.S.
government recognizes the regions and its peoples importance in our own
prosperity moving forward.

Immigration Reform will help trade relations and more with

Latin America
Pecquet, Julian 5/4/13 Foreign Affairs writer for The Hill; http://thehill.com/blogs/globalaffairs/americas/297805-obama-no-senior-partners-in-us-relationship-with-latinamerica#ixzz2WQkRan00

Obama continued his Latin American charm offensive on Saturday, telling

Central American business leaders that he wants a relationship of equals with
America's southern neighbors. Wrapping up a three-day visit to Mexico and Costa Rica, Obama reiterated
his calls for cross-border cooperation to boost jobs and the economy on
both sides of the Rio Grande. He called for joint investments in border
infrastructure as a way to save money at a time of budget shortfalls while rooting out security risks.
The main message I have is the United States recognizes that our fates are tied up
with your success, Obama said at a forum on Inclusive Economic Growth and Development in Costa Rica following his
President

meeting with central American government leaders. We don't think there's senior partners or junior partners in that partnership.

It's a partnership based on equality and mutual respect and mutual interests.
Obama said his administration had two goals to take full advantage of the growing
trade ties between the United States and Latin America, a rapidly growing region:
comprehensive immigration reform and joint border security infrastructure projects
on both borders. One of the arguments that we've made in pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform, he said, is
that you can't separate out the dangers or challenges or concerns of a border from the enormous opportunities that a well-

Let's make sure we have a sound system of

immigration and customs and regulatory environment in cooperation with
Canada and Mexico. And as much as possible, eases the flow of goods
and people and services that are legitimate. Throughout his trip, Obama
urged Congress to get immigration reform done this year. Reform advocates hope
managed, well-regulated border represents."

a bipartisan Senate bill will get an overwhelming majority in the coming weeks, creating pressure on House GOP leaders to bring the
bill to a vote despite objections from some conservative Republicans who oppose a pathway to citizenship for the millions of
immigrants in the country illegally

Failure to pass immigration reform will hurt US-Latin American

relations
Inter-American Dialogue 4/12 Leading US Center for Policy Analysis,
exchange and communication on issues in the Western Hemisphere ;
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf
Relations between the United States and Latin America are at a curious juncture .
In the past decade, most Latin American countries have made enormous progress in managing

their economies and reducing inequality and, especially, poverty, within a democratic framework . These critical
changes have brought greater autonomy, expanded global links, and grow- ing self-confidence . It is now the United
States that is in a sour mood, struggling with a still weak economic recovery, diminished international stature and

recent changes have profoundly affected

Inter-American relations . While relations are today cordial and largely free of the
influence, and fractured politics at home . These

antagonisms of the past, they also seem without vigor and purpose . Effective cooperation in the Americas, whether
to deal with urgent problems or to take advantage of new opportunities, has been disappointing . The InterAmerican Dialogues report is a call to all nations of the hemi- sphere to take stock, to rebuild cooperation, and to
reshape relations in a new direction . All governments in the hemisphere should be more attentive to emerging
opportunities for fruitful collaboration on global and regional issues ranging across economic integration, energy

The United States in must regain its

cred- ibility the region by dealing seriously with an unfinished agenda of
problemsincluding immigration, drugs, and Cubathat stands in the way of a
real partnership . To do so, it needs the help of Latin America and the Caribbean. If the current
state of affairs continues, the strain between the United States and Latin
America could worsen, adversely affecting the interests and well- being of all in the hemisphere . There
security, protection of democracy, and climate change .

is a great deal at stake . This report offers a realistic assessment of the relationship within a changing regional and
global context and sets out an agenda of old and new business that need urgent attention . A collaborative effort
should begin immediately at the sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia .

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.

Turns US-Mexico Relations

Immigration reform critical to relations with Mexico, and it
MUST happen now
Persad 12 [Khara, Mexican ambassador says now is the time for immigration

reform, <http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/11/15/mexican-ambassador-saysnow-is-the-time-for-immigration-reform/>]
The Mexican ambassador to the United States said Wednesday that
immigration reform is vital for relations between the two countries and
that the time for reform is now. Ive said it before I dont think theres as an
important issue for the future wellbeing of our bilateral relationship than
getting immigration reform right, Arturo Sarukhan said at a news conference in
Washington. I think the time is ripe, he said. That comment was echoed later Wednesday by President
Barack Obama, who said in an unrelated White House news conference that he is very
confident that Washington can get immigration reform done in his second
term. It also comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill are expressing a new
willingness to deal with the issue. Kyrsten Sinema, the incoming member of Congress from Arizonas 9th
District, said Tuesday that the state is ready for a solution to immigration issues. Arizona is Ground Zero for the fight on
immigration, Sinema said. I hope that members of Congress are sincerely interested in working on a solution. The Hill newspaper
reported Tuesday that Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Mesa, is expected to be part of any Republican effort on reform after he is sworn in to the
Senate in January. A Flake spokeswoman would only say in an email Wednesday that the congressman expects to take an active
role in any immigration reform efforts next year. But the intent to get something done does not mean it will be easy, said Michelle
Mittelstadt, spokeswoman at the Migration Policy Institute. There is a commitment and desire to do something, but there are still
ideological divides, Mittelstadt said. She said all three parts of comprehensive reform

legalization of immigrants living here illegally now, increased border

enforcement and temporary worker programs that would meet future
demands have to be pursued at the same time. The political reality is,
to do it comprehensively, you must address them all at one time, she
said. Sarukhan did not lay out specifics for a preferred reform plan, only saying that it should deal with the 11.5 undocumented
immigrants in the U.S. and with temporary worker programs. That drew a sharp response from Ira Mehlman of the Federation for
American Immigration Reform, who said Mexico should mind its own business. They should not be interfering with the internal
policy of the United States, Mehlman said. Its not their call. Whatever the U.S. decides to do, Sarukhan said, it should not be the
piecemeal approach of the past. I understand the merits of the piecemeal approach, he said. I understand why people would feel
that comprehensive (reform) has failed to convince members of Congress and the American public that its the right way to go, but I
think it would be a big mistake to go down the piecemeal approach. But supporters said they believe reform is coming. I think

the stars are aligning for having an overdue discussion about immigration
reform, said James Garcia, chairman of the Arizona Latino Research Enterprise, a nonpartisan advocacy
group. Garcia, Sarukhan and Laura Vazquez of the National Council of La Raza all pointed to the newfound strength of Latino voters
in last weeks elections as one reason for their optimism. We fully expect that this is an issue

thats going to be taken up, said Vazquez, legislative analyst for La

Razas Immigration Policy Project. Were in a good place. She said
politicians have seen that there is support for action on this issue. They
have to go through the Latino community. Garcia said he is hopeful that, if Flake gets involved in
any meaningful way in discussions, he can be a serious player in reform and a voice for pushing that forward. Sarukhan is also
hopeful. He pointed to the changing U.S. landscape, where Latinos are gaining political power and immigration issues are pressing,
as indicators that change is not too far off. The logical window of opportunity for this

happening is between 2013 and 2014, Sarukhan said. There is a chance

that this issue could be resolved.

Immigration Reform key to US-Mexico relations, boosts trade

Bruce, Mary 5/2/13 Writer for ABC News,

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/in-mexico-president-obama-saysimmigration-reform-is-critical-to-trade/
President Obama arrived in Mexico City today, where the economy and trade
were intended to top the agenda of his three-day trip to Mexico and Costa Rica. With Congress
poised to overhaul the nations immigration laws, however, border security and immigration
reform are overshadowing much of the public discussion. Im optimistic about us getting this done because its the right
thing to do. Weve seen leaders from both parties indicate that nows the
time to get comprehensive immigration reform done , Obama said at a joint press
conference with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. If were going to get that done, nows the time to do it. Obama
argued that reforming the U.S. immigration system is an economic
imperative and, given the amount of trade between the U.S. and its southern neighbor, that its important for the countries
not to get bogged down with border issues. Mexico is the United States second-largest trading partner. One day after Sen. Marco
Rubio, R-Fla., said that the immigration reform bill will struggle to pass if border security provisions are not strengthened, Obama
defended his administrations efforts to boost the border. Weve put enormous resources into border security, he said, before
admitting that there are areas where theres still more work to be done. Obama also recommitted the U.S. to

help in the fight against illegal drug trafficking

amid tension over Pena Nietos decision to limit the

amount of access Mexico gives to U.S. security agencies. I agreed to continue our close cooperation on security, even as the nature
of that cooperation will evolve, Obama said. As I told the president, it is obviously up to the Mexican people to determine their
security structures and how it engages with other nations, including the United States.

Immigration key to US-Mexico relations

Morrison 4-26 [James, Immigration Debate Resurfaces, Though Prospects for

Reform Dim, <http://washdiplomat.com/index.php?

option=com_content&view=article&id=6016:immigration-debate-resurfacesthough-prospects-for-reform-dim-&catid=1:may-2010&Itemid=238>]
In his newsletter, Sarukhan said, "Mexico fully understands that immigration
reform in this country is a domestic process that will be and should be addressed and
debated solely by Americans and their representatives in Congress." However, the ambassador
added in his favorite catch phrase: "You need two to tango." "Mexico has a
central role to play in getting immigration right and has been doing so
since the beginning of President [Felipe] Caldern's administration," he
wrote. "We have set in motion a set of programs and structural reforms to create more jobs and trigger growth
that, in time, will reduce migration levels." Those levels have already gone down slightly as a result of the economic

For now though, Mexico continues to rely heavily on money received

in remittances from both legal and illegal Mexicans in the United States,
receiving about $24 billion a year in remittances. The ambassador acknowledged the
crisis.

difficulties of fixing what many regard as a "broken" U.S. immigration system, with supporters of an overhaul
advocating for a pathway to citizenship for the country's undocumented workers, while critics argue the focus
needs to be on securing the border rather than providing amnesty for lawbreakers who drain social services. "It will
certainly not be easy because hard choices and tough issues never are," Sarukhan wrote. "As community organizer
and writer Saul Alinsky once said, 'Change means movement; movement means friction; friction means heat; and
heat means controversy.'" That controversy is once again brewing even though immigration reform had largely
faded from the headlines in recent years. At the height of the debate in 2006 and 2007, the Bush administration
had proposed tougher border enforcement and workplace monitoring, as well as a program to bring in guest
workers for U.S. employers and a pathway for millions to earn legal status. The effort earned some bipartisan
support but ultimately stalled in the face of strong conservative opposition. But a recent push has put immigration
back on the front burner. In March, thousands of demonstrators crowded onto the National Mall demanding that

And this month, President Caldern will bring

Mexico's views to Capitol Hill as he addresses a joint session of Congress
on May 19. During the official state visit to Washington marking
Obama's second since taking office Caldern will become the first
Mexican president to speak to both chambers since former President
Congress pass comprehensive reform.

Vicente Fox appeared at the Capitol in 2001. The visit will no doubt
resurrect the immigration debate in the halls of Congress, where Democrats have
tepidly begun broaching the issue. In December, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) introduced a bill to create an avenue for
legal status for illegal immigrants if they have not committed a felony and can prove they have been working in the
United States, in addition to paying a $500 fine, submitting to a criminal background check and learning English.

Immigration reform perceived positively by Mexico

Rodriguez and Shoichet 1-30 [Rey and Catherine E., Mexico 'welcomes'
new U.S. immigration reform push,
<http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/world/americas/mexico-immigration-reformreaction>]
Mexico City (CNN) -- The new U.S. push for immigration reform is drawing praise -but some skepticism -- south of the border. Mexico's foreign ministry said Tuesday that it
"welcomes the principles that have been set out" in U.S. President Barack
Obama's remarks calling for immigration reform, and the proposal
presented Monday by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators. A Mexican
lawmaker told CNN en Espaol that U.S. politicians were proposing a plan
that would help millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States
-- nearly 60% of whom are Mexican, according to government estimates.
"It's a real reform" and a significant step, said Sen. Marcela Guerra of the
ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party. The Mexican government hasn't weighed in on specific

details in this week's proposal from eight U.S. senators, a plan that would give undocumented immigrants immediate but provisional
legal status to live and work in America, and eventually allow them to apply for green cards. But there are an

estimated 6.8 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico living in the

United States who could benefit from such an overhaul of the U.S.
immigration system. And that's a statistic that isn't lost on Mexican
officials, who have been pushing for changes in U.S. immigration policies
for years. In legal briefs and public speeches, they've argued against racial profiling they said would be fostered by U.S. state
immigration laws and called for changes in federal laws to bring millions of undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. 'At last,
the U.S. government is taking notice' The fresh possibility of immigration reform in the

United States has made headlines in Mexico's leading newspapers this

week. In the central Mexican city of Atlixco, where many residents have family members living in the United States,
proposals to change U.S. immigration policies were hailed as a positive
step. "It's good news," said Rene Velasquez, who watched a Spanish translation on Mexican television of Obama's Tuesday

speech. "At last, the U.S. government is taking notice of this problem that is important for their country and ours." Eduardo Palacios,
who came back to Atlixco to run a pizza restaurant after working as an immigrant in the United States, said he was happy to hear
that change could be coming. "I'm glad immigrants may be able to fix their documents," he said, "because many die on the border or
suffer a lot." In Mexico's capital, the new push for immigration reform in the United States was met with some skepticism. "It is
possibly a waste of time. I don't see it succeeding," said Luis Gonzalez, an accountant. "There is no compassion, and we need to work
much more diplomatically." Nancy Perez, director of the Mexico-based immigrant rights organization Sin Fronteras (Without
Borders), cautioned against high expectations for reform based on recent comments from U.S. politicians. "These are the first steps,"
she said, adding that what the government does will speak volumes. "We find contradictions in the willingness expressed publicly
and the concrete actions of the government," she said, noting that deportations from the United States have increased in recent
years. Mexico's foreign ministry noted Tuesday that the push for immigration policy changes seemed to be gaining momentum. "The
priority of protecting the rights of individuals, regardless of their migratory status, has been rightly included at the center of this
debate," the foreign ministry said in a written statement. While the issue is an internal U.S. political

matter, the foreign ministry said, it concerns millions who live in Mexico
and in other countries. "Because of this, the Mexican government will
continue respectfully promoting an informed debate of the many
dimensions of this topic, and protecting the rights of its citizens abroad,"
the foreign ministry said.

Mexican government is very interested in immigration reform

Rodriguez and Shoichet 1-30 [Rey and Catherine E., Mexico 'welcomes'
new U.S. immigration reform push,
<http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/world/americas/mexico-immigration-reformreaction>]
The Mexican government hasn't shied away from pushing for changes in
U.S. immigration laws in the past. In recent years, Mexico has filed friend-of-the-court briefs in

lawsuits challenging state measures aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration in Arizona and Alabama, arguing
that the measures would lead to profiling and violate the human rights of Mexican nationals. And Mexico's foreign
ministry has sharply condemned what it has called "disproportionate use of lethal force in the exercising of

Shortly after he was named as

Mexico's new ambassador to the United States earlier this month, Eduardo
Medina Mora said the issue of immigration reform was of "great interest"
to the Mexican government, while noting that it was a complicated political issue in the United
States. "This is an issue on the internal political agenda of the United States.
It is not an issue on the bilateral agenda. Nonetheless we have a very
great interest, an unavoidable responsibility to defend the interests of our
fellow citizens and to promote an argument that increases opportunities
for them," Medina Mora told reporters. For more than a decade, the Mexican government has played an active
immigration control functions" by U.S. Border Patrol agents.

role advocating for millions of migrants abroad. Shortly after taking office in 2000, then-President Vicente Fox met
with migrants in his official residence and soon created a Cabinet-level position dedicated to Mexicans who were
living in other countries. During his administration, Mexicans won the right to vote abroad in 2005 after a hard-

And Mexican government officials have created

matching programs aimed at using the money Mexicans sent home to fund
public works projects south of the U.S.-Mexico border. It's a significant shift in a
country where emigrants were once treated as traitors abandoning their homeland. Now, it's common for
Mexican officials to acknowledge emigrants' contributions, and to
advocate on their behalf. In a visit to the White House last year, Mexican
President Enrique Pena Nieto said he supported Obama's push for
immigration reform. "More than demanding what you should do, I do want
to tell you that we want to contribute," he said. "We really want to
participate and we want to contribute toward the accomplishment, so we
can participate in the betterment and well-being of so many people who
live in your country."
fought legislative campaign.

Immigration reform is key to US-Mexico relations

Stratfor 5-02 [Evolving U.S.-Mexico Relations and Obama's Visit,

<http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/evolving-us-mexico-relations-and-obamas-visit>]
While Mexico reorients its internal focus to structural changes that its leaders hope
will lay foundations for economic development, the country could also be affected by domestic
issues under debate in the United States. For years, Mexico has been pressing the United States to
enact stricter gun laws. Though a prominent gun control bill failed in the U.S. Senate on April 17, the issue will likely re-emerge later
in 2013, and at least some gun control measures currently enjoy broad popular support. Meanwhile, demographic

changes in the United States are driving a debate about immigration

reform that, if implemented, would require collaboration with Mexico,
many of whose citizens would seek to legalize their residential status in
the United States. Though the passage of these reforms will similarly be
determined solely by U.S. domestic political factors, their success would
be a significant boon for bilateral relations with Mexico. Indeed, for
Obama and Pena Nieto, the effects each feel of the other's policy decisions
will be magnified by the unique demographic, geographic and economic

ties binding their countries.

Yet, the domestic environment and political calculations in each country will
ultimately shape the effects of this period of political change. The U.S. political decision-making process is largely isolated from
international influence, and the Pena Nieto administration likewise appears to be consolidating key policy areas under Mexican
control at the expense of U.S. influence. Still, Mexico's steady emergence as an economic

power in North America sets the stage for a bilateral relationship much
more heavily focused on opportunities for economic cooperation.

Immigration is an important issue in US-Mexico relations

Cooke 5-07 [Daniel, Obama Welcomes A New Dawn For US-Mexico relations,

<http://www.shoutoutuk.org/2013/05/07/obama-mexico/>]
Speaking at the National Anthropology Museum in Mexico City President Obama gave an
insight into what he hopes will be a more modern and more equally
beneficial relationship between Mexico and the US. His speech focused on areas such as the
role of the US in the drug wars, the economic potential of a mutual and friendly relationship and most importantly
Obama pressed the urgent need for immigration reform stating the he is
absolutely convinced that reform could be passed by the end of 2013.
Throughout his time spent in Mexico City Obama has also focused his talks on the dispelling of the stereotypes and strictly held
discriminations held in the US about the issues at the border saying that it is time to put old mind sets aside and time to recognize
new realities. On top of this the President urged for a mutual effort in this respect, asking for Mexicans to stop viewing the US as a
disrespecting nation set on isolating itself from its neighbors. The talks on immigration however

centered on the idea of a new and prosperous job market within Mexico
and more viable opportunities for temporary and even permanent work
visas to the US. By establishing seasonal visas and making residency a more attainable endpoint Obama wants to begin
to tackle the huge number of illegal immigrants currently residing in the US. Of a proposed 11 million
illegals over half are from Mexico and so through the establishing of a
more healthy relationship at the border the people of both countries will
be able to benefit. The relationship of these two countries has, in the past, been one encapsulated by drug wars,
homicide, and security issues surrounding the 2000 miles of shared border. These talks with the Mexican
President, Enrique Pea Nieto, are for Obama just the beginning of what is
hopefully a great and mutually prosperous relationship. With the new Mexican
government already cracking down on the death rates surrounding the cartels the people of Mexico are
ready to engage with this new dawn on the future of this influential
partnership. With both sides of the border set to benefit both socially and
financially with potential reform in immigration policy and with crimes rates set to be
lowered through a more comprehensive and focused approach to the policing of the drug issues the future only
seems bright for these two nations as they gear up for a more peaceful
relationship.

Immigration Reform perceived positively by Mexico

Licon and Stevenson 4-17 [Adriana Gomez and Mark, Mexicans cautiously
welcome US immigration reform, <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/mexicanscautiously-welcome-us-immigration-reform>]
MEXICO CITY (AP) Mexicans reacted with cautious optimism to the
immigration reform bill submitted to the U.S. Senate Wednesday, saying
that while it proposes a long wait for migrants to gain U.S. citizenship, it
at least gives them a stable path to do so. "There are some people who would like to become

citizens right away," said Ismael Mota Ortega, 48, who heads the Illinois federation of clubs of migrants from the central Mexico
state of Zacatecas. "But there are others who see things sensibly, that you have to demonstrate that you can truly be a good citizen,
step by step." But Marco Antonio Castillo, who leads an advocacy group called the Popular Assembly of Migrant Families,
complained about the numerous conditions the measure would impose on applicants, saying, "The immigration reform doesn't
appear to be as just as possible." "We don't want to be pessimistic, because this is an unusual step" to get a reform bill at least
presented, Castillo said. "But it is fundamentally important that the demands of society be met." Mexico's Foreign

Relations Department welcomed the proposed reform, calling it "a positive

step." "The commitment expressed by President Barack Obama and

members of both parties in Congress on this issue is very encouraging," it
said. "As the U.S. legislative process proceeds, it will be fundamentally
important that the contributions of migrants are taken into account, and
that their rights are respected." The bill would allow migrants in the country before 2012 to apply for
"registered provisional immigrant status." That would not allow them to collect federal benefits, but they could at least work safely in
the United States and visit their homelands. That is a big issue for many of the millions of Mexican migrants who entered the U.S.
illegally and who have been unable to visit relatives in Mexico, in some cases for years, because of fear they would not be able to
return to U.S. jobs.

Turns US-Mexico Economic Engagement

Immigration reform will boost economic engagement with
Mexico
Seminara 6-26 [Dave, Nations Keep Watchful Eye on U.S. Immigration Reform,
<http://www.washdiplomat.com/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=9347:nations-keep-watchful-eye-on-usimmigration-reform&catid=1504&Itemid=428>]
But it's not just domestic interests that are trying to influence the debate.
Immigration reform is also a hugely important issue for the foreign
countries that send the most migrants to the United States. Notably
Mexico and Central American nations, which rely heavily on remittances from
workers in the United States workers who could become eligible for
eventual U.S. citizenship are paying close attention to what happens in
Congress this summer. As the Hill's Julian Pecquet reported earlier this year, government officials
from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and other nations are making their opinions known,
albeit discreetly given that immigration reform is a domestic matter. "They
all are extremely diplomatic in how they go about talking about this," Rep.
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) told the newspaper. "But it's no hidden secret
that it's important for a lot of these ambassadors and their governments
to see comprehensive immigration reform pass."

Immigration would boost US-Mexico economic engagement

Dwoskin 5-02 [Elizabeth, Why Immigration Reform Is Good for Mexico,
<http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-02/why-immigration-reform-isgood-for-mexico>]
Obama isnt likely to face a tough job persuading the Mexicans that
revising U.S. immigration rules will benefit both countries. The U.S. is Mexicos largest
trading partner. Nearly half a trillion dollars in goods was traded between the two countries last year. Remittances
the parcels of money that Mexicans living abroad send homeaccount for
about 2 percent of Mexicos GDP. If a large portion of the estimated 6.5
million Mexicans living in the U.S. were to become citizens, their incomes
would likely rise, and with it, their remittances, which totaled about $1.7
billion in 2012. That money could go even further if remittances flowed
through the traditional banking system, says Ral Hinojosa, associate professor of Chicano/Chicana
studies at the University of California Los Angeles. Mexican citizens could invest their
remittance payments, earning interest and getting loans. Right now, remittances are
cash payments routed through money transfer companies like Western Union and Vigo. The economic benefits
of citizenship extend well beyond remittances, says Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the
Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. Immigrants who receive amnesty
would be able to invest more freely in cross-border businesses. Theyd
also be able travel freely, which means theyd be more likely to visit home
more often, spending money there. All of which makes U.S. immigration
reform a good deal for Mexico, even if Mexicans arent shouting it from the rooftops.

Turns US-Venezuelan Relations

Turns US-Venezuelan relations Maduro believes current US
immigration policies are racist
Mora 10 [Edwin Mora May 11, 2010 CNS News Venezuela Slams Arizonas Illegal Immigration Law, Says
America Must Overcome Old Habits of Racism http://cnsnews.com/news/article/venezuela-slams-arizona-s-illegalimmigration-law-says-america-must-overcome-old-habits]

Immigrants in the United States, according to Venezuela's foreign

minister, are treated in a way that is 'inconsistent with human rights &hellip;
a perennial violation against our fellow Latin Americans.' (CNSNews.com) Venezuela's minister of
foreign affairs said the countrys socialist president, Hugo
Chavez,demand[ed] that Arizonas law against illegal immigration be
repealed and that America turn away from its old habits of racism.
Not only [did] Chavez oppose the Arizona law, but Venezuela as a nation
wants the United States to begin to respect and overcome its old habits
of racism and contempt" for people from Latin America, Venezuela's information
ministry quoted Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro as saying. Immigrants in the United States,
according to Maduro, are treated in a way that is inconsistent with
human rights a perennial violation against our fellow Latin Americans.
He said the Arizona law against illegal immigration must be repealed
because the measure is disrespectful to human beings "who have only
gone to the nation to work to generate wealth." Maduro made the remarks on May 3 from
Buenos Aires, Argentina, before attending a meeting of the 12-member Union of South American Nations. The union
as a whole also denounced the Arizona law, calling it racist. Arizonas Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the
legislation (the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, Arizona SB 1070) into law on Apr. 23.

The new state law mirrors existing federal law against illegal immigration.
It gives Arizona police officers the authority during a lawful stop to check
an individuals immigration status. Federal law already requires that immigrants carry

documentation of their status. If a person were pulled over for speeding, for example, a police officer could demand
that the driver show his drivers license and, if the officer suspects the driver is an illegal immigrant, he could order
that person to show proof of his immigration status.

Turns Heg
Reforms key to all aspects of US hegemony
Nye 12. [Joseph S., 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-reform-to-maintain-america-sstrength-by-joseph-s--nye]

The U

is a nation of immigrants.

CAMBRIDGE
nited
tates
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

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
Revolution a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its ancestors as fellow immigrants.

American power . Fears about the impact of immigration on national values and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenthcentury 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, onehalf 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

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 startups 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
population will grow by 49% over the next four decades.

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

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.
should take to heart.

Turns Human Rights

Immigration Bill solves Human Rights
Ginatta 13 Advocacy director for the U.S. program of Human Rights Watch (Antonio,
Immigration reforms should protect families, Human Rights Watch Publication, 6-21-13,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/21/immigration-reform-should-protect-families)//TQ

The immigration reform bill now being debated on the floor of the US Senate, while not perfect,
would bring millions of undocumented immigrants and their families out of
the shadows, and deserves to be passed into law. Key sections recognize the harm
caused to families by the current system especially mixed status families deeply rooted in
the US but living day to day in fear of being split apart after a traffic stop or an immigration raid. The vast majority

the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U nited States have US citizen

live in fear fear of being deported... of heartbreak... of
suffering... worrying about if they can go to the store, [or] do they have to stay home? as Senate Majority
of

relatives. Yet they

Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently put it. I think of people like Sonia D., an undocumented restaurant owner, living
in the US for 12 years, with two US citizen children and one US citizen grandchild, who feared losing her business
permit due to her immigration status. Or Sara M., brought to the US at seven and now mother to two US citizen
children, who feared taking her daughter to the hospital for fear of being stopped while driving. Or Leticia M., living
in the US since she was one and mother to a US citizen child, who was having difficulty getting water service for her
home due to her lack of documentation. All three stories, described in a Human Rights Watch report, are all about
families in Alabama, all in the US for more than 10 years going to church, sending their American children to

The Senate bill

contains provisions that would reduce the fears of many families like these. It
school, earning a living and in some cases starting their own businesses, and paying taxes.

would allow immigration judges to stop a deportation proceeding if it would result in hardship to a US citizen parent,
spouse, or child. And it permits the government to waive prohibitions against entering the country if doing so would

The bill also recognizes that under the current

system, injustices have piled up over the years . People with strong family ties in the US
cause hardship to a US citizen child.

have been deported, and young people who could have qualified for the DREAM Act, which would grant a path to

the bill
gives the Homeland Security Secretary discretion to allow some of these people to apply for
provisional immigrant status under the bill, and rejoins their families in the US.
legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children, have also been deported. So

Turns Soft Power

Immigration key to soft power
Nye 12- Joseph S., former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the

US National Intelligence Council, University Professor at Harvard University,

Immigration and American Power Dec 10, 2012 http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-americas-strength-by-joseph-s--nye
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

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
Americans look like them. Moreover,

population to recruit from domestically, but, in Lees view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the

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.
US. That is a view that Americans should take to heart.

Economy
Comprehensive immigration reform is key to the economy and
highly skilled workers
Farrell 12/13/12 (Chris, a contributing editor for Bloomberg Businessweek. From 1986-97, he was on the
magazine's staff, as a corporate finance staff and department editor and then as an economics editor. Farrell wrote
Right on the Money: Taking Control of Your Personal Finances and Deflation: What Happens When Prices Fall? Among
Farrell's many awards are a National Magazine Award, two Loeb Awards, and the Edward R. Murrow Award. Farrell is
a graduate of the London School of Economics and Stanford University. Obamas Next Act: Immigration Reform
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-13/obamas-next-act-immigration-reform)
Washington wont get much of a reprieve from verbal pyrotechnics once the drama of the fiscal cliff is over. Up next:

Obama has made it clear that a comprehensive

overhaul of the nations badly frayed immigration system is a second-term
priority. Many Republican lawmakers are convinced the big takeaway from the 2012 election results is that
major immigration reform. President

conservatives need to rethink their hard-line stance on immigrationincluding illegal immigrants. Heres what
Washington should do before tackling the tough job of rewriting the immigration laws: Create a quicksilver path to
citizenship for the 11 million to 12 million undocumented workers in the U.S. (excluding the small number convicted
of violent crimes or multiple felonies). The shift in status acknowledges that these foreign-born newcomers, like
previous generations of immigrants, overcame significant obstacles to come to the U.S. to make a better life for
their families. Illegal immigrants are neighbors heading off to work, sending their kids to school, and attending
church. Their everyday lives would vastly improve by moving from the shadows of society into the mainstream.

the change would give a boost to the

economys underlying dynamism. What youre doing in the short run is making it
easier for workers to move between jobs, a relatively small effect, says Gordon
Hanson, a professor of economics at the University of California at San
Diego. The larger effect from eliminating uncertainty for these
More important from a public-policy perspective,

immigrants is creating incentives for them to make long-term

investments in careers, entrepreneurship, education, homes, and
community. Lets state the obvious: A rapid transformation of illegal immigrants into legal immigrants isnt
in the cards. Amnestylet alone citizenshipis an anathema to large parts of the electorate. Too bad, since the
scholarly evidence is compelling that immigrantsdocumented or not, legal or illegal
are a boon to the net economy . Competition fosters economic growth,
says Michael Clemens, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development in
Washington. The economic return from attracting skilled immigrants to
the U.S. is well known. Foreign-born newcomers account for some 13
percent of the population, yet they are responsible for one-third of U.S.
patented innovations . The nations high-tech regions such as Silicon Valley, the Silicon
rely on immigrant scientists, engineers,
entrepreneurs, and employees. Better yet, economist Enrico Moretti at the University of
California at Berkeley calculates that a 1 percent increase in the share of collegeeducated immigrants in a city hikes productivity and wages for others in
the city. Less appreciated is how much the economy gains from the efforts
of less-skilled immigrants, including illegal workers. Throughout the country, foreign-born
newcomers have revived beaten-down neighborhoods as immigrant
entrepreneurs have opened small businesses and immigrant families have
put down stakes. Immigrant workers have played a vital role keeping a number of
industries competitive, such as agriculture and meatpacking. Cities with
lots of immigrants have seen their per capita tax base go up, according to David
Hills of Austin, Tex., and Bostons Route 128

Card, an economist at UC Berkeley. Despite the popular impression that a rising tide of immigrants is associated
with higher crime rates, research by Robert Sampson of Harvard University and others offer a compelling case that

But dont
newcomerslegal and illegaldrive down wages and job opportunities for American
workers? Not really. A cottage industry of economic studies doesnt find any
its no coincidence that the growing ranks of immigrants tracks the reduction in crime in the U.S.

negative effect on native-born wages and employment on the local level .

On the national level the research shows the impact on native-born Americans doesnt drift far from zero, either

immigrants are more likely to complement the

job prospects of U.S.-born citizens than they are to compete for the same
jobs as U.S.-born citizens, Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California
at Davis, writes in Rationalizing U.S. Immigration Policy: Reforms for Simplicity, Fairness, and Economic
Growth. The counterintuitive results reflect a numbers of factors. Immigrants expand the size of
the economic pie by creating new businesses, new jobs, and new
consumers. Middle-class families find it easier to focus on careers with
affordable immigrant labor offering gardening, child care, and other
services. Many illegal immigrants arent fluent in English, so they dont
compete for the same jobs as native-born workers. Another factor behind the lack of direct
positively or negatively. In both cases,

competition is the higher educational level of native-born Americans. In 1960 about half of U.S.-born working-age
adults hadnt completed high school, while the comparable figure today is about 8 percent. The

real
downside concern is on the fiscal side of the immigrant ledger . Yes, more
taxes would go into Social Security, Medicare, and the like with
legalization, but more people would qualify for Medicaid, welfare, and
other benefits. At the local level, many school districts are strained financially from educating immigrant
children, legal and illegal. That said, the prospect of fiscal costs would diminish as
newly legalized immigrant workers move freely around the country
seeking jobs, entrepreneurs are comfortable expanding their payrolls, and
immigrant parents push their children to live the American Dream. Over time,
as entrepreneurs emerge and families are better able to get their kids through high school and college, youre
reducing the long-run fiscal claim of the group , says Hanson. There is no
economic evidence that making roughly 6 percent of the workforce illegal
will benefit the economy. Plenty of research supports the opposite case . A
fast track to

legality offers Washington a rare twofer: a just move thats

economically efficient.

Economic decline risks multiple global nuclear wars

OHanlon 12 Kenneth G. Lieberthal, Director of the John L.
Thornton China Center and Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy and
Global Economy and Development at the Brookings Institution,
former Professor at the University of Michigan [The Real National
Security Threat: America's Debt, Los Angeles Times, July 10th,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-economy-foreign-policylieberthal-ohanlon]

Alas, globalization and automation trends of the last generation have increasingly called the American dream into
question for the working classes. Another decade of underinvestment in what is required to remedy this situation
will make an isolationist or populist president far more likely because much of the country will question whether an
internationalist role makes sense for America especially if it costs us well over half a trillion dollars in defense

American economic weakness

undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness and
spending annually yet seems correlated with more job losses. Lastly,

wonder about our purport 7ed decline. If this perception becomes more widespread, and the case that we are in

take actions that reflect their

skepticism about America's future. Allies and friendswill doubt our
commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for
example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in
throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western
Pacific regions will likely become less stable. Major war will become more likely. When
running for president last time, Obama eloquently articulated big foreign policy visions:
healing America's breach with the Muslim world, controlling global climate change,
dramatically curbing global poverty through development aid, moving toward a
world free of nuclear weapons. These were, and remain, worthy if elusive goals.
However, for Obama or his successor, there is now amuch more urgent bigpicture issue: restoring U.S. economic strength. Nothing else is really
possible if that fundamentalprerequisite to effective foreign policy is not
reestablished.
decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to

Ext. CIR k2 Econ

Immigration reform key to the economy
Johnson 6/20- Simon, former chief economist of the International Monetary
Fund, is the Ronald A. Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at the M.I.T. Sloan School
of Management, How Immigration Reform Would Help the Economy June 20, 2013
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/how-immigration-reform-wouldhelp-the-economy/?ref=immigrationandemigration&_r=0
The assessment is positive. This precise immigration proposal would improve the
budget picture (see this helpful chart) and stimulate economic growth. The
immediate effects are good and the more lasting effects even better. If

anything, the long-run positive effects are likely to be even larger than the C.B.O. is willing to predict,
in my assessment. (Im a member of the offices Panel of Economic Advisers but I was not involved in
any way in this work.) The debate over immigration is emotionally charged and, judging from recent
blog posts, the Heritage Foundation in particular seems primed to dispute every detail in the C.B.O.
approach and to assert that it is underestimating some costs (including what happens when illegal
immigrants receive an amnesty and subsequently claim government-provided benefits, a point
Heritage has emphasized in its own report). There is good reason for the C.B.O.s careful wording in its
analysis; it operates within narrow guidelines set by Congress, and its staff is wise to stick to very welldocumented points. Still, as the legislation gains potential traction, it is worth keeping in

mind why there could be an even larger upside for the American economy.

In 1776, the population of the United States was around 2.5 million; it is now more than 316 million
(you can check the real-time Census Bureau population clock, but of course that is only an estimate).
Think about this: What if the original inhabitants had not allowed immigration or imposed very tight
restrictions for example, insisting that immigrants already have a great deal of education? Its hard to
imagine that the United States would have risen as an economy and as a country. How many United
States citizens reading this column would be here today? (Im proud to be an immigrant and a United
States citizen.) The long-term strength of the United States economy lies in its
ability to create jobs. For more than 200 years as a republic (and 400 years in total)
immigrants have not crowded together on a fixed amount of existing resources land (in the early
days) or factories (from the early 1800s) or the service sector (where most modern jobs arise). Rather

the availability of resources essential for labor productivity has increased

sharply. Land is improved, infrastructure is built and companies develop.

Most economic analysis about immigration looks at wages and asks whether natives win or lose when
more immigrants show up in particular place or with certain skills. At the low end of wage distribution,
there is reason to fear adverse consequences for particular groups because of increased competition
for jobs. In fact, the C.B.O. does find that income per capita would decline slightly over the next 10
years before increasing in the subsequent 10 years: Relative to what would occur under current law,
S. 744 would lower per capita G.N.P. by 0.7 percent in 2023 and raise it by 0.2 percent in 2033,
according to C.B.O.s central estimates. And it is reasonable to ask who will pay how much into our
tax system and who will receive what kind of benefits. This is the terrain that the C.B.O. and the
Heritage Foundation are contesting. (See, too, a letter to Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida,
from Stephen Gross, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration. Mr. Gross said immigration
reform would be a net positive; of the current 11.5 million illegal immigrants, many of these
individuals already work in the country in the underground economy, not paying taxes, and will begin
paying taxes if the immigration legislation are adopted. New illegal immigration would decline but not
be eliminated.) But the longer-run picture is most obviously quite different. The process of
creating businesses and investing what economists like to call capital formation is
much more dynamic than allowed for in many economic models. People will
save and they will invest. Companies will be created. The crucial question is who will have the ideas
that shape the 21st century. (See, for example, the work of Charles I. Jones of Stanford University on
this point and a paper he and Paul Romer wrote for a broader audience.) This is partly about education
and the proposed legislation would tilt new visas more toward skilled
workers, particularly those in science, technology, engineering, and math (often referred to

as STEM). But it would be a mistake to limited those admitted or those allowed legal status and
eventual citizenship to people who already have or are in the process of getting a university-level
education. To be clear, under the new system there may well be more low-wage immigrants than highwage immigrants, but the transition to a point system for allocating green cards is designed to
increase the share of people with more education and more scientific education, relative to the
situation today and relative to what would otherwise occur. Many people have good ideas. The Internet
has opened up the process of innovation. I dont know anyone who can predict where the next big
technologies will come from. I also dont know who will figure out how to organize production
including the provision of services in a more effective manner. We are competing in a world economy
based on human capital, and peoples skills and abilities are the basis for our
productivity. What we need more than anything, from an economic point of view, is more
people (of any age or background) who want to acquire and apply new skills.
Increasing the size of our domestic market over the last 400 years has served us well. Allowing in
immigrants in a fiscally responsible manner makes a great deal of sense and the reports from the
Joint Committee on Taxation and C.B.O. are very clear that this is now what is on the table. If the
children of immigrants want to get more education, we should welcome the opportunity that this
presents. When you cut off the path to higher education, you are depriving people of opportunity and
you are also hurting the economy. The deeper political irony, of course, is that if the Heritage
Foundation and its allies succeed in defeating immigration legislation, there are strong indications that
this will hurt the Republican Party at the polls over the next decade and beyond. Yet, even so, House
Republicans seem inclined to oppose immigration reform. That would be a mistake on both economic
and political grounds. We are 316 million people in a world of more than 7 billion on its way to 10
billion or more (read this United Nations report if you like to worry about the future). We should
reform immigration along the lines currently suggested and increase the supply of

skilled labor in the world. This will both improve our economy and, at least
potentially, help ensure the world stays more prosperous and more stable.

It solves long-term growth

Krudy 13 [Edward. Politics for Reuters. Analysis: Immigration Reform could

Boost US Economic Growth Reuters, 1/29/13 ln]

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

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
immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses, said Nowrasteh.

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 wage-earners. 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

the focus should be on

attracting highly skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants in the way Canada and
says a change of that magnitude may prove too politically sensitive,

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

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
Academics at

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

Hinojosa-Ojeda stresses that any reform needs to

make it easier for guest workers to enter the country to avoid a new buildup 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
native wages over the long run.

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.

CIR key to the economy and economic growth

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

comprehensive immigration reform 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 comprehensive immigration reform 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.

Key to the economy

Peter Crabb, staff writer, 12-18-2012, The Economy by Peter Crabb:

Immigration reform should boost the free trade of labor, Idaho Statesman,
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/12/18/2384708/immigration-reform-shouldboost.html
Political issues like immigration have economic principles at their core. With all the debate about
how to avoid a recession next year, it seems policymakers could find some
common ground on immigration and, in the process, help fix other economic
problems ahead of us. Economic theory shows, and historical evidence
supports, the contention that the key to economic growth is higher
productivity. Higher worker productivity lowers product costs and
increases output, raising our standard of living. By training and keeping
students in the STEM fields, we can boost the nations overall productivity.
Advances in science, engineering and math lead to better tools and more technology for workers. With these tools

STEM immigrants will help us find these

technological advancements. Unfortunately, immigration and productivity in the U.S. are both
and skills, workers produce more with less.

stagnant. According to the Department of Homeland Security, 1,062,040 people obtained U.S. permanent-resident
status in 2011, but only 139,339 for employment reasons. Furthermore, as a percentage of our labor force, the
number of legal immigrants has declined over the last decade. Some fear reforms to immigration laws because
illegal immigration is itself a problem. But even that is down. The Census Bureau reported this month that there
were 11.1 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. in 2011, down from a peak of 12 million in 2007. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics reported this month that productivity at nonfarm businesses is currently growing at just 1.7 percent
a year. This compares with an average annual rate of about 2.5 percent over the last decade. STEM immigrants can

Demographic studies also show we need more

immigrants. David Wessel, economics editor of The Wall Street Journal, argues that ambitious
immigrants will help lift living standards and bring faster growth. Allowing
more working immigrants will do more to repay the massive federal debt
than any other economic policy, because a higher GDP growth rate brings
in more tax revenue. A low growth rate in the labor force and longer life
expectancy for retirees combine to create the massive Social Security
problem that has yet to receive the attention it deserves. As long as our economy
help bring this rate back up.

produces jobs many workers will seek our shores through any means possible.

AT: High Skilled Visas Depress Wages

Studies prove increasing immigration doesnt lower wages

Sunil Mithas and Henry C. Lucas, Jr., assistant professor and Department Chair at
the Robert H. Smith School of Business at University of Maryland, May 2010,
Management Science, pp.757-8
We conducted additional analyses using yearwise regressions and found that non-U.S. citizens earned
statistically significant salary premiums from 2000 to 2005, after
controlling for education, experience, demographic, and other institutional
variables deemed important in prior research (see Table 6). The salary premium is 10.6% in 2000, 8.1% in
2001, 11.1% in 2002, 8.3% in 2003, 17.5% in 2004, and 4.7% in 2005. Note that during 2001 to 2003, actual H-1B
visas issued were lower than the maximum limit of 195,000 allowed by the H-1B, cap, and yet we observe salary
premiums for nonU.S. citizen IT professionals during these years. During 2004, maximum quotas came down to
pre-1999 levels of 65,000, and perhaps as a result, the premium rose significantly that year. During 2005, Congress
allowed an additional 20,000 H-1B work visas for foreign professionals graduating from U.S. universities, and we see
some impact in the form of lower salary premium during that year. We further divided the non-U.S. citizen category

We
find that the salary premium is 8.4% in 2000, 3.3% in 2001, 8.4% in 2002, and 4.4% in 2003 for H1B holders. In contrast, the salary premium for green card holders is generally higher than that for work visa
into work visa and green card status categories for which we have data from 2000 to 2003 (see Table 7).

holders during these years (green card premiums are 13.9% in 2000, 12.9% in 2001, 13.6% in 2002, and 11% in
2003).8 Figure 4 shows yearwise salary premiums for IT professionals with an H-1B or other work visa, IT
professionals with a green card and non-U.S. citizen IT professionals from 2000 to 2005. Interestingly, the salary
premiums for non-U.S. citizens, H-1B or other work visa holders, and green card holders rise or fall in concert and
are generally higher when the H-1B visa cap is lower and fully utilized as predicted by the reasoning for H2. On the

the yearwise results on salary premium for foreign professionals do

not provide support for the notion that firms are misusing U.S. work visa
provisions to pay less to foreign professionals . The presence of a
significant salary premium for H-1B and other visa holders in 2000 when the H-1B cap
was 115,000, but insignificant premium in 2001 when the H-1B cap went
up to 195,000, appears to vindicate the IT industrys plea for raising the
H-1B cap to make it easier to hire foreign professionals to overcome
tightness in the IT labor market (Thibodeau 2008). Although the H-1B cap remained
underutilized during 2002 and 2003, the H-1B salary premium during these years lends
support to foreign IT professionals as being complements rather than
substitutes for American professionals. Collectively, the presence of salary premiums for
whole,

foreign professionals even when a visa cap is underutilized and the fact that H-1B professionals salary premiums

foreign IT
professionals are complements of American IT professionals , and (2) H-1B
are more directly affected by H-1B visa restrictions than that of green card holders imply that (1)

professionals may be substitutes for each other because a reduction in their supply affects their wages much more
than that of green card holders. This finding is consistent with anecdotal evidence in trade press that suggests
substitution among visa holders (Thibodeau 2009).

Competitiveness
Reform is key to U.S. competitiveness
Bush et al 09 co-chairmen and director of a Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored Independent Task Force on U.S.
Immigration Policy (7/21/09, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. McLarty and Edward
Alden, Nation needs comprehensive, flexible immigration reform, http://www.ajc.com/opinion/nation-needs-comprehensiveflexible-97393.html)

Getting immigration
policy right is fundamental to our national interests our economic
vitality, our diplomacy and our national security. In the report of the bipartisan Council on
Our immigration system has been broken for too long, and the costs of that failure are growing.

Foreign Relations Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy, we lay out what is at stake for the United States. President
Barack Obama has made it clear that reform is one of his top priorities, and that is an encouraging and welcome signal.

Immigration has long been Americas secret weapon. The U.S. has
attracted an inordinate share of talented and hardworking immigrants who
are enticed here by the worlds best universities, the most innovative companies, a vibrant labor market and a welcoming culture.

the
contributions of immigrants 40 percent of the science and engineering Ph.D.s in the U.S. are foreign-born,
for example have helped maintain the scientific and technological leadership
that is the foundation of our national security. But the U.S. has been making
life much tougher for many immigrants. Long processing delays and arbitrary quota backlogs keep out
Many leaders in allied nations were educated in the U.S., a diplomatic asset that no other country can match. And

many would-be immigrants, or leave them in an uncertain temporary status for years. Background and other security checks are

Other countries are taking advantage of these

mistakes, competing for immigrants by opening their universities to
foreign students and providing a faster track to permanent residency and
citizenship.
taking far too long in many cases.

Competiveness key to economy and hegemony

Segal, 04 Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
(Adam, Foreign Affairs, Is America Losing Its Edge? November / December 2004,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html)

The U nited S tates' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to
develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the
last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological
entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and
military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the
Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long
taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is
coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and
preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and
ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by
scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest
producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients
around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and
telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology,
and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States'
technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the
American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S.

The U nited S tates will never be able to prevent rivals from developing
can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster
than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the
world, the U nited S tates must get better at fostering technological
entrepreneurship at home.
technological innovation and a significant threat to it.
new technologies; it

Hegemonic decline causes great power wars 1930s prove

Zhang & Shi, Researcher @ The Carnegie Endowment, 11

[Yuhan Zhang, Researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Lin
Shi, Columbia University, Independent consultant for the Eurasia Group, Consultant
for the World Bank, Americas decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry, January
22nd 2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbingerof-conflict-and-rivalry/]
Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously
challenge the 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

Defining this
US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property
rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and
some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society. 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 advances as Americas influence declines? Given that Americas authority, although
order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law.

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 this question could affect global society in a

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
profoundly detrimental way.

declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming
less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in

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, antiglobalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a
future that will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy .
1973).

CIR key to Competitiveness Ext.

Undocumented workers key to economy and competitiveness;
immigration reform will keep this workforce stable
Auburn Journal 6/4/10 (News media source, We need them, June 4, 2010,

accessed from http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/151531.html on June 30, 2010.)

The Texas-based Perryman Group has published an in-depth study of the undocumented immigrant workforce in USA . It
includes a sobering scenario of what would happen if the illegal workforce were suddenly deported. - For
the US economy, the immediate negative effect of eliminating the undocumented immigrant workforce
would mean $1.757 trillion in lost spending annually, $651.511 billion a year in lost output, and $8.1
million in lost jobs. - If all undocumented workers were suddenly removed from the workforce, a number
of industries would face critical labor shortages and American citizens would have to be induced into the labor pool or provided
incentives to take jobs far below their current education and skill levels. For the latter phenomenon to occur, substantial domestic wage escalation
would likely be necessary, eroding North American competitiveness in global markets. - As the domestic workforce becomes older, larger and
better educated, US production increasingly requires more low-skilled workers. In 1960 about 50% of men in this country who were not high
school graduates joined this low-skilled labor force. That number is now less than 10%. Shortages in the low-skilled labor force

are likely to continue to escalate. - There is clear evidence that undocumented workers are making
contributions to the US economy that far exceed their cost in social benefits. Undocumented workers pay
more in taxes overall than they receive in government benefits. - The amount of Social Security taxes
alone paid by undocumented workers is $9 billion annually. Paycheck withholding collects federal tax
from illegal workers, just as it does for legal workers. But undocumented workers can't collect the
benefits they pay for. The Social Security Administration estimates that three-quarters of illegal workers
pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare. In 2005 (the last year for
which figures are available) $9 billion in taxes was paid on $75 billion in wages from people who filed W2 forms
with incorrect or mismatched data. This typically includes illegal immigrant workers who draw paychecks
using fake names and SS numbers. The beneficial effect to Social Security is critical because most of that money is never claimed
by the people who pay it. Instead, helps cover SS retirement checks to legal workers. (federal law prohibits paying Social Security to illegal
immigrants). Any realistic immigration policy needs to recognize the inescapable reality that the resource

represented by undocumented workers is, at least for the foreseeable future, an absolutely essential
element of the modern US economy.

Reform of US immigration policies will increase

competitiveness by attracting skilled individuals.
Siskind 6/13/10 (Greg Siskind, J.D. from the University of Chicago, Brain Gain,
June 13, 2010, accessed from http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,0614-siskind.shtm
on June 29, 2010)
The Brookings Institute's Darrell West has authored a new book entitled Brain Gain: Rethinking US Immigration Policy
which makes the case that comprehensive immigration reform is critical to keeping the US
competitive in the 21st century global economy. From the Brookings description of the new work: Many of
Americas greatest artists, scientists, inventors, educators, and entrepreneurs have come from
abroad. Rather than suffering from the brain drain of talented and educated individuals
emigrating, the United States has benefited greatly over the years from the brain gain of
immigration. These gifted immigrants have engineered advances in energy, information
technology, international commerce, sports, arts, and culture. To stay competitive, the United
States must institute more of an open-door policy to attract unique talents from other nations. Yet
Americans resist such a policy despite their own immigrant histories and the substantial social, economic, intellectual, and cultural benefits
of welcoming newcomers. Why? In Brain Gain, Darrell West asserts that perception or vision is one reason reform in

immigration policy is so politically difficult. Public discourse tends to emphasize the perceived
negatives. Fear too often trumps optimism and reason. And democracy is messy, with policy

principles that are often difficult to reconcile. The seeming irrationality of U.S. immigration policy arises from a variety
of thorny and interrelated factors: particularistic politics and fragmented institutions, public concern regarding education and employment,
anger over taxes and social services, and ambivalence about national identity, culture, and language.

Full scale immigration reform will bring overseas talent to the

US and keep us competitive.
Smith 5/11/10 (Richard Herman Robert L. Smith, staff writer for the Providence
Journal, May 11, 2010, accessed from
http://www.projo.com/opinion/columnists/content/CT_immi11_05-1110_ANI8L98_v15.4084ea5.html on June 29, 2010.)

With Arizona imposing the toughest immigration laws in the land, and right-wing radio hosts calling for snipers at the border, President
Obama says its time to take another crack at comprehensive immigration reform. His call to renew
the immigration debate no doubt leaves many Americans thinking, Here we go again, exhausted as we all are from the national brawl over
health-care reform. Goodbye public option, hello amnesty? But there lies a path to immigration reform that could

both transform an outdated system and win the speedy approval of most Americans. The seeds
of the solution lie in the reform bill being hammered out in the offices of U.S. Senators Lindsey
Graham (R.-S.C.) and Charles Schumer (D.-N.Y.). Their package of proposals includes a provocative idea
that has not been getting the attention it deserves. The senators call for a dash of high-skill
immigration reform. More specifically, their plan would offer fast-track visas to immigrants
with rare talent and ingenuity. They would, in other words, extend a wider welcome to men and
women most likely to enhance Americas competitiveness and create jobs. Now thats an idea a skeptical
public might not bother to oppose. Oh, there are other far-reaching and surely controversial proposals in their bill, according to what the
senators have so far divulged. Tamper-proof national ID cards. A mea culpa from immigrants who entered illegally. Harsher sanctions for
employers who willingly hire them. But the high-skill stuff is the game changer. So powerful and sensible is

high-skill immigration, it might as well inspire its own reform bill. Graham and Schumer might keep that in
mind if comprehensive change proves impossible in a poisonous political climate. To welcome high-skill immigrants is to promote a
lucrative and little-know phenomenon. While the country was preoccupied with illegal immigrants, legal immigrants were building the New
Economy. The founders of Google, Intel, Yahoo, Sun Microsystems, AST Research, eBay and YouTube are all

largely immigrants. New Americans are behind more than half of the high-tech companies in
Silicon Valley and about a quarter of the biotech companies in New England. In a global
economy fueled by technology and innovation, high-skill immigrants have become Americas
competitive edge.

Bad immigration policies hold back the US; Comprehensive

immigration reform gets the nation back on track in the global
scene.
Giovagnoli 6/22/10 (Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is More Than a Piece of Legislation, June 22,

2010, accessed from
http://www.alternet.org/immigration/147285/comprehensive_immigration_reform_is_
more_than_a_piece_of_legislation on June 30, 2010.)
As the Immigration Policy Center has consistently pointed out, comprehensive immigration reform is
the solution to a problem that is far more pervasive than most Americans (still) realize. Our
broken immigration system contributes to our stalled economy, undermines our
reputation in the world, costs us billions of dollars in unworkable enforcement only
strategies, and chips away at the moral values of the country. The problem is so big,
in fact, that no one bill will ever fix all the pieces at once. But a systematic overhaul,
one that includes legalization for the roughly 11 million people already here, a
reduction in immigration backlogs that keep families apart, a flexible and fair
system for bringing in new workers, and reasonable enforcement would create a

solid base on which to build an immigration system that helps the country succeed
in the 21st century.

High Tech Visas Impacts

Immigration reform will increase high-tech visas.
Smith, 11/7/2012 (Gerry, Technology Industry Puts Immigration Reform As Top
Hope For Obama's Second Term, p.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/technology-immigration-reformobama_n_2087457.html)
Many startups in New York's "Silicon Alley" say they can't hire enough qualified
engineers because of a shortage of temporary work visas and green
cards. They have been pushing for legislation that would allow more
immigrants with high-tech skills to remain in the country . The issue was not a
priority during the president's first term. But on the campaign trail, Obama hinted that it would be
a priority in his next term. And in his acceptance speech early Wednesday morning, he said "fixing our
immigration system" would be one of the policy issues that he would address "in the coming weeks and months."
But to accomplish that, Obama will need help from Congress, which after Tuesday's election, remains divided.
Democrats maintained control of the Senate and Republicans kept control of the House. The issue of expanding
visas for highly-skilled immigrants has faced opposition from both parties. The STEM Jobs Act, which would have
granted more visas to immigrants with math and science degrees, was widely supported by the tech community.
But it failed to pass this year in part because Democrats demanded more comprehensive immigration reform. And
expanding visa programs are politically controversial: Critics claim they produce an influx in foreign-born workers
who depress wages and make it more difficult for American-born workers to find jobs in high-tech fields. Over the
past four years, Obama has received high marks from the tech community on some measures. He recently signed
laws, for example, that will allow entrepreneurs to use crowdfunding to raise capital. But they've expressed
disappointed that he hasn't accomplished more. "He hasnt done as much on tech as we would like but he's clearly
leaning toward many of our policy goals," said Andrew Rasiej, chairman of NY Tech Meetup, which hosts monthly
gatherings for tech entrepreneurs. Besides immigration, those goals include increasing investment in research and
development and science and math education. In a letter he sent last month to NY Tech Meetup, which has more
than 27,000 members, Obama said he planned to recruit 10,000 math and science teachers over the next decade

some are optimistic that

Obama will give more attention to their top policy issue . "We think the
president was sincere in his talk about the need for immigriaton reform in
and train 2 million workers for high-tech jobs. Now that the election is over,

the second term, and we think he'll have a receptive House and Senate who want to look at that issue as well,"

said Mark Heesen, the president of the National Venture Capital Association ,
an industry group. One factor may help explain the tech community's optimism
that Obama will prioritize their issues in his next term: the industry made
sizable contributions to his campaign. Obama raised $7.1 million from members of the tech
industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

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. Think 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

a new visa category for employees of federal

national security science and technology laboratories. The proposal creates a new
the Presidents proposal: Create

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.

Aerospace Impact
Labor crisis in aerospace now temporary workers key to
industry competitiveness and innovation
AIAA 10 [American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, "Recruiting, retaining,
and developing a world-class aerospace workforce: An AIAA Information Paper,
presented at the AIAA's 13th Annual AIAA Congressional Visits Day in March 2010,
pdf, http://www.doleta.gov/brg/indprof/aerospace_report.pdf]
Without a strong aerospace workforce, the United States will lose the resulting economic
and national security benefits. Incentives are needed for industry to invest in domestic aerospace
workforce development, and for U.S. students to choose an engineering career. Barriers to employing
talented foreign nationals must also be removed. Aerospace represents about $200 billion (or 1.5%)
of the domestic economy and in 1997 provided a $56 billion positive trade balance. The aerospace workforce is
the foundation of the industrys success , yet unique workforce demographics present challenges.
Figure 11 shows the age distribution of the aerospace business workforce compared to the total U.S. workforce. Up

half of the current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within five
years. Aerospace workforce composition does not match national demographic averages. Compared to the total
to

US workforce, the aerospace industry and NASA have a disproportionately large percentage of workers aged 4055,
and a disproportionately small percentage of workers younger than 40. Student loans, research dollars to support
universities, and service scholarships can provide incentives for younger workers to consider aerospace and join the
industry. If talented young engineers are not recruited, retained, and developed to replace the workforce generation
that is near retirement, then the U.S. stands to lose the valuable economic and critical national security benefits of

large percentages of engineers are

working outside the science and engineering professions. Engineering students
burdened with college loans are seeking greener pastures . As shown in Figure 33, aerospace
the domestic aerospace industry. As shown in Figure 22,

engineering salaries are low compared to other industries. If the U.S. is to retain its edge in this industry, salaries
need to rise and incentives given for entering the industry. Further, since 1980, the number of nonacademic science

With a
growing number of science and engineering jobs anticipated, the supply of visas set
aside under law for highly qualified foreign workers , 65,000 a year4 is not enough. A
decline in student, exchange, and temporary high-skilled worker visas issued since 2001
interrupted a long-term trend of growth . The number of student visas and of temporary high-skilled
and engineering jobs has grown at more than four times the rate of the U.S. labor force as a whole2.

worker visas issued have both declined by more than 25% since FY 2001. These declines were due both to fewer
applications and to an increase in the proportion of visa applications rejected2. To

add to the supply

pressures of science and engineering workers in our economy, there is increased recruitment of
high-skilled labor, including scientists and engineers, by many national governments and
private firms. For example, in 1999, 241,000 individuals entered Japan with temporary high-skill work visas, a
75 percent increase over 19925. Research and development [R&D] expenditures keep the
aerospace industry strong and help maintain US leadership in this sector . As shown in
Figure 46, the R&D tax credit is working to increase corporate spending on this important activity. In the early
1990s, after implementation of the R&D tax credit legislation, private expenditures on R&D rose2. Yet even with this
incentive, U.S. industry research and development funding is lagging. In 2001, US industry spent more on tort
litigation than on research and development4. Perhaps as a result, American companies are lagging in patents. In
2005, only four American companies ranked among the top 10 corporate recipients of patents granted by the
United States Patent and Trademark Office4. And to further add to this distressing R&D dollars situation, federal
research funding is lagging as well. The amount invested annually by the US federal government in research in the
physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering combined is less than what Americans spend on potato chips7,8.

the U.S. must adopt policies to increase our

talent base in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), must educate, engage, and retain
STEM professionals using means consistent with generational changes in technologies and markets, and must
provide incentives for investment in research and development that helps to attract applicable talent. The
RECOMMENDATIONS To remain globally competitive,

AIAA recommends policies in three areas to achieve these goals: incentives for college students to study
engineering, and corporate incentives for investing in the aerospace workforce, and immigration for STEM
professionals. In the area of incentives for college students to study engineering, forgivable loan programs should

be implemented for students who study engineering and enter the domestic technical workforce. Service
scholarships should be created to pay college for students who desire to and will serve in aerospace-related U.S.
government agencies after graduation. In addition, investments must be made in aerospace research infrastructure
and increasing R&D funding to universities, since good research opportunities attract talented students into
graduate STEM studies. R&D dollars provide a fourfold return by supporting graduate students, generating
knowledge, creating innovation opportunities for small businesses around universities, and building the next
generation of talented engineers. In the area of corporate incentives for investing in the aerospace workforce,
targeted tax credits or incentives should be instituted for domestic aerospace workforce development expenses. An
IR&D-like program for aerospace workforce development should be established by allowing a small percentage of
government contract funding to aerospace companies to go into a development fund to be used on effective
programs to expand domestic workforce capabilities. In addition, the R&D tax credit should be made permanent,
providing stability to corporate fiscal policies, and thereby fostering a critical technology and engineering research

in the area
of immigration, barriers should be removed so that the US may retain talented
foreign nationals in STEM professions critical to the aerospace industry .
environment that attracts the best and brightest into the technology and engineering fields. Lastly,

Strong aerospace key to overall US air power

Thompson 9 (David, President American Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics, The Aerospace Workforce, Federal News Service, 12-10, Lexis)

Aerospace systems are of considerable importance to U.S. national security, economic
prosperity, technological vitality, and global leadership . Aeronautical and space systems
protect our citizens, armed forces, and allies abroad. They connect the farthest corners
of the world with safe and efficient air transportation and satellite communications , and
they monitor the Earth, explore the solar system, and study the wider universe. The U.S. aerospace sector also
contributes in major ways to America's economic output and high- technology employment. Aerospace research
and development and manufacturing companies generated approximately $240 billion in sales in 2008, or nearly
1.75 percent of our country's gross national product. They currently employ about 650,000 people throughout our
country. U.S. government agencies and departments engaged in aerospace research and operations add another
125,000 employees to the sector's workforce, bringing the total to over 775,000 people. Included in this number are
more than 200,000 engineers and scientists -- one of the largest concentrations of technical brainpower on Earth.
However, the U.S. aerospace workforce is now facing the most serious demographic challenge in his 100-year
history. Simply put, today, many more older, experienced professionals are retiring from or otherwise leaving our
industrial and governmental aerospace workforce than early career professionals are entering it. This imbalance is
expected to become even more severe over the next five years as the final members of the Apollo-era generation
of engineers and scientists complete 40- or 45-year careers and transition to well-deserved retirements. In fact,
around 50 percent of the current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within just the next five years.
Meanwhile, the supply of younger aerospace engineers and scientists entering the industry is woefully insufficient
to replace the mounting wave of retirements and other departures that we see in the near future. In part, this is the
result of broader technical career trends as engineering and science graduates from our country's universities
continue a multi-decade decline, even as the demand for their knowledge and skills in aerospace and other
industries keeps increasing. Today, only about 15 percent of U.S. students earn their first college degree in
engineering or science, well behind the 40 or 50 percent levels seen in many European and Asian countries. Due to
the dual-use nature of aerospace technology and the limited supply of visas available to highly-qualified non-U.S.
citizens, our industry's ability to hire the best and brightest graduates from overseas is also severely constrained.
As a result, unless effective action is taken to reverse current trends, the U.S. aerospace sector is expected to
experience a dramatic decrease in its technical workforce over the next decade. Your second question concerns the
implications of a cutback in human spaceflight programs. AIAA's view on this is as follows. While U.S. human
spaceflight programs directly employ somewhat less than 10 percent of our country's aerospace workers, its
influence on attracting and motivating tomorrow's aerospace professionals is much greater than its immediate
employment contribution. For nearly 50 years the excitement and challenge of human spaceflight have been
tremendously important factors in the decisions of generations of young people to prepare for and to pursue
careers in the aerospace sector. This remains true today, as indicated by hundreds of testimonies AIAA members
have recorded over the past two years, a few of which I'll show in brief video interviews at the end of my statement.
Further evidence of the catalytic role of human space missions is found in a recent study conducted earlier this year
by MIT which found that 40 percent of current aerospace engineering undergraduates cited human space programs
as the main reason they chose this field of study. Therefore, I think it can be predicted with high confidence that a
major cutback in U.S. human space programs would be substantially detrimental to the future of the aerospace
workforce. Such a cutback would put even greater stress on an already weakened strategic sector of our domestic
high-technology workforce. Your final question centers on other issues that should be considered as decisions are
made on the funding and direction for NASA, particularly in the human spaceflight area. In conclusion, AIAA offers
the following suggestions in this regard. Beyond the previously noted critical influence on the future supply of
aerospace professionals, administration and congressional leaders should also consider the collateral damage to

the space industrial base if human space programs were substantially curtailed. Due to low annual production rates

the domestic supply chain for space systems is

relatively fragile . Many second- and third-tier suppliers in particular operate at marginal
volumes today, so even a small reduction in their business could force some critical
suppliers to exit this sector. Human space programs represent around 20 percent of the $47 billion in
total U.S. space and missile systems sales from 2008. Accordingly, a major cutback in human space spending
could have large and highly adverse ripple effects throughout commercial, defense, and
scientific space programs as well, potentially triggering a series of disruptive changes in the
common industrial supply base that our entire space sector relies on.
and highly-specialized product requirements,

Thats a key internal link into sustaining heg solves nuke

wars & aggression
Wyne, 8 Michael W. Wynne, Secretary of the Air Force [Sovereign Options:
Securing Global Stability and Prosperity A Strategy for the US Air Force, Air
University, Strategic Studies Quarterly, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?
AD=ADA508798&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf]

Over the last century, the scope of US international responsibility has vastly increased, but the Constitutional
imperatives that guide our militarys mission remain unchanged. When scholars look at the role the United States
has played in the international system since WWII, they sometimes compare it to the Pax Romana or the Pax

but if there is an American Pax, it is a

very generous one; the sort that seeks to increase the well-being and liberty of all
who wish to join and asks only that those who do not join refrain from using violence
against those who do. The benefits the international system derives from US leadership
are impressive. For over half a century, the United States has been the worlds foremost
defender of international stability and has taken the leading role in building and
leading the coalitions that preserve it. This leadership led to the fall of the Nazi and
Soviet regimes and provided the stable backdrop against which countries like Japan,
Germany, and China initiated their economic miracles. It also contributed to 60 years without
major-power war, the establishment of open international trading relations, and the
unprecedented spread of democratic governance. Unfortunately, in the current era, many have
Britannica of previ ous centuries. here is some truth to this,

become so accustomed to global stability that they wonder why the United States continues to invest in its armed

we have allowed our strategic forces to atrophy as our

major-power competitors have increased their own; and we have readily discussed
peace dividends as we stretched our combat forces to the breaking point. It is true there
is a great deal of goodwill in the international system to day, yet the current security and prosperity
enjoyed by those living within the borders of the United States and its allies are
based on more than good will. Major-power competitors regularly probe US defenses
in the air and continuously attack our military infrastructure in cyberspace. Mid-range competitors
persistently purchase technologically advanced surface-to-air missiles and fighters
that undermine our deterrent forces. Numerous ac tors have the capability and
desire to disrupt the existing system. Since the last days of the Cold War, US-led coalitions have
forces. Over the last two decades,

fought wars in six countriesPanama, Kuwait, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraqand participated in many

more important than the wars we have fought over the last
two decades are the wars we have not fought. It has been many years since an opposed major
power threatened us directly. Our globally deployed forces, our alliances and coalitions, and
the quality and quantity of our strategic forces signal states around the world that
aggression does not pay. This type of peace through strength was the dream of the League of Nations and
other military operations. Perhaps

later of the United Nations, but neither organization achieved the consensus necessary to carry out its vision. Today
the United States, acting with allies or ad hoc coalitions of the willing, has let both the peaceful and violent states of
the world know through its action that we will preserve peace. The impact of this deterrent presence cannot be
overstated.

In most regions of the world, peaceful states no longer feel the need to

build large armed forces to defend against bellicose neighbors, and many
potentially revisionist states understand that the resource requirements to compete
militarily with the United States are too highour own capability deters such conflicts from
even emerging. While we fight vicious battles on the frontiers, we must not forget that the zone
of stability we have created through our vigilance and forward presence is the
largest in history. This is not a responsibility the United States can shirk or hand of to
another state or organization. No other country in the world today is able to pick up the US
leadership mantle. No other country or coalition is able to project power globally; nor
could anyone else develop that capability in the face of the current antiair and
antisea threat environment. From one perspective, Americas existing global power projection capability
is a unique historical accident. At a time when the United States controlled almost half of the worlds GNP, it also
faced a bellicose Soviet Union. This combination led the United States to spend unprecedented sums on its strategic
forces (approximately half of its robust defense budget on the Air Force alone). The global web of bases, air
refueling aircraft, strategic bombers, satellites, and air superiority technology has served us well for half a century.

Like the legendary Roman roads that enabled the Pax Romana, or the fleet and global network
of naval bases that underwrote the Pax Britannia, US airpower vastly magnifies our
ability to project power beyond our borders. Maintaining these strategic forces carries a price tag,
but the United States does not fight so regularly or deter so thoroughly for purely altruistic reasons. Without the
peaceful environment facilitated by American diplomacy and arms, the United
States would not enjoy its current level of security and prosperity. The security and
economic health of the United States are closely intertwined with the stability and prosperity of the international

Our citizens enjoy peaceful lives at home because no major power believes it
can challenge us and win; they prosper because we protect the global commons.
The United States cannot neglect its position of leader ship without grave
consequences. When Rome surrendered its mantle of leadership, the lights went out
in Europe for a thousand years. Between the time the British Empire declined and the United
States rose, the world fought two world wars and numerous lesser conflicts. It is true that
the role the US military plays in the world today carries a price tag, but is more than worth the
cost. The Threats We Face In the current international system, the United States and its allies face two principal
threats. The first comes from major-power opponents with access to modern conventional and nuclear weapons. It
is easy to dis miss the possibility of major-power war in todays peaceful system,
but big wars, with their apocalyptic potential for suffering and destruction have a tendency to
happen unexpectedly. Even when they do not occur, Americas opponents often
base their demands on their perception of our ability to fight and win wars. Such major
conventional or nuclear wars are by far the gravest military threat we face, and the
perception that we are too weak to stand behind our global commitments is the
surest route to such a war. Above all, the US military must prevent major-power
opponents from believing they can benefit from using their military power against
Americas vital interests.
system.

Biotech Impact
A shortage in STEM workers cripples US biotech leadershipthas necessary to develop countermeasures to bioterrorism
Goldberg et al 2004 (Joseph E., Dorsey, Harry, Bartone, Paul, Ortman, Bill,
Ashcraft, Paul, Burlingame, Stan, Carter, Anna L., Cofer, Robin D., Elwood, John,
Guerts, Jim, Industry Studies 2004: Biotechnology, The Industrial College of the
Armed Forces National Defense University)

Biotechnology has the potential to revolutionize all aspects of our daily of life over the next two decades, in much

Biotechnology is still an
immature industry that has yet to reach its full potential, but it is already an
important driver for the U.S. economy overall. It presents the U.S. with a
tremendous opportunity to address many of the countrys most pressing defense,
health, and economic issues. It also holds promise for improvement in global health and welfare but only
the same way information technology did during the previous two decades.

to the degree that other nations are willing to utilize the technology and are successful in their respective
biotechnology initiatives. Biotechnology is greatly affected by government investment in basic science, government
regulation, and the government product approval processes. These factors drive a unique business model. The
synergy between U.S. government policies and funding, academia, and the industrial base provides the U.S. with a
unique competitive advantage and is a primary reason the U.S. has been able to quickly become the global leader
in biotechnology. While the recent recession temporarily cooled the rapid growth of biotech industry, it did not stifle
long-term growth in revenues or sales, nor prevent sustained long-term growth. Demographics and a geometric

The U.S. is the

world leader in the biotechnology industry in all aspects the number of companies,
size of the research base, number of products and patents, and level of revenue.
While the U.S. is the dominant player in todays biotechnology market, other
countries in general, and Asia in particular, are actively investing in government
sponsored programs to increase their market share and reduce the US dominance
overall. The U.S. future lead in biotechnology is threatened by a potential shortage
of U.S. scientists and engineers, an increasing global demand for scientists, fewer
U.S. college graduates in math and science, and tighter U.S. visa restrictions on
foreign students and scientists. Unfortunately, biotechnologys potential for improving
the quality of life in the U.S. and the rest of the world is tempered by the risk of
enemy or terrorist use of bioagents and/or bioweapons against the US or its allies.
expansion of biotech applications will fuel the biotech market well into the coming century.

The potential dual use of biotechnology complicates the effort to craft effective non-proliferation policies and

As biotechnology continues to mature as a technology and

industrial sector, policy makers at the U.S. and global level must continue to refine
global non-proliferation and counter-proliferation regimes to ensure biotechnologys
potential for mis-use does not outweigh its ability to address the worlds most
pressing needs.
mitigate bio-weapons threats.

A bioweapons attack threatens human survival

Carpenter and Bishop 2009 (P. A., P. C., July 10, Graduate Program in Studies of
the Future, School of Human Sciences and Humanities, University of Houston-Clear
Lake, Houston, TX, USA, Graduate Program in Futures Studies, College of
Technology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. A review of previous mass
extinctions and historic catastrophic events, ScienceDirect)
The flu of 1890, 19181919 Spanish flu, 1957 Asian flu, 1968 Hong Kong flu, and 1977 Russian flu all led to mass
deaths. Pandemics such as these remain major threats to human health that could lead to extremely high death
rates. The 1918 pandemic is believed to have killed 50 million people [27]. AIDS (HIV) has killed an estimated 23

And there have been numerous other incidents of

diseases such as cholera, dysentery, influenza, scurvy, smallpox, typhus, and
million people from 1978 to 2001 [15].

plague that have caused the deaths of many millions throughout history. Clearly,
these biological diseases are much greater threats to human survival than
other natural or environmental disasters. Because bacterium and viral strains
experience antigenic shifts (which are small changes in the virus that happen continually over time,
eventually producing new virus strains that might not be recognized by the bodys immune system), another
devastating pandemic could appear at any time. It should also be noted that the threat
from biological weapons is quite real. In fact, scientists from the former Soviet
Unions bioweapons program claim to have developed an antibiotic-resistant strain
of the plague [26].

China/India Impact
Immigration reform expands skilled labor --- spurs relations
and economic growth in China and India.
L os A ngeles Times, 11/9/2012 (Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration
reform, p. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigrationreform-eagerly-awaited-by-source-countries.html)
"Comprehensive immigration reform 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.

US/India relations averts South Asian nuclear war.

Schaffer, Spring 2002 (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.

Chinese economic growth prevents global nuclear war

Kaminski 7 (Antoni Z., Professor Institute of Political Studies, World Order: The
Mechanics of Threats (Central European Perspective), Polish Quarterly of
International Affairs, 1, p. 58)

As already argued, the economic advance of China has taken place with relatively few corresponding changes in the
political system, although the operation of political and economic institutions has seen some major changes. Still,
tools are missing that would allow the establishment of political and legal foundations for the modem economy, or
they are too weak. The tools are efficient public administration, the rule of law, clearly defined ownership rights,
efficient banking system, etc. For these reasons, many experts fear

an economic crisis in China.

would have

Considering the importance of the state for the development of the global economy, the crisis

serious global repercussions. Its political ramifications could be no less dramatic owing to the
special position the military occupies in the Chinese political system, and the existence of many potential vexed

A potential hotbed of conflict

is also Taiwan's status. Economic recession and the related destabilization of internal policies
could lead to a political, or even military crisis. The likelihood of the global
issues in East Asia (disputes over islands in the China Sea and the Pacific).

escalation of the conflict is high, as the interests of Russia, China, Japan,

Australia and, first and foremost, the US clash in the region.

Clean Tech Impact

High skilled immigrants solve clean tech
Norris 10--Teryn, "Racing for Clean Tech Jobs: Why America Needs an Energy Education Strategy", Daily Kos,
March 18th, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/18/847363/-Racing-for-Clean-Tech-Jobs:-Why-America-Needs-anEnergy-Education-Strategy

the U nited S tates faces serious questions about the

future of its economy and jobs market. Where will the good jobs of the future come from ,
In the aftermath of the Great Recession,

how do we prepare the American workforce, and what is our strategy to maintain economic leadership in an

clean tech will be one of our

generation's largest growth sectors . The global clean-tech market is
expected to surpass $1 trillion in value within the next few years, and a perfect storm of
increasingly competitive world? A growing consensus suggests that

factors - from the inevitability of a carbon-constrained world, to skyrocketing global energy demand, to long-term oil

That is why the national

debate about global clean-tech competitiveness is so important , sparked by the
price hikes - will drive global demand for clean-energy technologies.

rapid entry of China and other nations. My colleagues and I recently contributed to the discussion with "Rising
Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a large report providing the first comprehensive analysis of competitive positions among
the U.S. and key Asian challengers. In order to compete, we found ,

"U.S. energy policy must

include large, direct and coordinated investments in clean-technology
R&D, manufacturing, deployment, and infrastructure." But even if the United States
adopts a real industrial policy for clean energy, there is little evidence that our workforce
is skilled enough to compete . Unfortunately, according to the Department of Energy, "The U.S.
ranks behind other major nations in making the transitions required to
educate students for emerging energy trades, research efforts and other
professions to support the future energy technology mix." A competitive
energy workforce requires much more than technicians and building retrofitters. Scientists,
engineers, high-tech entrepreneurs, and advanced manufacturers will play a
critical role, just as they have in strategic sectors like infotech, aerospace, and biotech. The federal government has
started to address the need for green technician and efficiency retrofit training, such as with the Green Jobs Act, but
it has not implemented an education strategy to keep the U.S. at the leading edge of energy science, technology,

the majority of our colleges and universities lack

degree programs focused on energy, and the U.S. power engineering
education system is on the decline. Over the next five years, 45 percent of electric utility
and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately,

engineers will be eligible for retirement, along with 40 percent of key power engineering faculty at U.S. universities,
according to a report by IEEE. "Engineering workforce shortages are already occurring," the report concludes. " We

need more electrical engineers to solve industry challenges, and to build the 21st
century electric power grid... Meeting these needs requires long-term investment now." Meanwhile, other
countries are producing a substantially larger portion of scientists,
engineers, and researchers that will benefit their clean-tech industries.
Science and engineering make up only about one-third of U.S. bachelor's
degrees, compared to 63 percent in Japan, 53 percent in China and 51
percent in Singapore, and the number of Chinese researchers is now on
par with the U nited S tates (though some have pointed out that the quality of these graduates and
researchers is not always comparable). "Over time," stated a recent report by the National Science Board,
"the U nited S tates has fallen from one of the top countries in terms of its
ratio of natural science and engineering degrees to the college-age population to
near the bottom of the 23 countries for which data are available." The energy workforce
deficit and STEM education gap will substantially limit the nation's ability

to lead the clean-tech industry and accelerate clean energy development .

As Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman put it, "If you had to explain America's economic success with one word, that word

the U.S. must develop an

energy education strategy to develop tens of thousands of advanced
energy scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, as well as technicians.
would be 'education.'" In order to succeed in the clean-tech industry,

Solves warming, the environment, and resource wars

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/louis-klarevas/securing-american-primacy_b_393223.html
As national leaders from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark, to attend the United Nations

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 U nited S tates 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 meaningful way. Often, the gridlock is
Climate Change Conference,

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 between realists and liberals. 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,

global
warming might very well become the greatest challenge ever faced by
mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined national interests for the greater global good.
China, Japan, India, and the European Union. Liberals, on the other hand, have recognized that

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
interests. What both sides need to understand is that

out other countries in times of 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

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
longed for a multilateral forum where global concerns could be addressed.

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

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
however.

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 is a limited natural resource, a nasty zerosum 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

So long as the global economy remains oildependent, 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
form of carbon dioxide emissions.

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 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-friendly energy like wind, solar, and
hydrogen power. 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

the federal government must drastically increase

investment in energy and environmental research and development (E&E
R&D). This will require a 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
national project, 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
green hegemon. For starters,

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

Such innovations will not only provide alternatives to oil,

they will also give the U.S. an edge in the global competition for

fuels; and even fusion.

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

The bottom-line is that the U.S. needs to become green energy

dominant as opposed to black energy independent - and the best
approach for achieving this is to promote a national strategy of
greengemony.
foes in check.

Ext. CIR k2 Climate/Warming

Current immigration law endangers all innovation reform is
key
McCraw, professor emeritus at Harvard Business School, 11/1/ 2012
(Thomas, Innovative Immigrants,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/immigrants-as-entrepreneurs.html?
pagewanted=all)
SOME 70 million immigrants have come to America since the first colonists arrived. The role their labor has

played in economic development is widely understood. Much less familiar is the extent to which their remarkable

innovations have driven American prosperity. Indeed, while both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney
have lauded entrepreneurship, innovation and job creation, neither candidate has made comprehensive
immigration reform an issue, despite immigrants crucial role in those fields. Yet understanding how

immigrants have fueled innovation through history is critical to making sure they

continue to drive prosperity in the future. At the countrys beginning, the three most important architects of its
financial system were immigrants: Alexander Hamilton, from St. Croix, then part of the Danish West Indies; Robert
Morris, born in Liverpool, England; and Albert Gallatin of Geneva. Morris was superintendent of finance during the
Revolutionary War, using every resource at his command to support the army in the field. Hamilton, as the first
secretary of the Treasury, rescued the country from bankruptcy and designed its basic financial system. Gallatin
paid down much of the national debt, engineered the financing of the Louisiana Purchase and remains the longestserving Treasury secretary ever. Immigrants financial innovations continued through the 19th century. In 1808
Alexander Brown, from Ireland, founded the nations first investment bank, and his immigrant sons set up Brown
Brothers. The Lehman brothers, from Germany, began as dry-goods merchants and cotton brokers in Alabama, then
moved to New York just before the Civil War and eventually founded a bank. Many other immigrants, including
Marcus Goldman of Goldman Sachs, followed similar paths, starting very small, traveling to new cities and
establishing banks. Meanwhile, Yankee firms like Kidder, Peabody and Drexel, Morgan whose partners were
native-born remained less mobile, tied by family and high society to Boston and New York. Immigrant innovators
were pioneers in many other industries after the Civil War. Three examples were Andrew Carnegie (Scotland, steel),
Joseph Pulitzer (Hungary, newspapers) and David Sarnoff (Russia, electronics). Each came to America young, poor
and full of energy. Carnegies mother brought the family to Pittsburgh in 1848, when Andrew was 12. He became a
bobbin-boy in a textile mill, a telegram messenger, a telegraph-key operator, a low-level manager at the
Pennsylvania Railroad, a division superintendent for the same railroad and a bond salesman for the railroad in
Europe. Recognizing the limitless market for the rails that carried trains, Carnegie jumped to steel. His most
important innovation was hard driving blast furnaces, wearing them out quickly. This violated the accepted
practice of coddling furnaces, but he calculated that his vastly increased output cut the price of steel far more
than replacing the furnaces cost his company. In turn, an immense quantity of cheap steel found its way into
lucrative new uses: structural steel for skyscrapers, sheet steel for automobiles. Pulitzer was the home-tutored son
of a prosperous Hungarian family that lost its fortune. He came to the United States in 1864 at age 17, recruited by
a Massachusetts Civil War regiment. Penniless after the war ended, he went to St. Louis, a center for German
immigrants, whose language he spoke fluently. He worked as a waiter, a railroad clerk, a lawyer and a reporter for a
local German newspaper, part of which he eventually purchased. In 1879, he acquired two English-language papers
and merged them into The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. In 1883, he moved to New York, where he bought The New York
World and began a fierce competition with other New York papers, mainly the Sun and, later, William Randolph
Hearsts New York Journal. The New York World was pro-labor, pro-immigration and, remarkably, both serious and
sensationalist. It achieved a huge circulation. Sarnoff was just 9 years old when he arrived from Russia in 1901. He
earned money selling Yiddish newspapers on the street and singing at a synagogue, and then worked as an office
clerk, a messenger and, like Carnegie, a telegraph operator. From there he became part of the fledgling radio firm
RCA and rose rapidly within its ranks. Sarnoff was among the first to see radios potential as point-to-mass
entertainment, i.e., broadcasting. He devoted a huge percentage of profits to research and development, and won
an epic battle with CBS over industry standards for color TV. For decades, RCA and electronics were practically
synonymous. As these men show,

one of the key traits of immigrant innovators is geographic

mobility, both from the home country and within the United States. Consider the striking roster of 20th-century

immigrants who led the development of fields like movies and information technology: the Hollywood studios MGM,
Warner Brothers, United Artists, Paramount and Universal; the Silicon Valley companies Intel, eBay, Google, Yahoo
and Sun Microsystems. The economist Joseph Schumpeter yet another immigrant, and the most perceptive early
analyst of innovation considered it to be the fundamental component of entrepreneurship: The typical
entrepreneur is more self-centered than other types, because he relies less than they do on tradition and
connection and because his efforts consist precisely in breaking up old, and creating new, tradition. For that
reason, innovators always encounter resistance from people whose economic and social interests are threatened by
new products and methods. Compared with the native-born, who have extended families and lifelong social and
commercial relationships,

immigrants without such ties without businesses to inherit or family property

to protect are in some ways better prepared to play the innovators role. A hundred academic
monographs could not prove that immigrants are more innovative than native-born Americans, because each spurs

Innovations by the blended population were, and still are, integral to the
economic growth of the U nited S tates. But our overly complex immigration law hampers
even the most obvious innovators efforts to become citizens. It endangers our tradition of
entrepreneurship, and it must be repaired soon.
the other on.

Solves warming
Norris and Jenkins 9, *Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute, * Director of Energy and Climate
Policy, The Breakthrough Institute,(Teryn and Jessie, Want to Save the World? Make Clean Energy Cheap,
Huffington Post, March 10, http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/03/want_to_save_the_world_make_cl.shtml)

we have very little chance of overcoming climate change

without enlisting young innovators at a drastically greater scale . Simply put,
they represent one of the most important catalysts for creating a clean
energy economy and achieving long-term prosperity. The reason is this: at its
core, climate change is a challenge of technology innovation. Over the
next four decades, global energy demand will approximately double. Most
of this growth will happen in developing nations as they continue lifting their citizens out
of poverty and building modern societies. But over the same period, global greenhouse
gas emissions must fall dramatically to avert the worst consequences of
climate change. Shortly before his untimely death in 2005, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard
Whatever the cause,

Smalley coined this the "Terawatt Challenge": increasing global energy production from roughly 15 terawatts in
2005 to 60 terawatts annually by 2100 in a way that simultaneously confronts the challenges of global warming,
poverty alleviation, and resource depletion.

The single greatest obstacle

to meeting the Terawatt

Challenge is the "technology gap" between dirty and clean energy sources. Lowcarbon energy technologies remain significantly more expensive than fossil fuels. For example, solar photovoltaic
electricity costs up to three to five times that of coal electricity, and plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles can be

Unless this technology gap is bridged

and clean energy technologies become affordable and scalable, poor and
rich nations alike will continue opposing significant prices on their carbon
emissions and will continue relying primarily upon coal and other fossil
fuels to power their development. This will virtually assure massive
climate destabilization. So the task is clear: to avoid climate catastrophe
and create a new energy economy, we must unleash our forces of
twice as expensive as their gasoline-fueled competitors.

innovation - namely, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs- to invent a new portfolio of

truly scalable clean energy technologies, chart new paths to bring these
technologies to market, and ensure they are affordable enough to deploy
throughout the world.

Ext. Climate Solves Internationally

Causes international cooperation
Herman and Smith 10, *founder of a immigration and business law firm in Cleveland, Ohio which
serves a global clientele in over 10 languages, *veteran journalist who covers international cultures and
immigration issues for the Cleveland Plain Dealer (Richard and Robert, Why Immigrants Can Drive the Green
Economy, Immigration Policy Center, 2010, http://immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/why-immigrants-can-drivegreen-economy)
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

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
with an accent. The 2000 Census found that

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

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
requires global teamwork, he said.

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.

Cyberwar Impact
Increasing green cards generates effective IT experts to
combat cyber war
McLarty 9 (Thomas F. III, President McLarty Associates and Former White House
Chief of Staff and Task Force Co-Chair, U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFRSponsored Independent Task Force, 7-8, http://www.cfr.org/
publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html)

We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B
visa requestors, at least 15 of those are IT firms. And as we're seeing across
industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country is not only
manufactured now overseas, but it's developed overseas by scientists and
engineers who were educated here in the United States.
We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security, certainly noteworthy
attacks here very recently. It's becoming an increasingly dominant set of
requirements across not only to the Department of Defense, but the Department of
Homeland Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands. Was
there any discussion or any interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this
review on the security things about what can be done to try to generate a
more effective group of IT experts here in the United States, many of which
are coming to the U.S. institutions, academic institutions from overseas and
often returning back? This potentially puts us at a competitive disadvantage
going forward.
MCLARTY: Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean,
clearly we have less talented students here studying -- or put another way,
more talented students studying in other countries that are gifted, talented, really
have a tremendous ability to develop these kind of technology and
scientific advances, we're going to be put at an increasingly disadvantage. Where
if they come here -- and I kind of like Dr. Land's approach of the green card being
handed to them or carefully put in their billfold or purse as they graduate -- then,
obviously, that's going to strengthen, I think, our system, our security needs.

That deters and solves the impact to cyberattacks

Saydjari 8 (O. Sami, Cyber Defense Agency, LLC, Structuring for Strategic
Cyber Defense: A Cyber Manhattan Project Blueprint, 2008 Annual Computer
Security Applications Conference, http://www.acsac.org/2008/program
/keynotes/saydjari.pdf)

As a step toward a security research plan that includes such capabilities, we should
identify endstates goals in terms of how we want our systems to ideally operate.
This fresh perspective includes the overall strategic picture and connects clearly
with strategic actions that significantly mitigate strategic vulnerabilities. If, for
example, the nation has a capability to quickly recover its critical
information infrastructure, then the end-state is that strategic attack
damages are mitigated and critical services are restored quickly, possibly
deterring adversaries from attempting a future attack. Desired End-States.
The National Cyber Defense Initiative (NCDI) Opening Moves Workshop [4] identified

important end-states, the outcome of a 10- year research effort to create critical
capabilities. The following end-states appear in the workshop proceedings:
--Continuity of Critical Information Infrastructure Operations. Create technology
that would be the basis for a resilient US cyber infrastructure that would
sustain critical functions in the face of attacks, including those that could be
affected by determined adversaries. --Well-Defended Critical Assets. Make it
economically prohibitive for an adversary to cause strategic damage to
critical US infrastructures. Currently, adversaries can attack critical systems without
investing substantial resources.

Key to leadership
Bush and McLarty 9 (Jeb, Former Governor Florida and Thomas F. III,

President McLarty Associates, et al., U.S. Immigration Policy, CFR Independent

Task Force Report, 63, July, http://www.cfr.org/publication/20030/
us_immigration_policy.html)
Immigrants are especially important in science , technology, and
engineering, which are so critical to U.S. economic competitiveness. Foreign
students and immigrants make up more than half the scientific researchers in
the United States; in 2006, they received 40 percent of science and engineering
PhDs and 65 percent of computer science doctorates. Among postdoctoral students doing research at the
highest levels, 60 percent are foreign born. This is not a recent development; even in the 1980s, some 40 percent of
engineering and computer science students in the United States came from abroad. On one significant measure of
innovation, the number of patents issued each year, the United States far surpasses any country in the world;

immigrants produce nearly 25 percent of those patents, or roughly twice their share of the
U.S. population.30 Other studies have shown that an increase in the number of foreign
graduate students in the United States results in significant increases in the number of
patent applications.31 Overall, the share of all patents awarded to U.S. scientists of Chinese and Indian
origin grew from just 4 percent in the late 1970s to 14 percent in the early part of this decade; at Intel, the worlds
largest semiconductor maker, 40 percent of the patents are for work done by Chinese or Indian immigrants. Just as

increased innovation by recent immigrants actually coincided with an

patents awarded to native-born scientists as well, indicating
that American-born and immigrant scientists are feeding off each other to
enhance the countrys overall innovative capacity.32 One in four engineering and
important, this

increase in the number of

technology companies established in the United States between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant founder.33 The
four countries that create the greatest number of new companies per capitathe United States, Canada, Australia,

the United States

would not enjoy anything close to its current technological and entrepreneurial leadership if
it had maintained a closed immigration policy. Amy Chua, the Yale historian and legal scholar,
and Israelall have large immigrant populations.34 It is not an overstatement to say that

argues in her recent book, Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominanceand Why They Fall, that

successful great powers in history have been those able to attract and make use
the most talented people the world has to offer . At any given historical moment, she
writes, the most valuable human capital the world has to offerwhether in the form of
the
of

intelligence, physical strength, skill, knowledge, creativity, networks, commercial innovation, or technological
inventionis

never to be found in any one locale or with any one ethnic or religious group. To
pull away from its rivals on a global scale, a society must pull into itself and
motivate the worlds best and brightest, regardless of ethnicity, religion or background. America, she
argues, has been more successful than any other country in the world in recent history in attracting and mobilizing

maintaining robust levels of immigration, allowing

is firmly in Americas national interests. In
particular, continuing to attract highly skilled immigrants is critical to the
competitiveness of the U.S. economy, and to Americas ability to remain
such talents. The Task Force believes that

for fluctuations based on the state of the economy,

the worlds leader in innovation. The United States must open its doors more
widely to such people.

Cyberterrorism will cause accidental launch that triggers the

Dead Hand and nuclear war
Fritz 9 (Jason, BS St. Cloud, Hacking Nuclear Command and Control, Study
Commissioned on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, July,
www.icnnd.org/Documents/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.doc)
Direct control of launch

The US uses the two-man rule to achieve a higher level of security in nuclear affairs. Under this rule two authorized personnel must be present and in
agreement during critical stages of nuclear command and control. The President must jointly issue a launch order with the Secretary of Defense;
Minuteman missile operators must agree that the launch order is valid; and on a submarine, both the commanding officer and executive officer must
agree that the order to launch is valid. In the US, in order to execute a nuclear launch, an Emergency Action Message (EAM) is needed. This is a
preformatted message that directs nuclear forces to execute a specific attack. The contents of an EAM change daily and consist of a complex code read by
a human voice. Regular monitoring by shortwave listeners and videos posted to YouTube provide insight into how these work. These are issued from the
NMCC, or in the event of destruction, from the designated hierarchy of command and control centres. Once a command centre has confirmed the EAM,
using the two-man rule, the Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes are entered to arm the weapons and the message is sent out. These messages are sent in
digital format via the secure Automatic Digital Network and then relayed to aircraft via single-sideband radio transmitters of the High Frequency Global
Communications System, and, at least in the past, sent to nuclear capable submarines via Very Low Frequency (Greenemeier 2008, Hardisty 1985). The

Some reports have

noted a Pentagon review, which showed a potential electronic back door into the
US Navys system for broadcasting nuclear launch orders to Trident submarines
(Peterson 2004). The investigation showed that cyber terrorists could potentially
infiltrate this network and insert false orders for launch. The investigation led to
elaborate new instructions for validating launch orders (Blair 2003). Adding
further to the concern of cyber terrorists seizing control over submarine launched
nuclear missiles; The Royal Navy announced in 2008 that it would be installing a
Microsoft Windows operating system on its nuclear submarines (Page 2008). The
choice of operating system, apparently based on Windows XP, is not as alarming as
the advertising of such a system is. This may attract hackers and narrow the
necessary reconnaissance to learning its details and potential exploits. It is unlikely
that the operating system would play a direct role in the signal to launch, although
this is far from certain. Knowledge of the operating system may lead to the insertion
of malicious code, which could be used to gain accelerating privileges, tracking,
valuable information, and deception that could subsequently be used to initiate a
launch. Remember from Chapter 2 that the UKs nuclear submarines have the
authority to launch if they believe the central command has been destroyed.
Attempts by cyber terrorists to create the illusion of a decapitating strike could also
be used to engage fail-deadly systems. Open source knowledge is scarce as to
whether Russia continues to operate such a system. However evidence suggests
that they have in the past. Perimetr, also known as Dead Hand, was an automated
system set to launch a mass scale nuclear attack in the event of a decapitation
strike against Soviet leadership and military. In a crisis, military officials would send a coded message to the bunkers,
technical details of VLF submarine communication methods can be found online, including PC-based VLF reception.

switching on the dead hand. If nearby ground-level sensors detected a nuclear attack on Moscow, and if a break was detected in communications links
with top military commanders, the system would send low-frequency signals over underground antennas to special rockets. Flying high over missile fields
and other military sites, these rockets in turn would broadcast attack orders to missiles, bombers and, via radio relays, submarines at sea. Contrary to
some Western beliefs, Dr. Blair says, many of Russia's nuclear-armed missiles in underground silos and on mobile launchers can be fired automatically.
(Broad 1993) Assuming such a system is still active, cyber terrorists would need to create a crisis situation in order to activate Perimetr, and then fool it
into believing a decapitating strike had taken place. While this is not an easy task, the information age makes it easier. Cyber reconnaissance could help
locate the machine and learn its inner workings. This could be done by targeting the computers high of level officialsanyone who has reportedly worked
on such a project, or individuals involved in military operations at underground facilities, such as those reported to be located at Yamantau and Kosvinksy
mountains in the central southern Urals (Rosenbaum 2007, Blair 2008) Indirect Control of Launch Cyber terrorists could cause incorrect information to be
transmitted, received, or displayed at nuclear command and control centres, or shut down these centres computer networks completely. In 1995, a
Norwegian scientific sounding rocket was mistaken by Russian early warning systems as a nuclear missile launched from a US submarine. A radar operator
used Krokus to notify a general on duty who decided to alert the highest levels. Kavkaz was implemented, all three chegets activated, and the countdown
for a nuclear decision began. It took eight minutes before the missile was properly identifieda considerable amount of time considering the speed with
which a nuclear response must be decided upon (Aftergood 2000). Creating a false signal in these early warning systems would be relatively easy using
computer network operations. The real difficulty would be gaining access to these systems as they are most likely on a closed network. However, if they
are transmitting wirelessly, that may provide an entry point, and information gained through the internet may reveal the details, such as passwords and
software, for gaining entrance to the closed network. If access was obtained, a false alarm could be followed by something like a DDoS attack, so the
operators believe an attack may be imminent, yet they can no longer verify it.

This could add pressure to the decision

making process, and if coordinated precisely, could appear as a first round EMP
burst. Terrorist groups could also attempt to launch a non-nuclear missile, such as
the one used by Norway, in an attempt to fool the system. The number of states
who possess such technology is far greater than the number of states who possess
nuclear weapons. Obtaining them would be considerably easier, especially when
enhancing operations through computer network operations. Combining traditional
terrorist methods with cyber techniques opens opportunities neither could
accomplish on their own. For example, radar stations might be more vulnerable to a
computer attack, while satellites are more vulnerable to jamming from a laser
beam, thus together they deny dual phenomenology. Mapping communications networks
through cyber reconnaissance may expose weaknesses, and automated scanning devices created by more
experienced hackers can be readily found on the internet. Intercepting or spoofing communications is a highly
complex science. These systems are designed to protect against the worlds most powerful and well funded
militaries. Yet, there are recurring gaffes, and the very nature of asymmetric warfare is to bypass complexities by
finding simple loopholes. For example, commercially available software for voice-morphing could be used to capture
voice commands within the command and control structure, cut these sound bytes into phonemes, and splice it
back together in order to issue false voice commands (Andersen 2001, Chapter 16). Spoofing could also be used to
escalate a volatile situation in the hopes of starting a nuclear war. **[they cut off the paragraph]** In June 1998,
a group of international hackers calling themselves Milw0rm hacked the web site of Indias Bhabha Atomic Research

a nuclear war
does start, you will be the first to scream (Denning 1999). Hacker web-page defacements like these are often
Center (BARC) and put up a spoofed web page showing a mushroom cloud and the text If

derided by critics of cyber terrorism as simply being a nuisance which causes no significant harm. However, webpage defacements are becoming more common, and they point towards alarming possibilities in subversion. During
the 2007 cyber attacks against Estonia, a counterfeit letter of apology from Prime Minister Andrus Ansip was
planted on his political party website (Grant 2007). This took place amid the confusion of mass DDoS attacks, real
world protests, and accusations between governments.

AT: High Skill Inev

Will only happen as part of CIR no chance of piecemeal
legislation
Pando Daily 2-28 (News source for Silicon Valley-related news. Gang of Eight

senator: Startup visa has a 'good chance' LexisNexis)

A member of the so-called 'Gang of Eight' senators who are leading the charge on bi-partisan
immigration reform today said that a startup visa has a 'good shot' at being
included in the final legislative proposal put before Congress . Startup community
leaders have been lobbying Congress to include a visa for foreigners who want to start companies in the US in
legislation for comprehensive immigration reform. While the Gang of Eight has indicated ready support for
increasing the cap on H-1B visas for high-skilled immigrants and creating visas to keep people with advanced
degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math in the US, they have so far given no public indication as to
whether or not their final proposal would also include a provision for a startup visa. The omission has concerned
startup advocates, who argue that such a visa is crucial for attracting and retaining top tech talent that would help
fuel job growth in the country. Earlier today, the Kauffman Foundation released a report[1] that said a startup visa
could help create 1.6 million jobs over the course of 10 years. Speaking today at a roundtable event on immigration

Flake (R-AZ)
In response to a question from PandoDaily
about how likely it is that such a visa would be included in the final
proposal put before Congress, Sen. Flake said 'There's a good chance.' He did not,
hosted by Engine Advocacy and the Consumer Electronics Association in the Capitol, Sen. Jeff
provided hope for supporters of the visa.

however, address a part of the question that asked why such a visa has so far not been mentioned among the Gang
of Eight's proposals. Perhaps partly because of that lack, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) has made a startup visa a key part
of his recently introduced Startup Act 3.0[2] bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sen. Chris
Coons (D-DE), and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO). Meanwhile, three other members of Congress at the roundtable all
expressed support for innovation-friendly reform of immigration laws. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT, 3rd District) stood
out as a lone voice calling for 'piecemeal' reform that would separate high-skilled immigration issues from more
controversial issues like finding a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. 'We need to tackle this piecemeal as
opposed to one big comprehensive bill,' Chaffetz said. He urged the audience of startups, who were attending the
session as part of Startup Day on the Hill[3], to help prevent the bill from collapsing under its own weight. 'The
comprehensive side has been tried in the past and it has fallen down at the finish line every time,' he said.

Obama and the Democraticcontrolled Senate have said they will formally oppose any immigration
reform bill that isn't comprehensive. Rep. Susan DelBene (D-WA, 1st District), a former
However, Chaffetz was occupying a minority position. President

entrepreneur, said she comes from a unique district that encompasses high-tech companies such as Microsoft and
Amazon, as well as agricultural areas that rely on immigrant labor. She said that it's important to pass
comprehensive reform to serve all those groups. 'It is important for them and our overall economy that we address
those issues quickly,' she said. Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA, 27th District) said that 'We should have in this country the
philosophy that we value immigrants.' She also argued that the family visa, which has not been updated in two
decades, should be a priority. Even if an immigrant gets an H-1B visa, she noted, his or her spouse are still not
allowed to work in the US, can't get a driver's license, and can't open a bank account. It was Sen. Flake, however,
who had the most sobering message for his fellow Republican, Chaffetz. Flake, who earlier joked that he joined the

Congress must consider

comprehensive reform because of stark political realities. Said Sen. Flake:
'We have to realize it's not our party that's in control of the Senate.' [Read our
Gang of Eight because 'I just always wanted to be part of a gang!' said that

series on immigration reform.][4] [Illustration by Hallie Bateman[5] for Pandodaily] Hamish McKenzie Hamish
McKenzie is a Baltimore-based reporter for PandoDaily who covers media, politics, and international startups. His
first name is pronounced "hey-mish" and you can follow him on Twitter[6].

No fallback optionnegotiation failure means no bill

Elizabeth Dwoskin, 1/21/13, A Hard Line on Immigration Reform Lurks in

Obama's Inaugural Speech, www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-21/the-hardline-on-immigration-hidden-in-obamas-inaugural-speech

But thats not the way its going to happen. What Obama didnt say in his speech, and
the thing Republicans will latch onto in the days ahead, is that he wants to tie the popular idea of
raising visas for skilled workers to making broader changes in immigration
lawsto which that Republicans strongly object. Last week, administration officials
speaking anonymously, of courseleaked to reporters some of the details of Obamas immigration plan. For the
first time,

the White House made clear that the president wont agree to

raise the visa caps for highly skilled immigrants unless its part of an
overall reform plan that includes a path to citizenship for many of the estimated 11
million immigrants living illegally in the U.S.

Agriculture Impacts

CIR k2 Agriculture
Ag industrys collapsing now---immigrations key to revive it
Serrano 12 [Alfonso Serrano 12, Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame BillionDollar Losses on Immigration Laws, Time, 9-21-12,
http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollarlosses-on-immigration-laws/]
The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex web of local and state

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
anti-immigration laws account for acute labor shortages. With the harvest season in full bloom,

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
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
some

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.

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 long-term 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

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.
Scaroni, a Heber farmer who has lobbied Washington extensively on

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.

Immigrants key to agricultural production

Yglesias 6/22 [Matt Yglesias 06/22/2012 Broad Immigration Reform Necessary
To Bolster Economic Growth
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/22/immigration-reform-economicgrowth_n_1619451.html]

Last week, the Obama administration reignited the immigration debate with a modest effort to accomplish some of
the goals of the DREAM legislation thats languished in Congress for over a year. But while the administrations
decision to suspend deportations of certain young illegal immigrants is a huge deal for the people directly
impacted, his order affects a very small number of people. It is more a political gesture than a game-changing

broader immigration reformaimed explicitly at

allowing more people to come here voluntarily and work, rather than at securing the border remains one
of the best things we can do to bolster economic growth in both the short
and long terms. Among those who recognize this, its become fashionable to focus on the narrow case for
economic policy, which is too bad, because

immigration of high-skilled workers. Adam Ozimek and Noah Smith recently wrote a wonky piece on this theme for
the Atlantic, and Tim Fernholz delivered a more whimsical take for Reuters. But while the case for high-skilled
immigrants is strong, and the desire to take the focus off the culturally freighted topic of migration from Latin
America politically understandable, an excessive focus on the idea of importing supergeniuses and talented
engineers tends to obscure the fact that essentially any able-bodied, hard-working migrant is good for the American
economy. Its not just the doctors and the Google co-founders. Those who mop floors and cook tacos also serve.

different factors of productionincluding unskilled laborare largely

complementary. This can be most clearly seen in agriculture. Some land in
Thats because

America is farmed, most is not. Much of the land is only profitable to cultivate at a wage level that few American

When we cut off the flow of migrant farm workers, that doesnt
it leads in the short term to crops rotting
in the fields and in the long term to less land being cultivated. The land
and the unskilled labor, in other words, are complements. More unskilled labor
would mean more cultivated land. That would mean more agricultural
output and more jobs for people who manufacture farm equipment, build
workers find appealing.

magically create high-paying jobs for Americans;

food-processing facilities, or provide accounting or legal services to agricultural firms.

Ag sector suffering due to crackdowns on farms, reforming

immigration solves
Rathke 5/10/10 (Lisa Rathke, staff writer for Businessweek, US Farmers:
Immigration Reform needed for workers, May 10, 2010, accessed from
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FJROHO0.htm on June 30, 2010.)
Even during the recession, foreign workers harvested vegetables, milked
cows and picked apples on many U.S. farms, doing work that farmers say
Americans don't want to do. Most Americans shy away from jobs such as
hand-picking tomatoes or cutting cabbage because the work is seasonal, physically tough, out in the
elements and often in remote areas, farmers say. To get the jobs done, many farmers hire
foreign workers, including some who are illegal, and they say a crackdown
on illegal immigration combined with changes to a visa program for
temporary workers could make it even harder for them to find reliable

employees. Farmers want Congress to pass an "AgJobs" bill that would enable
those who have worked in U.S. agriculture for at least 150 days in the
previous two years to get some kind of legal status. They also say the visa
program for temporary workers needs to be simplified. Without those
changes, some farmers say they may have to cut back production because
of a shortage of reliable labor.

Food Shortages Impact

Comprehensive reform is key to food security
ACIR 7 (December 4, 2007 THE AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION
REFORM
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

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
stricter immigration law enforcement,

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

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,
alone will result in chaos unless combined with labor-stabilizing reforms.

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.

Food insecurity sparks World War 3

Calvin 98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist U Washington, Atlantic
Monthly, January, Vol 281, No. 1, p. 47-64)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling .

Plummeting crop yields would cause

some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only
because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home
and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their
armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant
remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish
the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The
last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day

Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do
so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.

Food Shortages O/W

Probability- History proves food shortages are the most likely
cause of extinction
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

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
environmental trends, some reinforcing others, that led to 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

We are dangerously close to the edge. Peter Goldmark, former

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.
a decline and collapse path.

Rockefeller Foundation president, puts it well: The

Magnitude- food shortages mean extinction

Takacs 96 (David, The Idea Of Diversity: Philosophies Of Paradise, 1996, p. 200-1.)
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige
us to think about the value of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs rivet-popper trope makes this same point;
by eliminating rivets, we play Russian roulette with global ecology and human futures: It is likely that destruction
of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in global climate patterns.

human beings remain heavily

dependent on food. By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon
basin could have entrained famines in which a billion human beings perished . And if our
species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a thermonuclear war, which could
extinguish civilization. Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama: What then will
Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and

happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the
face of climatic change, soil erosion , loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more
serious assaults by pests. Conversion of productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their
seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates will become harsher. Humanity will
have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic
library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As ecosystem
services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will lower
life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will
bring upon itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear
conflict, it appears that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang
but a whimper.

Food Shortages Protectionism Impact

US food shortages cause protectionism

Pollan 8 (BOOKS ARTICLESAPPEARANCESMEDIA PRESS KITNEWSRESOURCES

TODAYS LINK Farmer in Chief By Michael Pollan The New York Times Magazine,
October 12, 2008
The impact of the American food system on the rest of the world will have
implications for your foreign and trade policies as well. In the past several months
more than 30 nations have experienced food riots, and so far one government has
fallen. Should high grain prices persist and shortages develop, you can expect to
see the pendulum shift decisively away from free trade , at least in food. Nations that opened
their markets to the global flood of cheap grain (under pressure from previous administrations as well as the World
Bank and the I.M.F.) lost so many farmers that they now find their ability to feed their own populations hinges on

They
will now rush to rebuild their own agricultural sectors and then seek to protect them
by erecting trade barriers. Expect to hear the phrases food sovereignty and food security on the lips of
decisions made in Washington (like your predecessors precipitous embrace of biofuels) and on Wall Street.

every foreign leader you meet. Not only the Doha round, but the whole cause of free trade in agriculture is probably
dead, the casualty of a cheap food policy that a scant two years ago seemed like a boon for everyone. It is one of
the larger paradoxes of our time that the very same food policies that have contributed to overnutrition in the first
world are now contributing to undernutrition in the third. But it turns out that too much food can be nearly as big a
problem as too little a lesson we should keep in mind as we set about designing a new approach to food policy.

Protectionism causes extinction

Miller and Elwood 88 (Miller and Elwood, 1988 International Society for Individual
Liberty , http://www.free-market.net/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism.html, gender
modified
TRADE WARS: BOTH SIDES LOSE When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against the goods of
Country "B", the government of Country "B" will naturally retaliate by erecting trade barriers against the goods of
Country "A". The result? A trade war in which both sides lose. But all too often a depressed economy is not the only

WHEN GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES OFTEN

DO History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot
shooting wars: Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and
18th centuries, when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule ; rival
negative outcome of a trade war . . .

governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. British tariffs provoked the
American colonists to revolution, and later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on
Southern cotton exports - a major factor leading to the American Civil War. In the late 19th Century, after a half
century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe

trade barriers. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into

World War I. In 1930, facing only a mild recession, US President Hoover ignored
warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious
Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year, over 25
other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. The result? World trade
came to a grinding halt, and the entire world was plunged into the "Great
Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in turn led to World
War II. THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE The world enjoyed its greatest
economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970, a period that
also saw no major wars. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised
around the world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end up
in a shooting war as a result of these economically-deranged policies? Can
we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "What generates war is
again began erecting

the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade and foreign exchange controls, monetary
devaluation, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war." Ludwig von Mises THE SOLUTION: FREE
TRADE A century and a half ago French economist and statesman Frederic Bastiat presented the practical case for
free trade: "It is always beneficial," he said, "for a nation to specialize in what it can produce best and then trade
with others to acquire goods at costs lower than it would take to produce them at home." In the 20th century,
journalist Frank Chodorov made a similar observation: "Society thrives on trade simply because trade makes
specialization possible, and specialization increases output, and increased output reduces the cost in toil for the
satisfactions men live by. That being so, the market place is a most humane institution." WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Silence gives consent, and there should be no consent to the current waves of restrictive trade or capital control
legislation being passed. If you agree that free trade is an essential ingredient in maintaining world peace, and that
it is important to your future, we suggest that you inform the political leaders in your country of your concern
regarding their interference with free trade. Send them a copy of this pamphlet. We also suggest that you write
letters to editors in the media and send this pamphlet to them. Discuss this issue with your friends and warn them
of the danger of current "protectionist" trends. Check on how the issue is being taught in the schools. Widespread
public understanding of this issue, followed by citizen action, is the only solution. Free trade is too important an
issue to leave in the hands of politicians. "For thousands of years, the tireless effort of productive men and women
has been spent trying to reduce the distance between communities of the world by reducing the costs of commerce
and trade. "Over the same span of history, the slothful and incompetent protectionist has endlessly sought to erect
barriers in order to prohibit competition - thus, effectively moving communities farther apart. When trade is cut off
entirely, the real producers may as well be on different planets. The protectionist represents the worst in humanity:

The protectionist is not against the

use of every kind of force, even warfare, to crush his rival. If [hu]mankind is to
survive, then these primeval fears must be defeated ."
fear of change, fear of challenge, and the jealous envy of genius.

Small Farms Impact

Key to small farms
Gual 10, 10/17/2010 (Frank, Farm job, anyone?, Associated Content, p.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5877166/farm_job_anyone.html)
Those calling for tougher immigration laws and the UFW claim that farmers have become accustomed to hiring undocumented workers who are willing to

. 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
work for little, and now make up half the farm labor force

government assistance. It will also increase our dependence on imported food, which may not be up to FDA standards and could cause health problems,

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.
as has already happened.

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 smallscale 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

the

attention and support of northern consumers and philanthropists? Or is there a need for a different argumentone that emphasizes that
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

small farming systems still prevalent in Africa, Asia

comprise 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
farms of the South. In fact, it is herein argued that the functions performed by
and Latin Americain the post-peak oil era that humanity is entering

farmers are key for the worlds food security

While 91% of the planets 1.5 billion hectares of

millions of
small farmers in the Global South still produce the majority of staple crops needed to feed the
agricultural land are increasingly being devoted to agro-export crops, biofuels and transgenic soybean to feed cars and cattle,

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

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
than do large farms.

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-

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
round yields even under marginal environmental conditions.

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 farms
features 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

Maintaining pools of genetic diversity,

genetic pollution, can be considerable in the margins of the Global South.

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 Gates-Rockefeller 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

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
medium-sized farms to organic production would store carbon in the soil equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road.

in rural communities near cities and towns and are linked to local markets, avoid the energy wasted and the gas emissions associated with transporting

The great advantage of small farming

systems is their high levels of agrobidoversity arranged in the form of variety mixtures, polycultures,
food hundreds and even thousands of miles. Conclusions

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 humaninduced variations in production conditions. There is much to learn from indigenous modes of production, as these systems have a strong ecological basis,

Traditional
methods are particularly instructive because they provide a long-term perspective on successful
agricultural management under conditions of climatic variability. Organized social
maintain valuable genetic diversity, and lead to regeneration and preservation of biodiversity and natural resources.

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.

US Ag Key
US agriculture is the key internal link not inevitable and we
solve alt causes
Bidinotto 10 (How to Cultivate a Food Crisis December/29/10 How to Cultivate a
Food Crisis by Robert James Bidinotto
food prices this past year have been rising faster than the overall
rate of inflation. Fears of a global food crisis swept the worlds commodity markets as prices for staples such
As any shopper knows,

as corn, rice and wheat spiraled after the U.S. government warned of dramatically lower supplies, the Financial
Times reported in early October. There

is growing concern among countries about

continuing volatility and uncertainty in food markets, said World Bank president Robert Zoellick
later that month. These concerns have been compounded by recent increases in grain prices. Confronting
this looming food-supply crisis is the American farmer. His productivity is
such that the United States is the worlds largest agricultural exporter , with
$108.7 billion in farm products shipped abroad in 2010. Helping him increase the supply of
agricultural products is the key to addressing both rising food prices and
global shortages. His productivity is also critical to our countrys broader economic recovery.

Remittances Impacts

CIR k2 Remittances
Reform key to remittances
Oppenheimer, writer for the Miami Herald, 1/19/2013
(Andres, Andres Oppenheimer: Obama may help Latin America - without trying,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/19/3189668/obama-may-help-latin-americawithout.html#storylink=cpy)
Lets start with the obvious: Obama doesnt have a history of special 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 resurrecting
the U.S. economy and instead stated that his top foreign policy priority is Asias
Pacific rim.
Still, 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 among Latino voters in the 2012 elections Obama 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 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.

Microcredit I/L
Remittances key to global microcredit diffusion
Giuliano, Asst Professor Economics UCLA, fellow NBER and IZA, 6
(Paola, Remittances, Financial Development, and Growth, Institute for the Study of
Labor, Discussion Paper No. 2160)
[footnote 3 included]
The relationship between remittances, financial development and growth is a-priori
ambiguous. On one hand, well-functioning financial markets, by lowering costs of
conducting transactions, may help direct remittances to projects that yield the
highest return and therefore enhance growth rates. On the other hand,
remittances might become a substitute for inefficient or nonexistent credit
markets by helping local entrepreneurs bypass lack of collateral or high
lending costs and start productive activities.3
[footnote 3 begins]
Entrepreneurs in developing countries confront much less efficient credit
markets, and available evidence indicates that access to credit is among
their biggest concerns (Paulson and Towsend, 2000). Several recent papers also
suggest that credit constraints play an especially critical role in determining
growth prospects in economies characterized by a high level of income inequality
(Banerjee and Newman, 1993; Aghion and Bolton, 1997; Aghion, Caroli and Garcia
Penalosa, 1999)
[footnote 3 ends]
The empirical analysis finds strong evidence that the second channel works:
remittances boost growth in countries with less developed financial systems
by providing an alternative way to finance investment and helping
overcome liquidity constraint. In contrast, while more developed financial
systems seems to attract more remittances (the volumes of remittance inflows
increase with lower transaction costs and fewer restrictions on payments), they do
not seem to magnify their growth impact.
Although this mechanism has not been studied in a macro context, there is some
evidence at the micro-level. Dustmann and Kirchamp (2001) find that the
savings of returning migrants may be an important source of startup capital for
microenterprises. Similarly, in a study of 30 communities in West-Central Mexico,
Massey and Parrado (1998) conclude that earnings from work in the United
States provided an important source of startup capital in 21% of the new
business formations. Woodruff and Zenteno (2001) also find that
remittances are responsible for almost 20% of the capital invested in
microenterprises throughout urban Mexico.

Microcredit Warming Impact

Key to climate adaptation
Carraro, OECD Environment Directorate, 10
(Malis, Assessing the role of microfinance in fostering adaptation to climate
change, OECD Environmental Working Paper No. 15)
Core elements of microfinance, a priori, make it attractive for facilitating
adaptation by the poor
Microfinance provides access to basic financial services to the poor. Through
small loans with compulsory, frequent repayments to groups or individuals,
microfinance helps the poor build up their assets, establish or develop a
business, and protect against risks. Microfinance institutions (MFIs) are now
spread all over the world (including in developed countries), and count over 100
million of the worlds poor among their clients. Almost 90% of the clients of MFIs are
women. The scope of microfinance services, meanwhile, not only includes the
provision of credit for income generation, but also savings, insurance, money
transfer, and educational and health loans. Many MFIs also provide credit plus
complementary services such as skills education and training, health and nutrition
workshops, and advice on agricultural practices.
These elements of microfinance make it an attractive vehicle for facilitating
adaptation. MFIs already have pre-existing networks of access to the poor
especially women who are also particularly vulnerable to climate change.
Meanwhile, the nature of microfinance lending, consisting of high volume,
limited value loans, is also consistent with the fundamental nature of a majority
of adaptation actions that will ultimately consist of thousands of
decentralised actions by individuals, households and communities, as they
continuously seek to internalise climate risks in their activities.
Despite its theoretical potential, very little is actually known about how
microfinance interacts with adaptation in practice
Through the provision of credit and other financial services microfinance helps
the poor develop alternate livelihood opportunities, build assets and
spread risks. These actions would also in most cases -automatically reduce
vulnerability to climate risk even if there is no explicit consideration of such
risks. From this perspective climate change might simply be one more reason to
scale up microfinance. However, what is perhaps more critical from an adaptation
perspective are more specific issues like how microfinance could be tapped for
more targeted climate risk reduction and adaptation, for building adaptive
capacity for climate change, and for reducing incentives for mal-adaptation. Very
little is currently known about these latter, more specific, linkages which can only be
examined through detailed analysis of actual microfinance portfolios in regions that
are also particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The analysis of
Bangladesh and Nepal in this report has been undertaken within this
context. Not only are the two countries particularly vulnerable to the impacts of
climate change, but they also have a vibrant microfinance industry to make such an
examination possible.
Empirical analysis of existing portfolios in Bangladesh and Nepal reveals that close
overlaps already exist between ongoing microfinanced activities and key climate
change vulnerabilities

Analyses of existing microfinance portfolios of the 22 leading MFIs each in

Bangladesh and Nepal reveal that many existing projects are already directed
at sectors and activities that would also be vulnerable to climate change.
This overlap is particularly strong for Bangladesh where agriculture, disaster
relief and preparedness, and water and sanitation which are all particularly
affected by climate change constitute almost 70% of the existing microfinance
portfolio. For Nepal, meanwhile, the degree of overlap between the orientation of
existing microfinance programs and climate change vulnerabilities is more limited.
The dominant climate change risk in Nepal is in water resources and hydropower,
whereas the related category of microfinance programs, water and sanitation, is a
relatively small part of the overall portfolio. Collectively, the programs related to
water, agriculture, health, and disasters (which are all vulnerable to climate change)
constitute slightly less than 47% of the existing portfolio. However, even if
programmatic priorities are closely intertwined with sectors and activities that might
be vulnerable to climate change, not all microfinance activities within these areas
might be relevant for adaptation. A more in-depth analysis of specific loan programs
and projects is therefore required for this purpose.
Microfinance is already promoting some adaptation to reduce vulnerability to
current climate risks in these countries and, in some isolated cases, also to climate
change
A more detailed analysis of the credit programs and projects reveals that a number
of existing microfinance lending programs and projects already offer
adaptation win-wins. In fact, 43% of the portfolio that was examined in
Bangladesh and 37% in Nepal could be classified as win-wins 1, i.e. synergistic with
adaptation. These include, for example, lending programs that support
disaster relief and preparedness, crop diversification, improving access to
irrigation, and provision of better sanitation facilities that reduce the risks of
water borne diseases. They also include at least a few programs that go beyond
coping or adapting to current climate risks. For example, lending programs to
support construction of weather resistant housing or the adoption of drought and
salt tolerant seeds in Bangladesh would also theoretically facilitate adaptation to
longer term climate change. These latter examples, however, remain isolated at this
stage in the case of Bangladesh, and absent almost entirely in Nepal.

Solves extinction from inevitable warming

Romero, 8
[Purple, reporter for ABS-CBN news, 05/17/2008, Climate change and human
extinction--are you ready to be fossilized? http://www.abscbnnews.com/nation/05/16/08/climate-change-and-human-extinction-are-you-readybe-fossilized
Climate change killed the dinosaurs. Will it kill us as well? Will we let it destroy the human race? This
was the grim, depressing message that hung in the background of the Climate Change Forum hosted on Friday by
the Philippine National Red Cross at the Manila Hotel. "Not one dinosaur is alive today. Maybe someday it
will be our fossils that another race will dig up in the future , " said Roger Bracke of the
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, underscoring his point that no less than
extinction is faced by the human race, unless we are able to address global
warming and climate change in this generation. Bracke, however, countered the pessimistic mood of the day by
saying that the human race still has an opportunity to save itself . This more hopeful view was
also presented by the four other speakers in the forum. Bracke pointed out that all peoples of the world must

be involved in two types of response to the threat of climate change: mitigation and adaptation.
"Prevention" is no longer possible, according to Bracke and the other experts at the forum, since
climate change is already happening. Last chance The forum's speakers all noted the
increasing number and intensity of devastating typhoons --most recently cyclone Nargis in
Myanmar, which killed more than 100,000 people--as evidence that the world's climatic and
weather conditions are turning deadly because of climate change. They also reminded
the audience that deadly typhoons have also hit the Philippines recently, particularly Milenyo and Reming, which
left hundreds of thousands of Filipino families homeless. World Wildlife Fund Climate and Energy Program head
Naderev Sao said that "this generation the last chance for the human race" to do
something and ensure that humanity stays alive in this planet. According to Sao, while
most members of our generation will be dead by the time the worst effects of climate change are felt, our children
will be the ones to suffer. How will Filipinos survive climate change? Well, first of all, they have to be made aware
that climate change is a problem that threatens their lives. The easiest way to do this as former Consultant for the
Secretariats of the UN Convention on Climate Change Dr. Pak Sum Low told abs-cbnews.com/Newsbreak is to
particularize the disasters that it could cause. Talking in the language of destruction, Pak and other experts paint
this portrait of a Philippines hit by climate change: increased typhoons in Visayas, drought in Mindanao, destroyed
agricultural areas in Pampanga, and higher incidence rates of dengue and malaria. Saom said that as polar ice
caps melt due to global warming, sea levels will rise, endangering coastal and low-lying areas like Manila. He said
Manila Bay would experience a sea level increase of 72 meters over 20 years. This means that from Pampanga to
Nueva Ecija, farms and fishponds would be in danger of being would be inundated in saltwater. Saom added that
Albay, which has been marked as a vulnerable area to typhoons, would be the top province at risk. Saom also
pointed out that extreme weather conditions arising from climate change, including typhoons and severe droughts,
would have social, economic and political consequences: Ruined farmlands and fishponds would hamper crop
growth and reduce food sources, typhoons would displace people, cause diseases, and limit actions in education
and employment. Thus, Sao said, while environmental protection should remain at the top of the agenda in
fighting climate change, solutions to the phenomenon "must also be economic, social, moral and political."
Mitigation Joyceline Goco, Climate Change Coordinator of the Environment Management Bureau of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, focused her lecture on the programs Philippine government is implementing
in order to mitigate the effects of climate change. Goco said that the Philippines is already a signatory to global
agreements calling for a reduction in the "greenhouse gasses"--mostly carbon dioxide, chloroflourocarbons and
methane--that are responsible for trapping heat inside the planet and raising global temperatures. Goco said the
DENR, which is tasked to oversee and activate the Clean Development Mechanism, has registered projects which
would reduce methane and carbon dioxide. These projects include landfill and electricity generation initiatives. She
also said that the government is also looking at alternative fuel sources in order do reduce the country's
dependence on the burning of fossil fuels--oil--which are known culprits behind global warming. Bracke however
said that mitigation is not enough. "The ongoing debate about mitigation of climate change effects is highly
technical. It involves making fundamental changes in the policies of governments, making costly changes in how
industry operates. All of this takes time and, frankly, we're not even sure if such mitigation efforts will be successful.
In the meantime, while the debate goes on, the effects of climate change are already happening
to us." Adaptation A few nations and communities have already begun adapting their

lifestyles to cope with the effects of climate change. In Bangladesh, farmers have
switched to raising ducks instead of chickens because the latter easily succumb to weather disturbances
and immediate effects, such as floods. In Norway, houses with elevated foundations have
been constructed to decrease displacement due to typhoons. In the Philippines main body for fighting

climate change, the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change, (PTFCC) headed by Department on Energy Sec.
Angelo Reyes, has identified emission reduction measures and has looked into what fuel mix could be both
environment and economic friendly. The Department of Health has started work with the World Health Organization
in strengthening its surveillance mechanisms for health services. However , bringing information hatched
from PTFCCs studies down to and crafting an action plan for adaptation with the communities in
the barangay level remains a challenge. Bracke said that the Red Cross is already at the forefront of efforts
to prepare for disasters related to climate change. He pointed out that since the Red Cross was founded in 1919, it
has already been helping people beset by natural disasters. "The problems resulting from climate change are not
new to the Red Cross. The Red Cross has been facing those challenges for a long time. However, the frequency and
magnitude of those problems are unprecedented. This is why the Red Cross can no longer face these problems
alone," he said. Using a medieval analogy, Bracke said that the Red Cross can no longer be a "knight in shining
armor rescuing a damsel in distress" whenever disaster strikes. He said that disaster preparedness in the face of
climate change has to involve people at the grassroots level. "The role of the Red Cross in the era of climate change
will be less as a direct actor and increase as a trainor and guide to other partners who will help us adapt to climate
change and respond to disasters," said Bracke. PNRC chairman and Senator Richard Gordon gave a picture of how
the PNRC plans to take climate change response to the grassroots level, through its project, dubbed "Red Cross
143". Gordon explained how Red Cross 143 will train forty-four volunteers from each community at a barangay
level. These volunteers will have training in leading communities in disaster response. Red Cross 143 volunteers will
rely on information technology like cellular phones to alert the PNRC about disasters in their localities, mobilize
people for evacuation, and lead efforts to get health care, emergency supplies, rescue efforts, etc.

Microcredit Hunger Impact

It solves global hunger
Pronyk, PhD, Rural AIDS & Development Action Research Programme @ the School
of Public Health University of the Witwatersrand, 7
(Paul M, Microfinance Programs and Better Health, JAMA 298(16) p. 1925-1927)
A number of mechanisms exist through which access to microfinance may stimulate wider health
and social benefits. Foremost among these is supporting improvements in household economic well-being, including
poverty reduction and an enhanced capacity to meet basic needs such as food security.
Notably, the share of people living in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa has changed little since 1980 and

Evidence of the effects of

microfinance on poverty reduction from diverse settings is generally
encouraging.8 For example, longitudinal studies from Bangladesh have found an
association between poverty reduction and greater consumption
attributable to microfinance participation, particularly among female loan recipients.9 Other
evidence points to substantial financial returns to capital investments made by
small-scale entrepreneurs (60% per year and higher).10-11 Although data from Africa are limited, a
recent cluster randomized trial in South Africa reported improvements in
household asset ownership after 2 years of microfinance program involvement.12 Several
studies also suggest microfinance can positively influence nutritional
outcomes. For example, longitudinal research from Ghana, comparing participants both with
nonparticipants in the same communities and with residents of control communities, reports reductions
in stunting and wasting in infants.13 Well-established programs in
Bangladesh have demonstrated similar effects on nutrition, where significant
nearly 26% of children in the region are reported to be malnourished.4

improvements in upper arm circumference in children 6 to 72 months old14 and lower rates of general malnutrition
have been noted among microfinance households relative to controls.15

Mexican Econ Impact

US remittances key to Mexican economy
Newland, Director and co-founder Migration Policy Institute, frmr Senior Associate
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, lecturer LSE, 4
(Kathleen, Beyond Remittances: The Role of Diaspora in Poverty Reduction in their
Countries of Origin,
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Beyond_Remittances_0704.pdf)
Mexico is the second-largest recipient of remittances in the world. Its
Diaspora is unusual in that, compared to others discussed in this paper, it is so
heavily concentrated in one country, the United States. (Of course, many US
citizens of Mexican origin live in parts of the country that were once part of Mexico;
in that sense, they are not a community of migrant origin). Like India, the
government of Mexico for decades had an attitude toward Mexicans who had left
the homeland that was ambivalent at best. Formal programs for Mexicans
abroad began only in 1990. Two federal programs, the Paisano Program and
the Program for Mexican Communities Living Abroad (PCMLA) focused on
improving the treatment of returning migrants at the hands of Mexican
border and customs officials and on improving services to Mexicans in the United
States. The PCMLA, which also helps channel remittances to local
development projects in Mexico, is implemented by the Foreign Ministry through
Mexican consulates and cultural centers in the United States.
Since 2000, the government has escalated its outreach to the Diaspora, with
President Vicente Fox referring to Mexican migrants as heroes. In 2001, his
administration established the Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad, which
was designed to strengthen ties between Mexican emigrants and their
communities of origin. The Fox Administration also introduced legislative changes
to allow Mexicans living abroad to hold US dollar accounts in Mexico and to maintain
dual nationality (although without voting rights). The governments new activism
has a two-fold emphasis: to expand the opportunities for Mexicans abroad, and to
facilitate remittances.

Mexican decline causes U.S. isolationism

Haddick, MBA U. Illinois, managing editor Small Wars Journal, 8
(Robert, http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-that-would-changeeverything.html)
There is one dynamic in the literature of weak and failing states that has
received relatively little attention, namely the phenomenon of rapid
collapse. For the most part, weak and failing states represent chronic, long-term
problems that allow for management over sustained periods. The collapse of a
state usually comes as a surprise, has a rapid onset, and poses acute
problems. The collapse of Yugoslavia into a chaotic tangle of warring nationalities
in 1990 suggests how suddenly and catastrophically state collapse can happen - in
this case, a state which had hosted the 1984 Winter Olympics at Sarajevo, and
which then quickly became the epicenter of the ensuing civil war. In terms of
worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large

and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse:
Pakistan and Mexico. Some forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the
likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an even bigger
haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear
weapons. That perfect storm of uncertainty alone might require the engagement
of U.S. and coalition forces into a situation of immense complexity and danger with
no guarantee they could gain control of the weapons and with the real possibility
that a nuclear weapon might be used. The Mexican possibility may seem less
likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure
are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug
cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years
will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent
by the Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious
implications for homeland security alone. Yes, the rapid collapse of Mexico
would change everything with respect to the global security environment.
Such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian, constitutional,
economic, cultural, and security implications for the U.S. It would seem
the U.S. federal government, indeed American society at large, would
have little ability to focus serious attention on much else in the world. The
hypothetical collapse of Pakistan is a scenario that has already been well discussed.
In the worst case, the U.S. would be able to isolate itself from most effects
emanating from south Asia. However, there would be no running from a
Mexican collapse.

Mexican declines causes oil shocks crashes the global

economy.
Moran, policy analyst CFR, 7/31/9
(Michael, Six Crises, 2009: A Half-Dozen Ways Geopolitics Could Upset Global
Recovery)
Risk 2: Mexico Drug Violence: At Stake: Oil prices, refugee flows, NAFTA, U.S.
economic stability A story receiving more attention in the American media
than Iraq these days is the horrific drug-related violence across the
northern states of Mexico, where Felipe Calderon has deployed the national
army to combat two thriving drug cartels, which have compromised the national
police beyond redemption. The tales of carnage are horrific, to be sure: 30 people
were killed in a 48 hour period last week in Cuidad Juarez alone, a city located
directly across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas. So far, the impact on the
United States and beyond has been minimal. But there also isnt much sign
that the army is winning, either, and that raises a disturbing question: What if
Calderon loses? The CIAs worst nightmare during the Cold War (outside of
an administration which forced transparency on it, of course) was the
radicalization or collapse of Mexico. The template then was communism,
but narco-capitalism doesnt look much better. The prospect of a wholesale
collapse that sent millions upon millions of Mexican refugees fleeing across the
northern border so far seems remote. But Mexicos army has its own problems
with corruption, and a sizeable number of Mexicans regard Calderons
razor-thin 2006 electoral victory over a leftist rival as illegitimate. With
Mexicos economy reeling and the traditional safety valve of illegal

immigration to America dwindling, the potential for serious trouble exists.

Meanwhile, Mexico ranks with Saudi Arabia and Canada as the three
suppliers of oil the United States could not do without. Should things
come unglued there and Pemex production shut down even temporarily, the
shock on oil markets could be profound, again, sending its waves
throughout the global economy. Long-term, PEMEX production has been sliding
anyway, thanks to oil fields well-beyond their peak and restrictions on foreign
investment. Domestically in the U.S., any trouble involving Mexico invariably will
cause a bipartisan demand for more security on the southern border, inflame antiimmigrant sentiment and possibly force Obama to remember his campaign promise
to renegotiate NAFTA, a pledge he deftly sidestepped once in office.

Indian Econ Impact

Remittances from the U.S. key to Indian econ
Khan, Adjunct Professor Business and Law Edith Cowan University, 9
(Amir Ullah, NRIs remittances going up,
http://www.thomex.com/article/resources_details.aspx?
ID=R_2007060414180&catid=C_200903101421&flag=1, date at http://www.freepress-release.com/news/200905/1243487071.html)
[Note: NRI = Non-Resident Indian]
NRI repatriation to India has already crossed $39 billion
for 2008 will easily be more than 40
billion dollars and even close to 50 billion dollars. If 39 billion dollars have been received during the period
The Reserve Bank of India has announced that

mark during the first nine months of 2008. This means that the total

January to September 2008, the last quarter would have received at least 20 per cent of the total which would take
the total close to 50 billion dollars. The World Bank had projected that India would receive 30 billion dollars from

NRIs would have sent

money that is more than 5 per cent of the GDP of the country. It is followed by
NRIs in 2008. This higher figure of at least 40 million dollars in 2008 will mean that

Maharashtra. The increase in remittance is not surprising given the fact that the rupee has been depreciating in
value against almost all foreign currencies. In addition, Indian banks now offer very high interest rates and have
been allowed to offer the same high interest returns to Foreign Currency Non Resident accounts and the
nonresident rupee accounts. Two years ago, Non Resident Indians left Non Resident Chinese in the second position
when in 2006; NRIs sent back 27 billion dollars and the nonresident Chinese contributed 23 billion dollars to the
Chinese economy. What is important to note is that there are at least twice as many nonresident Chinese in the

8 million NRIs
worldwide send money back home. While West Asia constitutes most of the volumes in terms of the
number of transactions, the US leads in terms of absolute value. The obvious questions is that
world as non resident Indians. Of the total 20 million Indian abroad, it is estimated that about

with IT and allied sectors being hit by the crisis, would many people still go abroad and would they still send as
much money back home? The answer is a clear Yes due to a variety of reasons: people will always migrate for
better opportunities; the dollar is at a high and is expected to be so for a while; Indian banks are considered much
safer options to keep money since the recent crisis; interest rates overseas are abysmally low coupled with the
fact that the RBI too had increased NRE deposit rates, making it more sensible to park the money in India. Also,
even though the share market and real estate markets in India have taken beatings of late, the valuations are at
such amazing levels that any investor would find it an extremely lucrative option to enter. A combination of the last
two points would mean that there would probably be a short term shift from the equity and realty markets to riskfree, capital guaranteed deposits in India. Remittance of funds by expatriates to their home country depends

Non-resident Indians are, in some cases, big

earners and in most cases inclined towards savings. These have resulted in India taking the leadership
position in inward remittances from its expatriates. The US economy is passing through a
recessionary phase which in turn is affecting most countries in the world. The financial sector is in
turmoil with major banks and financial institutions (FIs) in a bad shape. These events have caused loss of jobs.
NRIs too are affected by this. However, there are many Indians abroad who will be in jobs .
Compared to the major developed countries, the Indian economy is still on rails
and is likely to sustain a 7% GDP growth in the current fiscal year. The banks and
financial institutions in India are in a much better and stable shape. Notwithstanding the volatile
principally on the origin factors and destination factors.

situation in the stock market, there are good investment opportunities in the country. The increase in the exchange
rate of the dollar makes the situation attractive. While loss of jobs and consequent loss of income will somewhat
reduce the momentum but this will also see NRIs returning to India. This will again result in a shift of their funds
back to the country. The regular remittances, for family maintenance and festivals will anyhow continue.

Collapses causes Asian war

Garten 95 (Jeffrey E., Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade
Development, U.S. Policy Toward South Asia, Federal News Service, 3-7, Lexis)

For example, Lyndon Johnson launched the Indo-American Foundation to help stimulate education and consequently
growth in India. He did so at a major black-tie dinner in Washington attended by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. She
accepted the offer -- which was later withdrawn -- with great grace and hope. In her remarks she presaged why the
relationship between our two peoples was so important. She cited the special role of the United States in the world.

"India's problems today are her own, but they are also the world's
problems. India has a position in Asia which is an explosive position. India, if it is
stable, united, democratic, I think can serve a great purpose. If India is not stable, or
if there is chaos, if India fails, I think it is a failure of the whole democratic system . It
Then she went on to say,

is a failure of many of the values which you and we hold dear." Just a few years later, Pakistan came apart, India
invaded what would later become Bangladesh, and the United States was contemplating intervention against the
Indians. Indira Gandhi formalized India's relationship with the Soviet Union and exploded an atomic bomb. Later,
Nixon and Kissinger would come to view these events and American actions as critical turning points of Cold War
realpolitik. This situation wasn't helped when the United States moved even closer to Pakistan, nor when it
normalized relations with China, thereby erasing the notion that India could be our counterfoil against the other
Asian giant. Let historians debate whether the Cold War rifts between our two great nations were the result of
genuine divergence of national interests which could not be avoided, or whether diplomacy failed -- or both. But
today we can all be forgiven if we conclude that our obsession with the "great game" of our time, the global
successor to Kipling's "great game" for South Asia, took an unnecessary toll on a relationship that deserved more

India, too,
has changed, embarking on a bold course of economic reforms that are having the
effect of opening the enormous Indian market for the very first time. American
than periodic infatuations. Now, of course, the Cold War is behind us. The Soviet Union no longer exists.

businesspeople recognize the value of any market that size, but they also see the promise of India within Asia -- one
of the two "elephants" among the tigers. By the year 2025, for instance, India is likely to be the world's most
populous nation in the world's fastest growing region. The Foundation for Strong Indo-U.S. Ties The artificial barriers
and discoloring lenses of Cold War politics now have fallen away. And our self-interest has motivated us to
reexamine the relationship. There is nothing wrong with self- interest, of course. It helps both parties to define and
to understand a relationship -- and it is more reliable than infatuation. But, when viewed in this new light -- this
more honest, more revealing light we can see that there is a basis -- a very strong basis -- for a natural bond
between us. India is, after all, the world's largest democracy. America is among the oldest. India will, within the next
decade or so, become one of the worlds biggest and most important emerging markets. The United States will
remain the world's most important and mature market. India and the United States are linked by many cultural
values. We share a common language. We share the historical legacy of having been a colony of Britain. But that's
not all. Ralph Waldo Emerson, the great American writer, was heavily influenced by the Bhagavad- gita, the great
Hindu poem written sometime between 400 B.C. and 400 A.D. In 1947, Indian officials studied the American
Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights before drafting their first constitution. These
are but two of many examples of shared values in our societies. Both of our countries are multicultural crucibles,
struggling with the tensions cultural differences bring, but revelling in the richness they offer. We are both
revolutionary societies, founded on disobedience to tyranny. In fact, one of the events leading to our struggle for
independence, the Boston Tea Party, was a revolt against the tax which the British imposed on American imports of
Indian tea! We are both preoccupied with the development of human resources in our countries -- including those
who are living below the poverty level, those struggling to make a decent living, and those already possessing the
most advanced scientific and technical skills. We both recognize the importance of traditional values in a time of
change, but we face the challenge of not using these values as an excuse to resist change. We will both play a
major role in the world, and are struggling to define that role. We both need one another in the new era ahead,
where commercial ties and commercial enlargement will be at the core of our bilateral and global interests. A New
Vision Recently, India's distinguished Ambassador, Siddhartha Shankar Ray, spoke of the U.S.-Indian relationship.
He acknowledged that it would be fair to characterize our joint history to date as an era of "missed opportunities."
But, knowing and admiring him as I do, I believe that he would be the first to underscore that what is missed is not
necessarily forsaken. When Prime Minister Rao visited the U.S. last year, a new spirit was born. President Clinton in
his remarks to the Prime Minister and in private remarks within the Administration has repeatedly emphasized that
he hoped that we were entering a new era in our relationship, one in. which we were motivated by our great mutual

Paramount among those interests are the commercial

opportunities that are increasingly at the heart of the Clinton Administration's
foreign policy. But it is impossible to separate those commercial interests from our broader interests. Economic
interests to forge new, closer ties.

reforms enable our companies to take advantage of the opportunities within the Indian market and enable Indian

Economic growth in India is a powerful

stabilizing force in a region of the world where stability is of supreme.importance.
Stability and growth in India are of enormous importance through southern Asia,
from the Middle East to Indochina. Peace and prosperity in that part of the world are
essential to the peace and prosperity of the world . The survival of Indian democracy
is an important message to those who doubt the value of democracy, particularly in
large, complex, emerging societies. India is a regional powerhouse . Home of the world's
companies to better enter the global marketplace.

fourth largest navy. Home of a burgeoning space program. It would be hard to describe a nation that could be more

central to our interests in the century ahead -- or one with whom the promise of cooperation and friendship is
greater.

Nuclear war
Landy, National Security Expert @ Knight Ridder, 3/10/ 2K
(Jonathan, Knight Ridder, lexis)
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or
India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation
by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even
start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons,
and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations,
negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for
five decades in Cold War Europe. Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and
relationships so fragile, said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy
studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. We see the convergence of
great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized
security mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster. In an
effort to cool the regions tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and National Security
Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asias capitals this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be

There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan,

Japan and South Korea, and the United States would instantly become
embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South
Korea. While Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict
between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and
demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has
higher.

made a stable Asia _ with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources _ indispensable to the U.S.
economy. Numerous U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last
year, according to the Commerce Department.

Deficit Impacts
Path to citizenship solves the deficit
Tucker 10 Cynthia is a columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. We need
immigrants to help pay the deficit, Nov 19, http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthiatucker/2010/11/19/we-need-immigrants-to-help-pay-the-deficit/
Recommendations for taming the deficit include raising the retirement age, raising the

federal gas tax and ending the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners. Ouch! But there is a palliative that

Put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to legalization. And dont

touch birthright citizenship! Yes, you heard that right: Granting legal residency to illegal
immigrants will eventually help sop up some of the federal budgets red ink. I know
would ease the pain:

thats counterintuitive since so many citizens have come to believe that Mexican landscapers and Guatemalan

their relative youth is just what the U.S.

economy needs. The explosion of the long-term deficit is largely the
consequence of an aging population, with more retirees depending on
taxes from fewer workers. While the recession, two unfunded wars and Bush-era tax cuts fueled the
immediate deficit, a tsunami of long-term red ink will swamp the budget in about
ten years, as a massive wave of baby boomers leaves the workplace. So
we need as many younger workers as we can find to help support the coming crush of senior
maids are a drain on the treasury. But the fact is that

citizens. The U.S. is lucky enough to have a higher birthrate than many other Westernized democracies, even
among native-born women. Immigrants are an added demographic bonus. When some people think of
immigrants, they think of people coming in and immediately absorbing our resources, said Emory economist
Jeffrey Rosensweig. Most
paying taxes.

immigrants come here to work. Theyre young workers, and theyre

Why not add all of them to the federal tax rolls?

Deficit will collapse hegemony and the economy---trigger

global nuclear war
Khalilzad 11 Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan,

Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the
director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992, February
8, 2011, The Economy and National Security; If we dont get our economic house in
order, we risk a new era of multi-polarity, online:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-securityzalmay-khalilzad
Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national
debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly,
annual interest payments which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out
other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth.
Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to

a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly

compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally.
Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic
devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both
countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the
roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating

economic capacity to maintain a presence east of Suez. Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their

If the
U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled
to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international
commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though
decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment.

countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster
than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers

The closing
of the gap between the U nited S tates and its rivals could intensify geopolitical
fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge.

competition among major powers , increase incentives for local powers to

play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or
respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes
are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the
era of U.S. leadership . By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with
resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers.
Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have
devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could
rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened
possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out
their competitive dynamics

conflict . Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their
geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would
be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise,
Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition.
Beijings economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth
aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. Chinas strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around
China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, Chinas expansive territorial claims and provocative statements and actions
following crises in Korea and incidents at sea have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still,

the

U nited S tates is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and
aggression .

K-Friendly Impacts

Agency
Illegal immigrants are subjected to virtual slavery
White 9 journalist specializing in liberal politics [Deborah, "Illegal Immigration
Explained - Profits & Poverty, Social Security & Starvation"
http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/IllegalImmi.htm]
A major economic drawback, though, to allowing thousands...probably
millions...of US businesses to pay under-market wages and benefits to
undocumented workers is that it depresses wages for all workers in the US.
All Americans workers, then have decreased incomes, lower benefits and
higher rates of poverty and hunger. An obvious moral drawback to allowing US businesses to
pay under-market, lower than even minimum wage rates, is that it's wrong. Minimum wage and
standard minimal working conditions are established to humanely provide
for the safety and welfare of all workers...not just American-born workers. It's a matter
of decency and human rights, rooted in the United States' Christian-Judeo heritage. It's wrong
and exploitative, and it's immoral. It's an updated form of economic
slavery. Writes Dr. Groody, "Immigrants die cutting North Carolina tobacco and
Nebraska beef, chopping down trees in Colorado, welding a balcony in
Florida , trimming grass at a Las Vegas golf course, and falling from
scaffolding in Georgia.... With an economic gun at their backs, they leave
their homes because hunger and poverty pushes them across the
border....Every day, immigrants dehydrate in deserts, drown in canals,
freeze in mountains and suffocate in tractor trailers. As a result, the death
toll has increased 1,000 percent in some places."

The devaluation of agency eradicates the capacity to make

meaningful political judgments. Agency is a prerequisite for
every value and a necessary condition for establishing a just
society.
Anthony Lang, Jr. The American University in Cairo, European Journal of
International Relations, Vol. 5 (1): 67-107, 1999, p. 77-79
This article proposes that the attribution of state responsibility undermines the agency of individual citizens. This
consequence is morally important because agency is the basis of first generation human rights, or political and civil

Without agency, individuals will be subjects and not citizens, that is, they
will become pliant adherents to the will of the government and not political
actors interested in and able to affect the future of their political
community. Certainly, other factors will contribute to the undermining of' first generation human rights, ones
rights.

that have no relation to the attribution of state responsibility, or even a relation to foreign policy. But, as this article
will argue, the attribution of state responsibility contributes toward the undermining of those rights in a number of
ways. What is agency, and why is it so important for civil life? The concept of agency has been a part of' sociology
since Max Weber's analyses of it (Weber, 1964: 87-157). In the past 15 years, it has found its way into the discipline
of International Relations as well, specifically through the works of Alexander Wendt (Wendt, 1987) who has
generally followed the debates in sociology that focus on agency and structure. The debate in International
Relations parallels that between Weber from Marx - are individual, goal seeking persons or social and political
structures more important in understanding human interaction? In International Relations, the question has been
posed as -- are individual, goal seeking states or the structure of the international system more important in
understanding the outcomes of international political interaction? While drastically simplified, this question captures
the debate in the social sciences, including International Relations, concerning the question of agency. The notions
of agency that underlie the arguments of' this article, however, are drawn more from political philosophy than from
the sociological literature. More specifically, my notion of' agency draws on three political philosophers. Hannah

Arendt has argued that action defines the human person in the political

realm, that without the ability to remake the web of social and political
relations that action provides there can be no separate sphere defined as
the political (Arendt, 1958). Charles Taylor has also placed agency at the center of his attempts to
understand the political. He has argued persuasively that human agency is primarily the ability to interpret the
self's actions in a meaningful way, i.e. a self- interpretation that cannot be reduced to mere biological desire (Taylor,
1985). Richard Flathman's analyses of liberalism rely on a form of agency in his argument that liberalism requires
individuals who are able to resist the encroachments of normalization and institutionalization as they assert
themselves through their actions, words and thoughts (Flathman, 1992). Following these three thinkers, I assume

agency is the ability to act and speak publicly with

meaningful intentions in such a way as to have an effect on the world . It
the following meaning for agency --

requires the ability to interpret those actions in ways that may not always be communicable at first, but do presume
some sense of shared meaning (Taylor, 1985: 25).18 Furthermore, following Arendt, the ability to act is central to
the creation of the political sphere. Without action, politics could not take place, for it is through actions that
communities are constituted. Finally following Flathman, strong notions of agency are necessary for liberal and

Unless individuals can think and act qua individuals, they will be
unable to create a political community in which their rights are protected.
Agency is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for creation of a
community that respects civil and political rights . While this definition cannot be
democratic citizenship.

considered final, the elements of meaningfulness, publicness and willfulness are all central to the understanding of
agency I am using here. How does the attribution of state responsibility undermine individual agency? Because the
attribution of state responsibility does not depend on the responsibility of individuals within the state, there is a
prima facie sense in which individual agency is irrelevant to considerations of international responsibility. While
being irrelevant does not cause something to disappear, it certainly does not help in making that thing an important
consideration. But even more importantly, certain manifestations of state responsibility tend to undermine
individual responsibility and agency. This article focuses on three aspects of agency -- physical, legal and political.
Each one of these aspects of agency is necessary to be an active citizen as opposed to simply a pliant subject of a
community. Physical agency means having a level of health and welfare that would allow one to pursue political

Legal agency means having the legal status as a citizen necessary to

protect one's civil rights. Political agency, perhaps the most difficult to identify, is the set of political
activity.

beliefs and ideas that prompt an individual to act on behalf of his or her own interests in the public sphere. Again,

political action is not

just an addition to our daily lives, but something -which distinguishes us from animals
and which is necessary for our happiness. To inculcate the idea that political action is a
value in and of itself is a necessary step in the direction of a true democracy (Arendt, 1958)
Arendt's work on political action captures the idea suggested here -- the idea that

AT: Impact Defense

AT: XO
No executive action Obama knows the risks
Hamilton 3-26 (Keegan, How Obama Could (but Probably Won't) Stop
Deporting Illegal Immigrants Today, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/homeland-security/277799-dont-wait-for-president-obama-to-act-onimmigration-reform#ixzz2OrYPaWXd)
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. "We

have a
Congress for a reason," Jacoby says. "To fix anything permanently you need to
have legislation, and in order for that to happen it has to be bipartisan . My
worst nightmare is the president thinking, 'I don't need bipartisan
legislation. Why share credit with Republicans? I can just go on and do this myself.' I think that's a disastrous
political strategy." If the current congressional push for immigration reform were to fail, however, a presidential
pardon for undocumented immigrants with no criminal history might be Obama's last ditch alternative to prosecutorial discretion.
Rather than scaling back on detentions, Obama could instantly--and permanently-- legalize millions of illegal immigrants. Beck, the
Georgia law scholar, notes that the Constitution empowers the president to "grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the
United States, except in cases of impeachment." The question, he says, is "whether coming into the country in violation of the
immigration laws or overstaying a visa could be deemed an 'offense against the United States.'" But the president has broad powers
of pardon, and it seems that Obama could exercise those powers here. Beck cites United States v. Klein, an 1871 Supreme Court
case that involved a presidential pardon issued during the Civil War to confederates who rejoined the union and took an oath of

even if executive-branch lawyers could put forth a legal rationale for

the move, there are political reasons why Obama would likely be reluctant to
loyalty. But

make it. Although potentially cementing loyalty from a generation of Latinos, a mass pardon would likely be deeply unpopular with
moderates and liberals who put faith in the legislative process, and would be considered downright treasonous by many

Obama could face Congressional censure or perhaps even

impeachment if he had any time remaining in office , and the backlash against Democrats
could make the Tea Party-fueled, Obamacare-inspired shellacking of 2010 look mild. "If in December 2016
Obama says, 'Unconditional pardon to everybody in the country illegally,'
that would totally dismantle Democratic Party governance for a
generation," Mayer says. " I don't think he wants that to be his legacy ."
Republicans.

XOs can be overturned means legislation is key and

comprehensive changes to the immigration system must go
through Congress
Bloomberg 2-11 (Obama State of Union Means Executive Power for Defiant
Congress http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-11/obama-poised-to-skirtcongress-to-seal-legacy-in-new-term-agenda)
On climate change, gun control, gay rights, and even immigration, the White House has signaled a
willingness to circumvent lawmakers through the use of presidential
power. Already, plans are being laid to unleash new executive orders, regulations, signing statements and
memorandums designed to push Obamas programs forward and cement his legacy, according to administration
aides and allies. The big things that we need to get done, we cant wait on, said White House senior adviser Dan

The tactic carries political risk, beyond

the backlash it will spark from congressional Republicans. Advisers say
the president -- who already faces charges from Republicans that he is
concentrating too much power in the White House -- remains cautious
about getting too far ahead of public opinion. And executive orders can be
Pfeiffer. If we can take action, we will take action.

overturned by a future president a lot easier than can legislation. Whats

more, Obama will still need to work through Congress to deal with some of
the nations biggest concerns, including tax and spending issues as well as any
comprehensive changes in the immigration system.

Previous XOs have already been overturned

Goldfarb 2-10 (Zachary, writer for the Washington Post. Obama weighing

executive actions on housing, gays and other issues

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-weighing-executive-actions-onhousing-gays-and-other-issues/2013/02/10/e966cc06-7065-11e2-8b8de0b59a1b8e2a_story.html)
These and other potential actions suggest that Obama is likely to rely heavily on executive powers to set domestic

while the president does not see

the actions as substitutes for more substantial legislation, he also wants
to move forward on top priorities. But the approach risks angering
Republican lawmakers in Congress, who say they are leery of granting the
executive branch too much power and have already clashed with Obama
over the issue. In a ruling last month, a federal appeals court said Obama exceeded
his constitutional powers in naming several people to the N ational Labor
Relations Board while the Senate was on a break. It is a very dangerous road hes going down
policy in his second term. One White House official said that

contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a recent interview. Just because
Congress doesnt act doesnt mean the president has a right to act.

The conclusion of their card flows neg hes already doing

everything he can
The Hill 2-16 (Dems: Obama can act unilaterally on immigration reform

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/283583-dems-recognize-thatobama-can-act-unilaterally-on-immigration-reform#ixzz2LEvg4R5R)
Not all immigration-reform supporters think Obama has so much space to
move on immigration without Congress. Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas), vice-chairman of the
Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, said the president has some license to make border security moves and
spending decisions.
said Friday, "and

"But pretty much he's done what he can do right now," Cuellar
after that it's up to Congress to address the rest of the

issues." "It'd be better for the president to wait for us," Cuellar said. "He can urge us [to act], but it'd be better
for us to come up with our own proposal and let the legislative process work itself."

Aff Answers

CIR Wont Pass

Wont Pass House

Conservative House wont pass immigration
Bangladesh Government News 6/30- Conservative Backlash greets US
immigration bill June 30, 2013
http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/ps/retrieve.do?
sgHitCountType=None&sort=DASORT&inPS=true&prodId=STND&userGroupName=lom_umichanna&tabID=T004&se
archId=R1&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSear
chForm&currentPosition=7&contentSet=GALE%7CA335440113&&docId=GALE
%7CA335440113&docType=GALE&role=
Conservatives have drawn a bull's eye on the immigration bill passed by
the US Senate, insisting the landmark measure will fail as is and vowing
political retribution against Republicans who voted for it.
The bipartisan immigration reform bill passed 68-32 in the Senate Thursday with support from 14 Republicans,

now face accusations they let down conservatives opposed to

legislation that lays a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented
people. Those lawmakers, including high-profile figures like Senator Marco Rubio, "will have to go back home
many of whom

and explain the votes they cast, and explain to their constituents why it's not amnesty, even though it is," Dan
Holler of Heritage Action, a lobbying arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, told AFP on Friday. "In a very real
sense, the Senate passage of the Gang of 8's bill killed what we think is any hope for real immigration reform."
The four Republicans who joined four Democrats in crafting the legislation were well aware of the potential political
pitfalls, perhaps none more than Rubio, a potential 2016 presidential candidate who has been a darling of the smallgovernment tea party movement. "It's been a real trial for me," Rubio said candidly on the Senate floor this week,
acknowledging that his office has been flooded with phone calls and emails by "increasingly unhappy" voters.

Conservatives worry about the bill's $46 billion price tag , and they are
skeptical about a Congressional Budget Office report which estimated that
the bill would lead to dramatic deficit reduction. Equally important, many see the
Senate making the same mistakes that plagued 1986 legislation, when
Congress approved an amnesty for three million undocumented workers
on the condition that border security and enforcement was tightened . Those
conditions were never met, and millions more slipped illegally across the US-Mexico border or overstayed their

Conservative lawmakers now warn that immigration reform is doomed

if it once again puts legalization before border security . "The Senate
immigration bill is a mistake. Border security, not amnesty, is the answer ,"
visas.

congressman Phil Gingrey said on Twitter. Obama, on a trip in Africa, called House Speaker John Boehner in a bid to

Boehner has already said the chamber will not

take up the Senate bill but seek to pass its own legislation with tougher
border security measures. House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte insists on a piecemeal
nudge him to take up immigration reform.

approach, and his committee has approved four bills, including one that gives state and local government broad
interior enforcement powers. But the most controversial element of potential reform, what to do with 11 million
people living in the shadows, has yet to be addressed. "Chairman Goodlatte

does not believe in a

special pathway to citizenship," a Judiciary aide said. Lawmakers headed back to their districts for
a week-long break, and some Republicans like Tennessee's Senator Bob Corker will find the welcome mat missing.
Corker co-authored the pivotal amendment that dramatically boosts border security, and while his important role

angered hard-line conservatives. "I think

most tea party members feel completely betrayed" by Corker, Nashville Tea Party
president Ben Cunningham told the Jackson Sun. Some tea party activists have openly
called for conservatives to challenge Republican Senators in upcoming
primary elections if they voted for the "amnesty" bill . "There's probably concern about
helped bring some skeptical Republicans on board, it

primaries" in the House too, noted a Republican congressional aide. The party's 2012 presidential candidate Mitt
Romney was ridiculed when he said "self-deportation" was a viable policy for illegal immigrants. But even after
Obama won re-election and Republican leaders called for outreach to minority groups like Hispanics,

die-hard

conservatives have largely resisted the Senate's immigration reform. And yet
immigration reform obstructionists could face their own backlash .

House too conservative to pass immigration bill

The Hill 6/28- Ros-Lehtinen: House conservatives may kill any immigration bill

June 28, 2013 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308385-ros-lehtinensenate-immigration-bill-not-going-to-move-in-the-house

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said Friday that she knows the Senate immigration bill is "not
going to move in the House" and expressed fears that conservative
Republicans will block any House legislation from proceeding. But Ros-Lehtinen
nevertheless is hopeful that Republicans can pass some sort of border security bill that would allow a

I
understand that bill is not going to move in the house, " Ros-Lehtinen told CNN.
"We're hoping that any bill will pass in the House so we can go into
conference with the Senate, and then out of that conference will be a
balanced bill." House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he will only proceed with
immigration bills that have the backing of a majority of his Republican
majority, dimming the prospects for the legislation that passed the Senate in a 68-32
vote on Thursday. Ros-Lehtinen said she was most concerned that warring factions within
the House would block any bill from proceeding, preventing a possible
conference committee compromise. "My fear is this -- that the more conservative
members of our party will vote no because they worry about any bill
getting into conference, even though they may agree with that border security bill, and many
Democrats may vote no because they want to deal with the 11 million
undocumented first," she said. "We just need to get to conference and try to negotiate compromise." The
Miami Republican admitted that it would be a "very difficult" tightrope to walk, but
said conservative Republicans felt the need to ensure border security
protections after an immigration bill signed during Ronald Reagan's
presidency failed to stop illegal immigration to the United States.
comprehensive immigration reform deal to be struck in conference committee. "I do support it but

Immigration reform wont pass

The Fiscal Times 7/1- Why Immigration Reform Wont Pass the House July 1 2013
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/07/01/Why-Immigration-Reform-WontPass-the-House.aspx#page1
The two-term self-styled conservative constitutionalist and hardliner on immigration is highly
dismissive of any suggestion or prediction that he and other House
Republicans will eventually come to their senses and support the Senate-passed
immigration plan if they hope the GOP will remain viable as a national party. Sens. Charles Schumer (DNY), John McCain (R-AZ) and other Gang of Eight members who drafted the Senate-passed bill contend that House
Republicans must support a similar approach including a path to citizenship for nearly 11 million illegal
immigrants if they hope to appeal to the potent and fast-growing bloc of Hispanic voters. I was moved almost to
the point of tears by Senator Schumers concern for the future prospects of the Republican Party, Gowdy quipped
on Fox News Sunday yesterday. But

we are not going to take his advice. The Senate

bill is not going to pass in the House. Its not going to pass for myriad
reasons. Ill support immigration reform. I think the current system is
broken. But our framers gave us two legislative bodies, added Gowdy, who is chairman of the House Judiciary
subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. I assumed they did it for a reason. And the House runs

Gowdys
appearance helped explain why it may be virtually impossible for the two
chambers to reach agreement this year on comprehensive immigration
every two years with the theory being that we will be closer to the will of the people.

reform.

By a solid vote of 68 to 31, the Senate last Thursday passed a bill that combines efforts to tighten
security along the U.S.-Mexican border with a lengthy pathway for illegal immigrants to achieve legal status or

many House Republicans and conservative forces are arrayed

against the Senate-passed bill, saying it is tantamount to amnesty
without the guarantee of an all-but-impenetrable southwestern border.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has vowed to keep any immigration reform
bill from the floor that lacks majority support of his members.
citizenship. But

Immigration reform wont pass the House

The HIll 6/30- Gowdy: House wont take Schumers advice on immigration
reform June 30, 2013 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308621gowdy-house-wont-pass-immigration-reform
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Sunday said that the Senate immigration bill passed last week
was a non-starter, rejecting Sen. Charles Schumers (D-N.Y.) claim that the House would have to take up
the Gang of Eight proposal. "We're going to not take his advice. The Senate bill is
not going to pass in the House for a myriad of reasons ," Gowdy said on Fox News
Sunday. Gowdy spoke after Schumer suggested the House would adopt the Senate reform bill because of the
potential electoral implications of failure for the GOP. Gowdy though said in the border control provisions of

the

Senate bill in particular were unacceptable to his constituents. Instead, he said

the House will continue to move forward with a piecemeal approach,
passing smaller bills out of the House Judiciary Committee to deal with
specific aspects of reform. I support immigration reform, I think the current system is broken, but
our founders gave us two legislative bodies and I assume they gave it to
us for a reason. The Senate passed an immigration reform package last week on a 68-32 vote, but its
future in the House remains uncertain. Conservatives are refusing to support the bill
because they believe it has inadequate border control provisions and
because they are opposed to a pathway to citizenship.

Immigration wont pass the conservative House

Levey 6/30- Noam, Tribune Washington Bureau House Republican leaders

remain firm against immigration bill June 30, 2013

http://infoweb.newsbank.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?
p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=14742564051C
8090&p_docnum=88&p_queryname=1
Republican House leaders reiterated their opposition Sunday to the
immigration bill passed by the Senate last week, highlighting the uncertain prospects
for enacting a major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws. "The
Senate bill is not going to pass in the House," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob
Goodlatte, R-Va., said on CNN's "State of the Union," echoing statements made by House Speaker
John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other senior Republican lawmakers. Even Sen. John
McCain, R-Ariz., a leading supporter of the Senate legislation, acknowledged the difficult path
the bill faces in the Republican-controlled House. "I'm concerned about the task ahead,"
he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It's not going to be easy." Boehner has said that he
will not bring up an immigration bill for a vote that does not have the
support of the majority of the Republican House caucus. Goolatte noted Sunday that
the vast majority of Senate Republicans voted against the Senate bill , which
would create a system to confer legal status on 11 million immigrants in the country illegally while bolstering border
security and tightening employment rules through an electronic system to verify workers' immigration status known
as e-verify. But

many conservative lawmakers say the security provisions of the

Senate bill are inadequate and may never be implemented .

"There is a diminution
of trust among our fellow citizens," Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee's
immigration subcommittee, said on Fox News. "And the notion that I can tell them, 'We are going to provide
legalization, but trust us on the border security, trust on the internal security, trust on e-verify,' that's not going to
fly in South Carolina." One lawmaker was bullish on the legislation, however. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., a
leading architect of the Senate bill, predicted on Fox News that Boehner would look to House Democrats to pass the
Senate's immigration overhaul, even if

many House Republicans oppose the bill.

CIR will not pass the House. Key GOP leaders will prevent the
ratification of the Senates version of the bill
Jensen and Yost 6/28/13 American Immigration Lawyers Association U.S. Chamber of
Commerce Immigration Subcommittee, Proffesor of Immigration law in Indiana, AND Peter Yost is the head of the
Immigration and Global Mobility practice at Faegre Baker Daniels. He also directs the inbound U.S immigration
sector within the practice Senate passes landmark comprehensive immigration reform bill; future in House
uncertain http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=26822710-c4aa-431c-b74e-e393b2a0820c AJ
On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Senate passed the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration
Modernization Act of 2013" (S.744). We have written about this bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR)
bill previously. The vote was 62-38, with all Democrats and 14 Republicans voting in favor. Republican support was
increased by a major amendment that significantly enhanced the resources to be allocated to border security. The
Senate bill represents a major overhaul of the current immigration system: The approximately 11 million
undocumented people in the U.S. without authorization would have a path to lawful status and ultimately
citizenship Border security would be significantly strengthened, with hundreds of miles of additional fencing, aerial
and remote sensing, and a doubling of the Border Patrol All employers would be required to use an electronic
employment verification system New visa categories for lesser-skilled and agricultural workers would provide legal
means for foreign nationals to meet future U.S. employment needs in these areas The number of available H-1B
visas for professional workers would increase There would be significant increases in the number of green cards
available for higher-skilled workers, significantly reducing long wait times A new green card category based on
merit would be created

With Senate passage

the GOP-controlled House

of S.744,

attention now focuses on

what

of Representatives will (or won't) do. The House will not take up S.744.

If the House does anything, it will be through its own bill or bills. A
bipartisan "Gang of Seven"
CIR bill

(Eight, until Rep. Raul Labrador left the group)

is working on a

that will presumably include legalization for the undocumented, stronger border security, work visas

for lesser-skilled workers, and higher-skilled worker visa and green card enhancements.

may introduce his own CIR bill. House Judiciary Chair

Rep. Labrador

Robert

Goodlatte

does not favor a comprehensive approach . He prefers to address the

various aspects of immigration reform through separate bills . The Judiciary
Committee has so far passed bills on immigration enforcement, agricultural workers and employment verification.
The committee is now working on a bill that would be beneficial for employment-based temporary visas and green
cards. So far,

the Judiciary Committee has not considered any bill that would

provide for legalization of the undocumented. Prospects for passage of

CIR in the House are uncertain .
bring an immigration bill to

Speaker John

Boehner has

stated that he

will not

vote unless a majority of the House

Republicans support the bill ; that condition may not be met. Many Republican strategists think the
party needs to pass CIR to improve its election results with fast-growing Latino and other immigrant communities.
But

many House Republicans are in conservative districts where their

concern is

not reaching out to immigrant communities, but rather

challenge from a more conservative opponent.

avoiding a primary
If any immigration bill were to pass the

House, the House bill and S.744 would go to a conference committee to work out a compromise bill.

Any bill

coming out of committee would likely be seen by immigration reform

proponents as more restrictive than S.744 . A conference committee bill would have to pass
both the Senate and House. Timing is a factor. Many commentators still say that CIR must happen in 2013 or it will
not happen at all because 2014 is an election year. Getting House members to vote in favor of a controversial
immigration bill as the election draws closer will be a major challenge.

In

addition,

the House

has other

important matters to deal with during the rest of 2013, so there is some question as to whether the Representatives
will use their limited time to pursue immigration reform when

many in the chamber are

opposed . Stay tuned.

The GOP is going to wait until immigration dies and is replaced

by another fiscal crisis
Johnson 6/24 [Fawn Johnson, June 24, 2013, writer for the National Journal, Times Up. Immigration
Won't Pass This Year Plenty of effort will be devoted to reform over the next month, but it will die in August, just like
last time. http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/time-s-up-immigration-won-t-pass-this-year-20130623

Nothing less than a miracle will get major immigration legislation through
Congress this year. Its not the Senates fault, not this time. The upper chamber is well on track to
comfortably pass this week a sweeping bill that would legalize millions of undocumented immigrants and
dramatically boost troops on the border. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a leader in the immigration effort, said on

the House is
slogging along on a piece-by-piece approach that does nothing but stretch
out the debate until all thats left are wisps of ideas on work visas, local
police enforcement, and electronic verification of workers. Indeed, the
House might not kill the bill outright, but the GOP players are passing the
ball around until the clock runs out. Whats that clock look like? After
senators get the bill done probably in time to make their weekend
barbeques -- they have a weeklong July 4 break. And then they get to wait
for colleagues on the other side of the Capitol who will have four weeks
four weeks to deliberate before Congress takes off for an even lengthier
recess in August. Once Washington meets autumn, immigration falls off
the priority track thanks to the reemergence of fiscal crisis.
CNN's State of the Union that two-thirds of the Senate is already in favor of the bill. But

The house will not vote for CIR, GOP is worried about
reelection and leadership doesnt support it
Cillizza and Sullivan 6/25 [Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan, writers for the Washington Post, June
25, 2013, The Senate is going to pass immigration reform. And the House doesnt care.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/25/the-senate-is-going-to-pass-immigration-reform-andthe-house-doesnt-care/]

Two things have become clear over the past 24 hours: 1. The Senate is
going to pass some sort of comprehensive immigration reform bill, and 2.
The House doesnt much care. Welcome to Washington, circa 2013! Why should a
minority of the minority in the Senate influence a majority of the majority
in the House, asked Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole. While most
Senators arent up for election next year, every member of the House will
be on the ballot. Rewind back a few months and the idea that a vote to proceed to debate on a key
border security measure would win 67 votes as it did Monday night would be greeted with something between

But, even before the Senate voted

Monday night, it was obvious that no matter what the vote looked like it
would have little influence on the plans of the GOP-controlled House.
House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) had told his Republican colleagues
that no immigration legislation would be brought the floor if a majority of
disbelief and joy by immigration reform advocates.

the GOP majority didnt support it. And, anyone who has spent any time
around the current Republican majority in the House or watched as the
farm bill failed last week recognizes that the Senate immigration bill
(and, perhaps, any bipartisan immigration bill) isnt going to be backed by
a majority of the Republican majority in that chamber. How the Senate
voted on Monday also affirms that the immigration legislation could well
be dead on arrival in the House. Not a single member of the Senate GOP leadership voted for
cloture. All told, 27 Republicans voted against it while 15 voted in favor of the cloture motion. (Four GOP Senators
did not vote, largely due to bad weather in and around Washington Monday that delayed flights.) Those numbers
provide little of the momentum or pressure that some Republicans had hoped might be foist upon the House with a
strong Senate GOP vote for the bill. It

doesnt matter at all, said one senior GOP

House leadership aide about the Senate vote on immigration. It wouldnt
be something a Republican Senate would bring to the floor. Why should a
Republican House just take it up? Added another House Republican
leadership staffer: Even if the bill passes with 70-plus votes in the
Senate, the path to 218 in the House is very perilous. Many Republicans
are skeptical of even voting on something as simple as border security, as
they feel that it provides a path to Conference [committee] where they
are afraid an untenable compromise will emerge. During the fiscal cliff debate, the
Senate passed a bipartisan measure with 89 votes over the opposition of only five Republicans. But over in
the House, less than 40 percent of Republicans supported it, reinforcing
the reality that nothing in the Senate guarantees passage in the lower
chamber. What Republicans in the House want, according to Cole, is a
chance to pass their own bill through the normal legislative order and
then try to negotiate a compromise between their version and what
passes the Senate. If that cannot be done then no bill should or will pass
the House, he said. Now, its important to remember that the Senate vote on Monday night was simply

to move ahead on one proposed part of a larger package. But it was a significant step toward a final vote on
passage before Congress breaks around July 4. Its possible that votes in the Senate could shift between Monday
and the final vote on the measure. (Of course, it would be strange if any of the 27 Republicans who opposed cloture

its also possible that the House GOP

leadership will change its approach between now and then. Neither
scenario seems likely, however. Which means that immigration reform
at least at the moment looks to be teetering on the edge of failure.
then turned around and voted for the legislation.) And,

The immigration bill wont pass the house

Davis and Gomez 6/27

[Susan Davis and Alan Gomez, writers for USAToday, June 27, 2013, House GOP
opposes Senate-passed immigration bill http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/ 06/27/immigrationfaces-battle-in-gop-house/2465017/]

The Democratic-led U.S. Senate approved an overhaul of the nation's

immigration laws, but the legislation faces broad opposition in the
Republican-led U.S. House. WASHINGTON Senate passage of a
comprehensive immigration overhaul sparked no excitement in the GOPcontrolled House, where Republican leaders continue to oppose the
Senate bill in favor of a piecemeal approach to addressing the nation's
immigration system. "The House is not going to take up and vote on
whatever the Senate passes. We're going to do our own bill through
regular order, and it'll be legislation that reflects the will of our majority
and the will of the American people," said House Speaker John Boehner, ROhio. "And for any legislation, including a (final bill), to pass the House,
it's going to have to be a bill that has the support of the majority of our

members." Boehner has faced criticism in his own party for passing major legislation including the bill at the
start of the year to avert the "fiscal cliff" by relying on the support of House Democrats to overcome the
opposition of conservative Republicans. He vowed Thursday that he would not do so on immigration. House
Republicans will hold a special closed-door meeting July 10 to discuss the way forward on immigration, but leading

there is broad opposition to the Senate's

comprehensive approach and little GOP interest in a bill that includes a
pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants until
the U.S.-Mexican border is secured. "My view is: Break this down. Break it
down into smaller components," said Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., a top votecounter for Republicans. "Clearly where our conference is, is all about
trying to deal with a secure border. Once there is a level of confidence on
a secure border, then you can begin to move forward on these other
elements." Roskam said House Republicans are wary of any legislation the
size and scope of the Senate bill because it is reminiscent to GOP
lawmakers of President Obama's health care law. There is also a generally
held view among Republicans that bills that size are politically perilous
because the public doesn't trust them. "The House has no capacity to
move that (Senate) bill in its entirety. It just won't happen. It is a
pipedream to think that that bill is going to go to the floor and be voted
on," he said. The bill is politically difficult for most House Republicans, who represent less diverse and more
conservative districts after the 2012 process that redrew district lines based on population shifts. According
to the non-partisan Cook Political Report, about 80% of House Republicans
represent districts so conservative they are unlikely to ever face a general
election threat. In that climate, Republicans are more likely to face
primary election threats, and immigration has long been a divisive issue
within the GOP. Instead, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has been
lawmakers have made clear that

moving bills that deal with isolated components of immigration. Last week, the committee passed bills that would
revamp the visa system for agricultural workers and encourage state and local law enforcement agencies to help
enforce federal immigration laws. This week, it worked on bills that would provide more work visas to foreigners
trained in high-tech fields and nationalize a program requiring business owners to check the immigration status of
new hires. No bills have been filed to address the central questions of border security and a pathway to citizenship.
And none of the bills heard in the Judiciary Committee has received any Democratic support because of how they

There is considerably more support among House Democrats

for a Senate-style comprehensive overhaul that includes both border
security and a pathway to citizenship, and House Democratic leaders have
warned Republicans that a piecemeal approach is less likely to win
Democratic support. "There are obviously some issues which have greater support than others, and to
approach each issue.

simply adopt those that have an economic consequence to the business community or other people without
addressing the issues of families and immigrants, employers, I think would be a mistake," said House Minority Whip
Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the party's top vote counter. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told USA TODAY's "Capital
Download" that "at the end of the day we have to have a path to citizenship" for Democrats to support a final bill.

Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., is one of the members of a bipartisan group of

representatives trying to craft an all-encompassing bill similar to the one
passed by the Senate. He said he has been disappointed by individual
Republican bills fueled by "vitriolic rhetoric that is being used to support
them, the criminalization of immigrants." He worries that approach will
lead to partisan attacks on both sides that will kill any chance of reaching
a compromise with the Senate. "We will start the process of condemnation
and demonization," Gutierrez said of the bills advancing in the House. "But
does that lead us to a solution?" Instead, he said, his group hopes to offer a bill after the July 4
Rep.

recess that both Democrats and Republicans can embrace. He will appear alongside Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.,
on CNN on Sunday to show a sign of bipartisanship and will join Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada on
Monday for a symbolic passing of the torch on immigration. Gutierrez said he plans to prove that not all House
Republicans are opposed to a comprehensive bill. "If you create an avenue for Democrats and Republicans to work

together to be a counterpoint to Goodlatte, that's something people can rally for vs. something they can rally
against."

House GOP members have multiple reasons to vote against CIR

Jones 7/1

[Susan Jones, July 1, 2013, writer for CNS news, Gowdy: 'More Interested in Getting It Right' Than
Following Senate on Immigration http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gowdy-more-interested-getting-it-right-followingsenate-immigration]
(CNSNews.com) - Joking that he was "moved almost to the point of tears by Sen. (Chuck) Schumer's concern for the

Rep. Trey Gowdy said on Sunday the

immigration bill passed by the Senate is dead on arrival in the House: "The
Senate bill is not going to pass in the House. It's not going to pass for
myriad reasons," Gowdy told "Fox News Sunday." "I'll support immigration reform. I think the current
future prospects of the Republican Party,"

system is broken. But our framers gave us two legislative bodies. And I assume they did it for a reason. And the

Gowdy
noted that the House has passed four separate bills addressing different
facets of the immigration issue, such as enforcement. "So, we are making
progress and we will continue to do so. I'm more interested in getting it
right than doing it on Senator Schumer's schedule," Gowdy said. Schumer told
House runs every two years with the theory being that we will be closer to the will of the people."

"Fox News Sunday" he thinks the House will pass the Senate immigration bill by the end of the year, partly because
if they don't, Republicans will be the minority party for many years; and partly because "the bishops, the
evangelicals and business leaders" want immigration reform. "And, finally, and very importantly as well, we're not
going to let this issue go away," Schumer said. "The strong supporters of immigration are going to be at the town
hall meetings of Republican congressmen. They're going to be visiting them in their offices. They're going to be

House Speaker John

Boehner (R-Ohio) has promised to pass a House immigraton bill through
regular order -- sending it through committee before a floor vote. "And it
will be legislation that reflects the will of our (Republican) majority and
the will of the American people," Boehner said. But Gowdy said the
difficulty with the Senate bill lies in its details: "I cannot sell in South
Carolina a border security plan where the security comes after the
legalization. I can't sell a border security plan where Janet Napolitano gets
to tell us the border is secure. I can't sell a border security plan where the
executive can turn on and off triggers for political expedient reasons. Nor
would I try to sell any of those plans. "So, you can agree in theory on border
security but disagree very strongly on how it's achieved." Pressed on why
he insists on border security before legal status, Gowdy cited trust in
government: "There is a diminution of trust among our fellow citizens. And
the notion that I can tell them, we're going to provide legalization but
trust us on the border security, trust us on the internal security, trust us
on E-Verify, that's not going to fly in South Carolina. I doubt it's going to
fly in Arizona or New York." Putting security in place shows respect for the rule of law, Gowdy said.
"I'm fine with showing humanity. But the order in which it's done is important," he added. Gowdy also
noted that the estimated 11 million people who are in the U.S. illegally are
not a homogenous group: Some don't want to become American citizens,
he said, and some couldn't pass a background check. "All of the 11 million
are not similarly situated," Gowdy said. "You would agree with me you
should have a different level of scrutiny for a child who's been here for 10
years and was brought through no will or no action of his or her own, as
opposed to a 30-year-old who's been here for three weeks. You would not
want the same scrutiny or the same level of analysis for those two groups.
"So, I know it's tempting to think of them as 11 million, as this all one
group with the same characteristics. But the reality is, there are a number
traipsing in the halls of Congress. We have seen the power of the DREAM Act kids."

of subgroups that frankly are worthy of different levels of scrutiny and I

hope the House plan will have that." Gowdy also noted that the House
immigration plan would allow state and local law enforcement to help
federal agents enforce immigration laws. "Well, that's a non-starter in the Senate," he said.
"The Senate is fine with law enforcement enforcing every other category of crime, from child pornography, to
murder, to narcotics trafficking, the bank robbery. But heaven forbid they get involved in immigration." Speaker
Boehner has summoned Republican House members to a July 10 discussion about immigration legislation: "Were
going to have a special conference and were going to lay all of this out and listen to what the members have to
say."

Bill wont pass the house pathway to citizenship is contested

and Republicans feel no pressure to please Latinos
Hesson 7/1

[Ted Hesson, July 1, 2013 Ted Hesson is the immigration editor for Univision News. Before joining
the team in 2012, he served as online editor for Long Island Wins, a non-profit organization focusing on local and
national immigration issues. Ted has written for a variety of magazines, newspapers, and online publications,
including The Huffington Post, Time Out New York, and the Philadelphia City Paper. He earned his masters degree at
the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and his bachelors degree at Boston College. Born and raised
in Philadelphia, Ted has lived in New York City since 2003. http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/takingtemperature-immigration-reform-house/story?id=19544319#.UdHam_nqlsl]

the Senate passed a bill that would overhaul the nation's

immigration laws. Getting legislation through the Republican-controlled
House of Representatives will be a lot harder, however. Here's what you need to know
about where immigration reform stands in the House: 1. Republicans aren't feeling the Senate
bill After an immigration plan cleared the Senate last week, the House's
top Republican said the bill was dead-on-arrival at its next stop:
"Apparently some haven't gotten the message: the House is not going to
take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes," said Speaker John
Boehner (R-Ohio). "We're going to do our own bill...and move the legislation that reflects the will of our
majority and the will of the American people." Basically Boehner is saying that any bill
considered on the floor of the House will need the support of the majority
of Republicans -- and the Senate immigration bill won't have that. That doesn't
Last week,

mean some type of immigration plan can't pass the House. Here's why: 2. Smaller immigration bills are moving The
immigration reform bill in the Senate was nearly 1,200 pages long. But some conservatives in the House are taking
a piecemeal approach to reform, passing a series of individual bills instead of one large package. Any immigration
bill passed in the House could then be combined with the Senate immigration bill, through what's known as a
"conference committee." Boehner could hypothetically bring a combined bill to the floor of the House without the
support of most Republicans. That would give the legislation a chance. A move like that would go against what he
said about having majority support for the bill. But both supporters and opponents of reform have said that's a
possibility, and the Speaker has reversed his position in the past. A group of Democrats and Republicans are also
working on a comprehensive bill in the House. But that effort hasn't yielded anything yet, and legislators don't have
a timetable for when they might produce something. In any case, it's unlikely that the majority of House
Republicans would support an immigration reform bill similar to the one in the Senate, even if it was the combined

Most Republicans aren't affected by demographic

pressure Since President Barack Obama won reelection with runaway
support from Latino and Asian voters, Republican strategists have said
immigration reform could be a way for the party to win over people who
aren't older and white. But while the GOP may be worried about appealing
to Latino voters on a national level, that isn't as much of a concern for
individual representatives. That's because the vast majority of House
Republicans are in districts where Latinos aren't a large voting bloc,
according to The Wall Street Journal. Only 38 of the 234 Republicans in the
House are from districts where Latinos make up 20 percent or more of the
population. So while immigration reform may be good for the Republican party as a whole, most House
bill mentioned above. Here's why: 3.

conservatives aren't feeling the same sort of pressure to pass a bill. That could be a problem for immigration reform
for one big reason: 4. Citizenship for undocumented immigrants is not negotiable

Democratic leaders

have said that a pathway to citizenship for the country's estimated 11

million undocumented immigrants isn't negotiable. So whatever the House
produces, the final immigration bill will need to have a road to citizenship
included, or else Democrats will kill it. So far, House leadership hasn't
taken a position on citizenship, but expect any proposal with citizenship
for the undocumented -- what opponents call "amnesty" -- to encounter
resistance among the majority of House Republicans. 5. July 10 is the next big reveal
The House Republican Conference will hold a special meeting on that day to discuss immigration reform, Politico
reports. GOP leadership will give an overview of the issue and the individual bills that have been developed in the
House already. This will also be a chance for House Republicans to make their opinions heard, and for leadership to

Expect to hear from border hawks like Rep. Steve

King (R-Iowa), who will likely oppose any broad immigration bill with a
path to citizenship for the undocumented. But more interesting will be whether more
gauge the party's appetite for reform.

moderate party leaders like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), who is widely respected and has already spoken in favor of
reform, will step up public support.

The majority of Republicans in the House will vote against

immigration they feel more pressure from the tea party than
the senate
Burlij and Bellantoni 7/1

[House Republicans Take Foot Off Gas in Drive for Immigration Reform
Terence Burlij and Christina Bellantoni, writers for PBS Newshour July 1, 2013,http://www.pbs.org/ne
wshour/rundown/2013/07/house-republicans-take-foot-off-gas-in-drive-for-immigration-reform.html]

When it comes to the immigration bill, the game plan in Congress is hurry
up and wait. The Senate passed the so-called Gang of Eight's plan last
Thursday ahead of Majority Leader Harry Reid's Fourth of July deadline,
but House Republicans have made clear they intend to chart their own
path on immigration reform and do not appear to be in any rush to pass
legislation by a date certain. House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte, RVa., said Sunday that Republicans would like to duplicate the bipartisan
outcome that emerged from the Senate, but that the House version should
reflect the fact that the chamber is controlled by the GOP. "We would love to have a
bipartisan group produce a bill, because it would help to inform the House, just like the Senate bill helped to inform

70 percent of the Republicans in

the Senate voted against the immigration bill. Republicans are in the
majority in the House." Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a member of a bipartisan group working on a
comprehensive proposal in the House, charged that Republicans are not following the Senate model. "What the
House Republicans are doing is giving a Republican solution. And a
Republican solution isn't what we saw was successful in the Senate,"
Gutierrez said on CNN. "What happened in the Senate was that
Republicans and Democrats decided that bipartisanship was going to lead
to a solution, that compromising was going to lead to a solution." Gutierrez
the Senate," Goodlatte said on CNN's "State of the Union." "But

suggested the decision for whether immigration reform passes or not will likely fall to House Speaker John Boehner.
"There are a majority of Democrats and Republicans that are ready to solve this problem. Will he allow a small
group, maybe even a majority of his caucus, to control the debate and the future on this issue? If he decides to do
that, we will then end in a stalemate and an impasse once again," the Illinois Democrat said. Sen. Chuck Schumer,
D-N.Y., predicted that public pressure on Congress to pass immigration reform would continue to build and Boehner
will ultimately bring the Senate plan up for a vote. "Within several months Speaker Boehner will find two choices -no bill or let a bill pass with a majority of Democratic votes and some Chamber of Commerce-type Republicans. He'll
find that the better choice. We'll pass the Senate bill by the end of this year even though most House members
don't think so," Schumer said on "Fox News Sunday." Fellow Gang of Eight member Sen. John McCain said he was
"concerned about the task ahead" of lawmakers, but the Arizona Republican added that he also remained "hopeful

For Republicans in the

House, a major sticking point is likely to be the pathway to citizenship in
the Senate version. Goodlatte signalled that House Republicans might be
that we can convince our House colleagues" to move forward with a bill.

willing to support a "pathway to legalization" but "not a special pathway

to citizenship, where people who are here unlawfully get something that
people who have worked for decades to immigrate lawfully do not have."
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., added that House Republicans would also proceed at their own pace. "We are going to
work our will like we have been doing for the past weeks. We have passed four separate bills out of House Judiciary
and an additional bill out of Homeland Security. So we are making progress and will continue to do so. And I'm more
interested in getting it right than doing it on Senator Schumer's schedule," Gowdy said on "Fox News Sunday." But
President Barack Obama on Saturday told reporters traveling with him in Africa that the ball is "in the House's
court," and he would like to see this done on his speedy timeline. "I do urge the House to try to get this done before
the August recess," he said. "There is more than enough time. This thing has been debated amply and they've got a
bunch of weeks to get it done and now is the time." Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush had a similar message on the oped pages of the Wall Street Journal Monday, urging his fellow Republicans to get on board. Bush, joined by his

Here the GOP's informal "Hastert Rule"

requires Speaker John Boehner to have majority support among
Republicans before he will bring legislation to the floor for a vote. That
means an immigration bill will need a far greater share of Republican
House members than the Senate version received (where fewer than onethird of Republicans voted "aye"). This is a tall order. But it is one to which House
immigration book co-author Clint Bolick, writes:

Republicans should respond. No Republican would vote for legislation that stifled economic growth, promoted illegal
immigration, added to the welfare rolls, and failed to ensure a secure border. Yet they essentially will do just that if
they fail to pass comprehensive immigration reform--and leave in place a system that does all of those things. But

tea party groups "are promising to

spend the congressional recess reminding lawmakers who support the
Gang of Eight legislation what the base is capable of. Think loud town
halls, jammed phone lines and primary challenges down the road -- echoes
of Obamacare three years ago." Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, told Politico that
tea party activists disagree. Politico reported Monday that

activists are "more upset about the amnesty bill than they were about Obamacare." Appearing on NBC's "Meet the
Press," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., played political pundit, talking about what Republicans need to
do "if they ever wanna win a presidential race" and saying she hopes the Senate Republicans who backed that
chamber's bill can persuade their House colleagues. "We wouldn't even be where we are right now had it not been
that 70% of Hispanics voted for President Obama, voted Democratic in the last election. That caused an epiphany in
the Senate, that's for sure," Pelosi said. She said she thinks "there are enough" supportive House Republicans to get
to the 218 votes needed to pass a bill, but: "The question is do we have to have these Pi r-squared mathematical

At a briefing in Washington Friday

hosted by Bloomberg Government, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.,
suggested that pressure was supposedly off for House Republicans on
immigration reform. Diaz-Balart is a player from the chamber's seven-member bipartisan working group
formulas about what it takes to bring something forth."

on the subject. NewsHour Politics Online Production Assistant Meena Ganesan reported on the event, which also

"The assumption that because of the

Senate bill, individual members of the House will feel pressure, that's
inaccurate," Diaz-Balart said. "I think the real pressure is the pressure to fix an immigration system
included Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California.

that's broken." Without going into any specifics about how the newly-passed Senate version differs from the House
bill, Lofgren admitted she could vote for the Senate bill while Diaz-Balart said he thought the group's effort would be
a better work-product than the Senate version. He suggested this still-unreleased House compromise would also be
the only type of legislation that would pass both the House and the Senate. The group has been discreet with its
process, meeting at length for three years, according to Lofgren. "We've been careful because we wanted to keep
the politics out," Diaz-Balart said. Lofgren also said Friday that a number of the bills they've begun markup on in the
House Judiciary Committee have been "absurd." She's expressed outrage over Gowdy's SAFE Act. Repeating a
phrase she had used during the hearing on his measure, she said, "To make every undocumented person a criminal,

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, meanwhile, told Yahoo

News he's considered the fact that the bill is more than 1,000 pages. He
said he doesn't know everything that's in it, and he's unsure if senators
do, either. The Morning Line will keep an eye on Congress, the president and national politics through
that's unwarranted."

Wednesday, and then we'll take a brief holiday of our own.

Republicans wont pass and arent effected

Hesson 13 Immigration editor for Univision News (Ted, 5 Things You Need to
Know About Immigration in the House, ABC News Publication, 7-1-13,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/taking-temperature-immigrationreform-house/story?id=19544319#.UdHUy_lQGSp//TQ
Last week, the Senate passed a bill that would overhaul the nation's immigration laws. Getting legislation
through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will be a lot
harder, however. Here's what you need to know about where immigration reform stands in the House: 1.
Republicans aren't feeling the Senate bill. After an immigration plan cleared the Senate last
week, the House's top Republican said the bill was dead-on-arrival at its next stop:
"Apparently some haven't gotten the message: the House is not going to take up and vote
on whatever the Senate passes," said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). "We're going
to do our own bill...and move the legislation that reflects the will of our
majority and the will of the American people." Basically Boehner is saying that any bill
considered on the floor of the House will need the support of the majority of
Republicans -- and the Senate immigration bill won't have that . That doesn't
mean some type of immigration plan can't pass the House. Here's why: 3. Most Republicans aren't
affected by demographic pressure. Since President Barack Obama won reelection with runaway
support from Latino and Asian voters, Republican strategists have said immigration reform could be a way for the

while the GOP may be worried about

appealing to Latino voters on a national level, that isn't as much of a
concern for individual representatives. That's because the vast majority of
House Republicans are in districts where Latinos aren't a large voting
bloc, according to The Wall Street Journal. Only 38 of the 234 Republicans in the House
are from districts where Latinos make up 20 percent or more of the
population. So while immigration reform may be good for the Republican party as a whole, most House
party to win over people who aren't older and white. But

conservatives aren't feeling the same sort of pressure to pass a bill.

Wont Pass House Wont Pass Senate Bill

House wont pass Senates immigration bill

Dinan 13

Washington Times writer and CEO of The Shift Network (Stephen,

Boehner: House wont pass Senate immigration bill, Washington Times
Publication, 5-23-13, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/23/boehnerhouse-wont-pass-senate-immigration-bill/?page=all)//TQ
Boehner:While we applaud the progress made by our Senate colleagues, there are numerous ways in which the
House will approach the issue differently, the Republican leaders said in their statement.
The House remains committed to fixing our broken immigration system,
but we will not simply take up and accept the bill that is emerging in the
Senate if it passes. Rather, through regular order, the House will work its will and produce
its own legislation. Mr. Boehner is playing a proxy game of political checkers with House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, as a bipartisan group of lawmakers tries to craft a broad immigration deal that
would include legal status for illegal immigrants and a rewrite of the legal immigration system. Members of that
Gang of Eight announced they had reached the outlines of a deal last week, then hit some snags, and said
Thursday that they were back on track. A

bipartisan bill in the House has the best

chance of passing the House and the best chance of producing a good
immigration reform proposal when conferenced with the Senates bipartisan bill, said Rep. Luis V.
Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat who is part of the group.

Republicans will not pass the bill

Gowdy 13

Republican representative of the House for South Carolina ( Trey,

Rep. Gowdy: The Senate Bill Is Not Going To Pass In The House, Real Clear Politics
Video and transcript of Fox News Interview, 6-30-13,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/30/rep_gowdy_the_senate_bill_is_not
_going_to_pass_in_the_house.html)//TQ
JOHN ROBERTS: I assume you heard Senator Schumer talking about immigration. He is
fairly positive, he has a bold prediction: the House eventually will pass the Senate bill .
What do you say? REP. TREY GOWDY (R-S.C.): Well, I was moved, almost to the point of tears, by Senator
Schumers concern for the future prospects of the Republican Party, but were going to not take his advice. The
Senate bill is not going to pass the House. Its not going to pass for myriad
reasons. I support immigration reform; I think the current system is
broken. But our framers gave us two legislative bodies , and I assume that they did it
for a reason. The House runs every two years with the theory that we will be closer to the will of the people. So,
under the assumption that the framers meant to give us two legislative bodies and a House of Representatives with
435 members, we are going to work our will, like we have been doing for the past weeks. We have passed four

Were making
progress, and we will continue to do so. Im more interested in getting it
right than doing it on Senator Schumers schedule. ROBERTS: Both Senator Schumer
and Senator McCain, and Im sure youve heard them both say this. Theres a lot of pressure being
brought to bear on the House from a varied coalition of groups, some of whom have not
separate bills out of House Judiciary and an additional bill out of Homeland Security.

traditionally sided with the democrats on much, let alone immigration. Youre got the U.S. chamber of commerce,
youve got the growers, youve got labor unions, law enforcement and you have many churches who are saying to

Will you be able to resist the

pressure thats coming from those groups? GOWDY: No, I don't think it's a question of
resisting. I think it's a question of meeting with the groups. And I have
met with every one of those groups multiple times. The issue is not the broad
principles of immigration reform and humanity and respect of the rule of law. Virtually
everybody agrees on the broad principles. Where we have a difference of
Republicans across the land, it's time to pass immigration reform.

opinion are the details. So, everyone agrees on border security, for instance. But I cannot sell in South
Carolina a border security plan where the security comes after the legalization. I can't sell a border security plan
where Janet Napolitano gets to tell us the border is secure. I can't tell sell a border security plan when the executive

You can
agree in theory on border security but disagree very strongly on how it is
achieved. You can agree on a path to legalization or citizenship, but whether border security is a condition
can turn on and off triggers for politically expedient reasons, nor would I try to sell any of those plans.

precedent, which it would be in my case, is a very important distinction. I welcome the input of all these
constituents and particularly the faith community. That matters greatly to me, as does law enforcement. Take the
law enforcement for a second. The House plan allows state and local law enforcement to assist, if they want to, if
they want to, to assist federal law enforcement in enforcing our immigration laws. That is non-starter in the Senate.
The Senate is fine with law enforcement enforcing every other category of crime, from child pornography to murder
to narcotics trafficking to bank robbery, but heaven forbid they get involved in immigration. The reason we have
two bodies, the reason you have debate so you can take these broad principles and actually write them into
legislation. And that is what we're trying to do right now.

Wont Pass Path to Citizenship

Wont pass House will kill path to citizenship
Elliot 7/1 Political reporter for The Associated Press and Washington bureau
political database editor (Philip, Immigration Bill Faces Uncertain Future In House,
Huffington Post Publication, 7-1-13,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/immigration-bill_n_3528051.html)//TQ

WASHINGTON -- The immigration debate is shifting to the Republican-led House, where lawmakers have shown little
appetite for the large-scale, comprehensive approach their Senate colleagues embraced last week. The Republican

any attempt at comprehensive

immigration legislation cannot offer a "special pathway to citizenship" for
those in the United States illegally. Democrats have called that position a deal-breaker.
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that

Meanwhile, both parties eyed the politics that could yield electoral victories or irrelevance among the growing
Hispanic voting bloc. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who leads the House Judiciary Committee, said he
does not foresee a proposal that could provide a simple mechanism for immigrants here illegally to earn full
standing as U.S. citizens. His committee members have been working on bills that address individual concerns but
have not written a comprehensive proposal to match the Senate's effort. A pathway to legal standing, similar to that
of immigrants who have green cards, could be an option, he said. Unacceptable, said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
"No

Democrat will vote for any bill without a path to citizenship," said
Schumer, who helped write the Senate immigration plan that passed that chamber last week. The Senate bill

would provide a long and difficult pathway to citizenship for those living in the country illegally, as well as tough
measures to secure the border. In the Democratic-controlled Senate, 14 Republicans joined all Democratic senators
and independents in the 68-32 vote. In the Republican-led House, conservatives have stood opposed to any
pathway to citizenship for those workers. House lawmakers have urged a piecemeal approach to the thorny issue

Boehner has ruled out taking up

the Senate bill and said the Republican-controlled chamber would chart its
own version of the legislation with a focus on border security. Illustrating
the strong opposition among conservative lawmakers, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.,
said flatly: "The Senate bill is not going to pass."
instead of the Senate's sweeping effort. House Speaker John

House wont pass bipartisan bill- wont include path to

immigration
The Boston Globe 7/1- For House GOP, citizenship plan a dealbreaker July 1,
2013 http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/06/30/house-leans-towardimmigration-bill-with-citizenship/0OpsTfqmCxnN5nnzI4hRVK/story.html
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that any
attempt at comprehensive immigration legislation cannot offer a "special
pathway to citizenship" for those in the United States illegally. That
approach could block the GOP's hopes of ever winning the White House,
the top Democrat in the House predicted. With last week's Senate passage of a
comprehensive immigration bill, the emotionally heated and politically
perilous debate is now heading toward the Republican-led House, where
conservative incumbents could face primary challenges if they appear too
lenient on the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States
illegally. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who leads the House Judiciary
Committee, said he does not foresee a proposal that could provide a simple
mechanism for immigrants here illegally to earn full standing as U.S.
citizens, as many Democrats have demanded. Goodlatte's committee
members have been working on bills that address individual concerns but
have not written a comprehensive proposal to match the Senate's effort. The
House answer would not be "a special pathway to citizenship where
people who are here unlawfully get something that people who have

worked for decades to immigrate lawfully do not have," he said. A pathway to

legal standing, similar to immigrants who have green cards, could be an option, he said. That
approach, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, would bring electoral doom for Republicans
looking to take back the White House after the 2016 elections. Republicans, she advised, should follow
the Senate lead "if they ever want to win a presidential race." In 2012, Obama won re-election with the
backing of 71 percent of Hispanic voters and 73 percent of Asian-American voters. A thwarted
immigration overhaul could again send those voting blocs to Democrats' side. "We wouldn't even be
where we are right now had it not been that 70 percent of Hispanics voted for President Obama, voted
Democratic in the last election," Pelosi said. "That caused an epiphany in the Senate, that's for sure.
So, all of a sudden now, we have already passed comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate.
That's a big victory." The Senate bill would provide a long and difficult pathway to citizenship for those
living in the country illegally, as well as tough measures to secure the border. Conservatives

have stood opposed to any pathway to full citizenship for those workers,
and House lawmakers have urged a piecemeal approach to the thorny
issue instead of the Senate's sweeping effort. Illustrating the strong
opposition among conservative lawmakers in the House, Rep. Trey Gowdy,
R-S.C., said flatly: "The Senate bill is not going to pass." Bowing to those pressures,
House Republicans have said they would consider each piece of immigration separately as they tried
to navigate the politically dicey subject that could complicate not only their efforts to reclaim the White
House but also thwart some incumbent GOP lawmakers' attempt to win re-election. House Speaker

John Boehner has ruled out taking up the Senate bill and said the
Republican-controlled chamber would chart its own version of the
legislation with a focus on border security. In the Democratic-controlled Senate, 14
Republicans joined all Democratic senators and independents in the 68-32 vote. Sen. John McCain, the
2008 Republican presidential nominee and an author of the current Senate immigration bill, nodded to
the politics. "Republicans realize the implications of the future of the Republican Party in America if we
don't get this issue behind us," he said. That now falls to Boehner's chamber, where

conservatives in his party have complicated his agenda on other subjects few with such long-term implications as immigration.

House wont include path to citizenship

Fox News Latino 13 (Immigration Bill Will Not Offer Pathway To Citizenship,

GOP Leader Says, Fox News Publication, 6-30-13,

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/06/30/immigration-bill-will-not-offerpathway-to-citizenship-gop-leader-says/)//TQ
If the immigration bill stands a chance of passing the House of Representatives, it
cannot offer a pathway to citizenship, the House Judiciary chair said Sunday.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who leads the Judiciary Committee, said any comprehensive
immigration reform approved by the House would not offer a pathway to
citizenship for undocumented immigrants. House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi said if
Republicans let the bill die without passage it would doom the GOPs chances of ever winning the White House.
With last week's Senate passage of a comprehensive immigration bill, the emotionally heated and politically
perilous debate is now heading toward the Republican-led U.S. House, where conservative incumbents could face
primary challenges if they appear too lenient on the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States

Goodlatte said he does not foresee a proposal that could provide a

simple mechanism for immigrants here illegally to earn full standing as
U.S. citizens, as many Democrats have demanded. Goodlatte's committee has been working on bills that
illegally.

address individual concerns but has not written a comprehensive proposal to match the Senate's effort. The House
answer would not be "a special pathway to citizenship where people who are here unlawfully get something that
people who have worked for decades to immigrate lawfully do not have," he said.

Path to citizenship is not negotiable

Hesson 13 Immigration editor for Univision News (Ted, 5 Things You Need to

Know About Immigration in the House, ABC News Publication, 7-1-13,

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/taking-temperature-immigrationreform-house/story?id=19544319#.UdHUy_lQGSp//TQ
4. Citizenship for undocumented immigrants is not negotiable. Democratic
leaders have said that a pathway to citizenship for the country's estimated 11 million
undocumented immigrants isn't negotiable. So whatever the House produces, the
final immigration bill will need to have a road to citizenship included, or
else Democrats will kill it. So far, House leadership hasn't taken a position on
citizenship, but expect any proposal with citizenship for the
undocumented -- what opponents call "amnesty" -- to encounter resistance among the
majority of House Republicans.

Wont Pass No Comprehensive Bill

House will pass individual bills
Hesson 13 Immigration editor for Univision News (Ted, 5 Things You Need to
Know About Immigration in the House, ABC News Publication, 7-1-13,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/taking-temperature-immigrationreform-house/story?id=19544319#.UdHUy_lQGSp//TQ
Here's why: 2. Smaller immigration bills are moving . The immigration reform bill in the Senate
was nearly 1,200 pages long. But some conservatives in the House are taking a piecemeal approach to
reform, passing a series of individual bills instead of one large package. Any

immigration bill passed in the House could then be combined with the Senate immigration bill, through what's
known as a "conference committee." Boehner could hypothetically bring a combined bill to the floor of the House
without the support of most Republicans. That would give the legislation a chance. A move like that would go
against what he said about having majority support for the bill. But both supporters and opponents of reform have
said that's a possibility, and the Speaker has reversed his position in the past. A group of Democrats and
Republicans are also working on a comprehensive bill in the House. But that effort hasn't yielded anything yet, and

it's unlikely that

the majority of House Republicans would support an immigration reform
bill similar to the one in the Senate, even if it was the combined bill mentioned above.
legislators don't have a timetable for when they might produce something. In any case,

Wont Pass Boehner

Boehner blocking immigration
Beutler 6/27- Brian, TPM senior Congressional reporter, Boehner Significantly
Narrows Path To Comprehensive Immigration Reform June 27, 2013
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/boehner-significantly-narrows-pathto-comprehensive-immigration-reform.php

With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker

Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making

it law. At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that
immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members
to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference
John

report. To be clear that doesnt preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule.

add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform . To

reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own . That
But it does

will be a tall order for Boehner, who wont be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that
lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants. If he can pass a narrow, conservative House

by extending the
Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is
effectively warning senators that House negotiators wont simply roll over
for the Senate bill in conference committee. Its extremely hard to imagine
an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans,
that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Its possible
that Boehner wont be able to pass a House immigration bill of any kind, and if
position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But

thats the case, Boehner would have to re-evaluate his long-standing commitment not to put the Senate bill on the

the House wont take action on the

Senate bill as its first option, and that the House will attempt to act on its
own measure first.
floor. But hes been pretty clear that at the very least

Boehner is key to CIR and he refuses to budge on any issues

Murthy Law Firm 6/27/13 US Immigration Law Firm NewsFlash! U.S. Senate Passes CIR Bill; Still
Faces Major Obstacles in House
Today, the United States Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill that would usher in
significant changes to U.S. immigration law. S.744, entitled the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act," was passed by a 68 - 32 vote. All 52 Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill,
along with 14 Republicans and the Senate's 2 independent members. Still, Speaker
the

leader of the Republican-controlled

U.S.

House

John Boehner

of Representatives,

(R-OH),

has already

publicly rejected the bill, calling it a "pipe dream" and saying that the
House will instead work on bringing forward piecemeal immigration
reform legislation . The bill, if passed into law, would serve as the biggest overhaul of U.S. immigration
law in more than 25 years. The Murthy Law Firm will continue to closely track developments related to the efforts to
enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

CIR will not pass the house under Boehner

BRIAN BEUTLER 6/27/13 TPM senior congressional reporter
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/boehner-significantly-narrows-path-to-comprehensive-immigrationreform.php AJ
With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House

Speaker

John

Boehner

(R-OH)

significantly narrowed the legislative path

toward making it law . At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his
requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least
half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the
Senate , known as a conference report. To be clear that doesnt preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way
it

around the so-called Hastert rule. But

comprehensive reform.

does

add a new layer of difficulty to enacting

To reach a conference committee,

the House

will have

to pass

legislation of its own . That will be a tall order for Boehner , who wont be able to
count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current
undocumented immigrants. If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position,

House

can try to merge their

the Senate and

dramatically different bills . But by extending the Hastert rule

requirement to the negotiated agreement,

Boehner is effectively warning senators that

House negotiators wont simply roll over for the Senate bill
committee.

in conference

Its extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that

wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept,
and that President Obama will sign. Its possible that Boehner wont be
able to pass a House immigration bill of any kind , and if thats the case, Boehner
would have to re-evaluate his long-standing commitment not to put the Senate bill on the floor. But hes been pretty

clear that

at the very least

the House wont take action on the Senate bill

its first option, and that the House will attempt to act on its own measure first.

as

Wont Pass - AT: Momentum

Momentum from Senate doesnt affect GOP

Fabian 13 Political editor for ABC News-Univision and writer at The Hill newspaper in
Washington, DC (Jordan, House GOP Unmoved by Senate Immigration Vote, ABC
News Publication, 6-28-13, http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/house-gopunmoved-senate-immigration-vote/story?id=19522183#.UdHc4_lQGSr)//TQ
If you needed a reminder that comprehensive immigration reform faces an uphill climb in
the House of Representatives, look no further than the words of two members who have been working on the
issue for years. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who's helping craft an immigration bill in the House, said
Friday that the Senate's passage of a sweeping immigration reform bill won't
spur the lower chamber to act. "The assumption that because there is a Senate bill, individual
members of the House will feel pressure to support that bill frankly just is not
inaccurate," Diaz-Balart said at an event in Washington sponsored by the National Restaurant Association and
Bloomberg Government. The Florida lawmaker believes the House can pass a bipartisan, comprehensive
immigration reform bill. But it will have to be a bill that's generated in the GOP-controlled body. That's a tough task
considering that many House Republicans remain opposed to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a
must for President Obama and Democrats. "I think the real pressure is the pressure to fix an immigration system
that's broken," he added. "That's the pressure that needs to come to bear." President Obama spoke with House
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) on Thursday night following the Senate's

Boehner has already

said he won't bring up a bill without the majority support of his fellow
Republicans. And Diaz-Balart echoed many of his GOP colleagues that the Senate's bill is going
nowhere on the other side of the Capitol.
passage of their bill and urged them to take up the reform. But it won't be that easy.

Link N/U

Cuban Travel N/U

Obama opening up migration talks with Cuba
Haven and Lee 13 Paul, Matthew, Associated Press Reporters
http://news.yahoo.com/us-cuba-agree-resume-migration-talks211926132.html
Havana and Washington just wrapped up a round of separate negotiations
aimed at restarting direct mail service, which has been suspended since 1963. Both sets of

talks have been on hold in recent years in a dispute over the fate of U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross, who
is serving a 15-year jail sentence in Havana after he was caught bringing communications equipment onto the
island illegally. The migration talks will be held in Washington on July 17. The State
Department official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publically, spoke on condition of anonymity.

"Representatives from the Department of State are scheduled to meet

with representatives of the Cuban government to discuss migration
issues," the official said, adding that the talks were "consistent with our interest in promoting greater
freedoms and respect for human rights in Cuba." Word of the jump-started talks sparked an angry reaction from

Cuban-American Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida , who blasted

the Obama administration for what she saw as a policy of appeasement. "First we get news
that the Obama State Department is speaking with a top Castro regime
diplomat. Then comes the announcement that the administration is
restarting talks with the dictatorship regarding direct mail between both
countries," Ros-Lehtinen said. "Now we hear that migration talks will be restarted. It's concession after
concession from the Obama administration." Since taking office , Obama has relaxed travel and
remittance rules for Cuban Americans and made it far easier for others to
visit the island for cultural, educational and religious reasons.

Mexico Policies N/U

Obama is perceived as pushing Mexico policy
Silberman 5/7 policy associate (ZACH SILBERMAN; MAY 7, 2013;
ENGAGING PARTNERS IN OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD; US global leadership
coalition; http://www.usglc.org/2013/05/07/engaging-partners-in-our-ownneighborhood/)//KDUB
In Mexico, President Obama signed a new agreement between USAID and the
Mexican Foreign Secretariats Agency for International Development
Cooperation that demonstrates how previous aid recipients can become donors and partners. This
collaboration includes building economic growth, promoting
environmental change, disaster and relief management, as well as
assisting with governance and rule of law projects. Country partnerships
like these continue to bring a positive element to our global development

and are another example of the power of partnerships to do good around the world. One does not have to look too

Obama pointed out that the

U.S.-Mexico relationship must be defined not by the threats we face but by the
prosperity and opportunity we can create together. And if we are serious
about being equal partners, then both our nations must recognize our
mutual responsibilities. Faced with national security threats from the drug wars, both countries still
far to see common areas of interest for the U.S. and Mexico. President

work together through the State Departments Merida Initiative, which serves as a vehicle for assisting Mexican
authorities with implementing justice sector reforms by using police training and promoting the rule of law in

The president committed to continuing the Merida

Initiative, as well as pursuing other opportunities for greater economic
engagement, utilizing agencies such as OPIC and the USTDA to continue powerful economic development
prosecuting drug traffickers.

projects. Following the visit to Mexico, the president and leaders from eight Central American countries met in Costa
Rica where they reiterated their support for the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI). Through
CARSI, the U.S. government assists Central American governments to improve their citizen security. Components of
CARSI include the U.S. using programs through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Feed the Future, and
Pathways to Prosperity to support economic development, combat poverty, hunger, and malnutrition, and promote
greater opportunity for all Central Americans. Programs like these utilize many tools of American diplomacy and

Our engagement is
already serving to help citizens of Latin America with economic growth
and security. President Obama indicated during the summit meeting with
Latin American leaders that, As governments, our job is to make sure
that were doing everything we can to provide security and opportunity
and ladders for success and prosperity for our people. Economic growth that creates
development in order to improve the quality of life for Central American citizens.

jobs, security for people so that they can be safe in their own neighborhoods and development that allows people to

This trip served as a stepping stone to this

commitment of engaging Latin America on these key issues , which could be only a
live in dignity. And so thats why were here.
taste of things to come in the future.

Mexico Security Coop N/U

Congress already supports Mexico
Seelke, Clare 10 Specialist in Latin American Affairs. U.S.-Mexican Security
Cooperation: the Mrida Initiative and Beyond.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a528272.pdf
In recent years, U.S.-Mexican security cooperation has increased
significantly, largely as a result of the development and implementation of the
Mrida Initiative, a counterdrug and anticrime assistance package for Mexico and Central America that
was first proposed in October 2007. With the recent enactment of the FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act

Congress has provided almost $1.8 billion for the Mrida

Initiative. Congress provided $248 million of that funding to Central
America and included an additional $42 million for Caribbean countries .
However, Congress has dedicated the vast majority of the fundsroughly $1.5
billionto support programs in Mexico, with an emphasis on training and equipping Mexican
(H.R. 4899/P.L. 111- 212),

military and police forces engaged in counterdrug efforts. Escalating drug traffickingrelated violence in Mexico and
the increasing control that Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) have over the illicit drug market in the
United States have focused congressional attention on the efficacy of U.S-Mexican efforts and related domestic
initiatives in both countries.

Mexico Natural Gas N/U

Natural gas trade with Mexico at record highs
Asia News Monitor 2013 (United States/Mexico: U.S. natural gas exports to
Mexico reach record high in 2012
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1316728935?
accountid=14667)
U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico grew by 24 percent to 1.69 billion
cubic feet per day

(Bcf/ d) in 2012,

the highest level since

the data collection began in

1973 ,

the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said Wednesday. With imports now accounting for over 30 percent of its total
supply, Mexico's natural gas use is also at its highest level ever, the agency said in a news release.

Natural gas

consumption is rising faster in Mexico than production, and as a result,

Mexico is relying more on natural gas imports from the United States , it said.
Between 2007 and 2011, natural gas consumption in Mexico rose 4
percent per year

on average, while average annual natural gas production climbed only 1.2 percent.

Growing

demand in the industrial sector drove the increases in natural gas

consumption in Mexico to a record-high level

in 2011, the EIA said.

Natural Gas Pipeline allows tripling amount of natural gas to

Mexico
Iliff 2013. ( Laurence, WSJ author. Mexico Aims to Triple Natural Gas Imports from
U.S. WSJ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487104065985868.
html)
The construction of a natural gas pipeline from southern Texas to central
Mexico will allow for a tripling of imports from the U.S. to meet
increasing demand from industry , an official from Petroleos Mexicanos has said. Alejandro Martinez Sibaja, the
director of the state-owned company's gas division, said that

Mexican industry is currently hampered

by its reliance on more expensive fuels because of the lack of pipeline

capacity for natural gas to come across the border.

Mexico Renewables N/U

US and Mexico collaborate on renewable energy
Donnelly 2010. (Robert, program associate with the Mexico Institute at the
Woodrow Wilson Center. U.S.-Mexico Cooperation on Renewable Energy: Building a
Green Agenda New Security Beat. http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2010/06/u-smexico-cooperation-on-renewable-energy-building-a-green-agenda/#.Uc3p0BY-arc)
A U.S.-Mexico taskforce on renewables was recently formed an announcement timed to
coincide with President Felipe Calderons April 2010 state visit to Washington

and there has been high-level

engagement on the issue by both administrations. Collaboration between

Mexico and U.S. government agencies

through the Mexico Renewable Energy Program

has

enabled richer development of Mexicos renewable resources while

promoting the electrification and economic development of parts of rural
Mexico.

Obama proposes closer renewable energy collaboration with

Mexico.
Fredrick 2013 (James. Obama proposes closer renewable energy ties with
Mexico BN Americas. http://www.bnamericas.com/news/electricpower/obamaproposes-closer-renewable-energy-ties-between-us-mexico)
US President Barack Obama has proposed closer collaboration between the
US and Mexico on renewable energy development

and climate change initiatives.

"Let's

keep building new energy partnerships by harnessing all these new

sources

[like solar and wind]

and creating the good jobs that come with these new

technologies," Obama said

Friday during a speech in Mexico.

security as one of the five pillars

on which

Obama cited energy

to expand the bilateral

relationship between the neighboring nations.

In addition to renewable energies, the US

president also highlighted energy efficiency and green buildings as opportunities for the two countries.

Winners Win
Political Capital Not Key and Winners Win
Michael Hirsh 2/7, 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,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital20130207
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year.
For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration

the pundits will do what they always do this time

about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions
often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much political capital Obama
possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have no
reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response,
of year: They will talk

bearing on what actually happens over the next four years. Consider this:
Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously
about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both
immigration reform and gun-control legislation at the beginning of his second termeven
after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally) this person
would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundits license. (It doesnt exist, but it ought to.)
In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he
finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as
children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didnt dare to even bring up gun control,
a Democratic third rail that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on

for reasons that have very little to do

with Obamas personal prestige or popularityvariously put in terms of a
mandate or political capital chances are fair that both will now
the right than the presidents health care law. And yet,

happen . What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasnt the election. It was the horror of the 20
first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and
boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the
national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized
himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition,
began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two
years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate
middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: Be
bold. As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most
dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. Its impossible to say now
whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws.

The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very

little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didnt a few weeks ago.
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
But one thing is clear:

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 influencehis 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. The point is not that political
capital is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for mandate or momentum in the
aftermath of a decisive electionand just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate
than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better
claim on the countrys mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least.
Its an unquantifiable but meaningful concept, says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. You
cant really look at a president and say hes got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, its a concept that
matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side. The real problem is that the idea of political
capitalor mandates, or momentumis so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong.
Presidents usually over-estimate it, says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. The
best kind of political capitalsome sense of an electoral mandate to do somethingis very rare. It almost never
happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980. For that reason ,

political capital is a
concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea
that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way

it suggests, erroneously, that a political

figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest , just as someone might
unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead,

have real investment capitalthat a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines
what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he
have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present.
And unless a surge in the economyat the moment, still stuckor some other great victory gives him more
momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done.
Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats)

the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues

illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political
interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept
of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is
kindergarten simple : You just dont know what you can do until you try. Or
stronger. But

as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago,

Winning wins. In theory, and in practice,

even in a polarized time , he could still

deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the
breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican
depending on Obamas handling of any particular issue,

Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who
study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at
best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines
it. It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a presidents popularity, but theres no mechanism there. That makes it
kind of useless, says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that
the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests.

Winning on one issue often changes

the calculation for the next issue ; there is never any known amount of capital. The idea here
if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is
not going to get what he wants, and he gets it , then each time that
is,

happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors Ornstein says. If they
think hes going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning
side. Its a bandwagon effect. ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ Sometimes, a clever
practitioner of power can get more done just because hes aggressive and
knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&Ms Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election,

one
of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwaters ineptitude as a candidate)
was President Johnsons masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his
ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his
Lyndon Johnsons landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But

limited political capital.

In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power,

historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the
assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Dont focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it
might jeopardize Southern lawmakers support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. One of

the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to
expend, and you oughtnt to expend it on this, Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was

Johnson didnt worry

about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much
else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but
called in those days.) Johnson replied, Well, what the hells the presidency for?

also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by
picking the right issues, as Caro records. Momentum is not a mysterious mistress, LBJ said. It is a controllable
fact of political life. Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have
unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the
presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting
a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding.
Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didnt fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference
after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and
now I intend to spend it. Thats my style. The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overriding
passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that included

Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was

not that he didnt have enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his
town-hall meetings across the country.

standing. Bushs margin over John Kerry was thinhelped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the

The problem was

that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a
newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security
privatization a better idea in most peoples eyes. Voters didnt trust the plan, and four
mirror image of Romneys gaffe-filled failure this timebut that was not the real mistake.

years later, at the end of Bushs term, the stock-market collapse bore out the publics skepticism. Privatization just
didnt have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The
mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George
Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, was that just because he won an election, he thought
he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind of public urgency on Social Security reform. Its like he
went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I dont think Obamas
going to make that mistake. Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didnt understand how steep the
hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Partys concerns about the
Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown. Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his
reelection, Sides says, but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy

Presidents are limited in

what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by
electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political
is a good idea, as the party suffers in the polls. THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER

capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up
too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term . But
the real problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad ,

and the president didnt realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point
against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009
and 2010haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of
federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pocketsgovernment-imposed health care coverage
was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what
ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of
sync with the countrys mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political
problem with health care reform was that it distracted the governments attention from other issues that people
cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional
staffers told me at the time that their bosses didnt really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby
was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out
of the room, the aides said. Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when
the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have
a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielbergs hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewiss
Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning
slavery, along with eloquent attempts to move peoples hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political
capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But its clear that a surge of conscience, a sense
of the changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horse-trading. The reason I think
the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really
oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did, says Tommy Bruce, a former political
consultant in Washington. Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt.
Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an
astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as
near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that

brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous
Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDRs
plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of
opposition from newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed
back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt
had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital. But, once
again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the
political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didnt fully recover until World War II,

In terms of Obamas second-term agenda, what all

these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this:
Anything goes. Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will
have in the House and Senate after 2014. But if he picks issues that the countrys mood
will supportsuch as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun controlthere is no reason to
think he cant win far more victories than any of the careful calculators of
political capital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform
despite two more election victories.

and deficit reduction . Amid todays atmosphere of Republican self-doubt,

a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in
mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly . If he can get some early wins as he
already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase

that will create

momentum , and one win may well lead to others. Winning wins. Obama
himself learned some hard lessons over the past four years about the
falsity of the political-capital concept. Despite his decisive victory over John McCain in 2008, he
fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a post-partisan president
who somehow had been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all people. So Obama tried to sell his
stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth. The
president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government liberal. Had he understood better that
the country was digging in against yet more government intervention and had sold the stimulus as what it mainly
wasa giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measurehe might well
have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying on ambitious programs, and following up quickly with his
health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist. After that, Obamas public posturing

If the president put his

personal imprimatur on any planfrom deficit reduction, to health care, to immigration reform
Republicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when
provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no matter what he said.

he sought to exploit the chastened GOPs newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was
different. He seemed to understand that the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own issue,
and he was willing to let them have some credit. When he mounted his bully pulpit in Nevada, he delivered another
new message as well: You Republicans dont have to listen to what I say anymore. And dont worry about whos got
the political capital. Just take a hard look at where Im saying this: in a state you were supposed to have won but
lost because of the rising Hispanic vote. Obama was cleverly pointing the GOP toward conclusions that he knows it
is already reaching on its own: If you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed
electoral map, you have no choice but to move. Its your choice.

The future is wide open .

Forcing controversial fights key to Obamas agenda- try or die

for the link turn
Dickerson 13 (John, Slate, Go for the Throat!, 1/18

www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second
_inaugural_address_the_president_should_declare_war.single.html)
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

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
country.

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.

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
He's not going for caretaker. How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack

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 .

Winners win passing a difficult bill will GAIN political capital

for Obama
Friedman 6/20/2010 foreign affairs op-ed columnist for The New York Times, 3-time
Pulitzer Prize winner for commentary and international reporting (Thomas, EVERYBODY
LOVES A WINNER http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/opinion/21friedman.html?_r=0
//SRM)

Ive been thinking about President Obamas foreign policy lately, but first, a golf tip: I went to Dave Pelzs famous
short-game school this winter to improve my putting and chipping, and a funny thing happened my long game

The president got health care

reform passed, and it may turn out to be his single most important foreign policy achievement. In politics
got better. It brings to mind something that happened to Obama.

and diplomacy, success breeds authority and authority breeds more success. No one ever said it better than Osama
bin Laden: When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse. Have no
illusions, the rest of the world was watching our health care debate very closely, waiting to see who would be the
strong horse Obama or his Democratic and Republican health care opponents? At every turn in the debate,
Americas enemies and rivals were gauging what the outcome might mean for their own ability to push around an
untested U.S. president.

It remains to be seen whether, in the long run, America will be

made physically healthier by the bills passage. But, in the short run, Obama
definitely was made geopolitically healthier. When others see the president as
a winner or as somebody who has real authority in his own house, it absolutely
makes a difference, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said to me in an interview. All you have to
do is look at how many minority or weak coalition governments there are
around the world who cant deliver something big in their own country , but
basically just teeter on the edge, because they cant put together the votes to do anything consequential, because

President Obama has had a divided electorate and was still able
to muscle the thing through. When President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia spoke by phone with Obama
of the divided electorate.

the morning after the health care vote to finalize the New Start nuclear arms reduction treaty he began by
saying that before discussing nukes, I want to congratulate you, Mr. President, on the health care vote, an
administration official said. That was not just rank flattery. According to an American negotiator, all throughout the
arms talks, which paralleled the health care debate, the Russians kept asking: Can you actually get this ratified by
the Senate if an arms deal is cut? Winning passage of the health care bill demonstrated to the Russians that
Obama could get something hard passed. Our enemies surely noticed, too. You dont have to be Machiavelli to
believe that the leaders of Iran and Venezuela shared the barely disguised Republican hope that health care would
fail and, therefore, Obamas whole political agenda would be stalled and, therefore, his presidency enfeebled. He
would then be a lame duck for the next three years and America would be a lame power. Given the time and energy
and political capital that was spent on health care, failure would have been unilateral disarmament, added Gates.
Failure would have badly weakened the president in terms of dealing with others his ability to do various kinds
of national security things. ... You know, people made fun of Madeleine [Albright] for saying it, but I think she was
dead on: most of the rest of the world does see us as the indispensable nation. Indeed, our allies often complain
about a world of too much American power, but they are not stupid. They know that a world of too little American
power is one they would enjoy even less. They know that a weak America is like a world with no health insurance
and a lot of pre-existing conditions. Gen. James Jones, the presidents national security adviser, told me that he
recently met with a key NATO counterpart, who concluded a breakfast by congratulating him on the health care
vote and pronouncing: America is back. But is it? While Obamas health care victory prevented a power outage for
him, it does not guarantee a power surge. Ultimately, what makes a strong president is a strong country a
country whose underlying economic prowess, balance sheet and innovative capacity enable it to generate and
project both military power and what the political scientist Joe Nye calls soft power being an example that
others want to emulate.

What matters most now is how Obama uses the political

capital that

health cares passage has earned him. I continue to believe that the most important
foreign policy issue America faces today is its ability to successfully engage in nation building nation building at
home. Obamas success in passing health care and the bounce it has put in his step will be nothing but a sugar high
if we cant get our deficit under control, inspire a new generation of start-ups, upgrade our railroads and Internet
and continue to attract the worlds smartest and most energetic immigrants. An effective, self-confident president

An effective, self-confident president,

least increases the odds of us building a stronger country .

with a weak country is nothing more than a bluffer.

though, at

Internal Link Answers

Turn PC Hurts CIR

Obama has no PC and cant influence congress at all, he cant
keep his promises or focus on any issue, and he DECREASES
the chances of CIR passing
Barnes 6/2

[Fred Barnes June 2, 2013, writer for the Wall Street Journal The Decline of the Obama Presidency
His second term is coming undone not because of scandal but because of decisions made in the previous four
years. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873244126045785194823131 47400]

Mr. Obama's re-election stirred grand expectations. The vote heralded a new liberal
era, or so it was claimed. His victory was said to reflect ideological, cultural and demographic trends that could keep
Democrats in the majority for years to come. His second four years in the White House would be just the beginning.

the Obama administration is in an unexpected and sharp

state of decline. Mr. Obama has little influence on Congress. His
presidency has no theme. He pivots nervously from issue to issue. What
there is of an Obama agenda consists, at the moment, of leftovers from
his first term or proposals that he failed to emphasize in his re-election
campaign and thus have practically no chance of passage. Congressional
Republicans neither trust nor fear the president. And Democrats on
Capitol Hill, to whom Mr. Obama has never been close, have grown leery of
him. In the Senate, Democrats complain privately about his interference
with the biggest domestic policy matter of 2013, immigration reform. His
Now, six months later,

effect, the senators believe, can only be to weaken the fragile bipartisan
coalition for reform and make passage of major legislation more perilous .
The Obama breakdown was not caused by the trio of scandalsIRS, Justice Department, Benghazinow confronting
the president. The decline preceded them. It's the result of what Mr. Obama did in his first term, during the
campaign and in the two months following his re-election. But the scandals have worsened his plight and made
recovery next to impossible. To be clear, the two problemsthe decline and the scandalsare different matters.
The scandals have not been linked directly to the president. They are vexing to the administration, but they are not

Mr. Obama's power and influence have been

sapped as a direct result of his own choices and decisions. He also suffers
from shortcomings normal to a second term, such as a new, less able team
of advisers and cabinet members and the arrogance fed by an impressive
re-election. In his first term, when Democrats controlled the House and Senate, Mr. Obama ignored
the source of its current impotence. Instead,

Republicanshe didn't need their votes to pass the $800 billion stimulus, the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare)
and Dodd-Frank, with its fresh wave of Wall Street regulations. Then, after Republicans captured the House in the
2010 midterm election, his efforts to reach agreements with them proved futile. Why did Mr. Obama fail at
compromise? For one thing, he is rarely able to mask his contempt for Republicans, especially those with

he began to question Republicans' motives, insisting

publicly that their paramount goal in Washington is to protect the rich
from higher taxes. As a tactic for encouraging compromise, his approach
was counterproductive. Robert Merry, the editor of the National Interest magazine and a longtime
conservative views. For another,

Washington journalist, recently pinpointed a bigger reason for the impasse after 2010: "It is a deadlock born largely
of the president's resolve to push an agenda for which he has no clear national consensus." In other words, Mr.
Obama is too liberal to find common ground with Republicans. The spending cuts he offers are illusory, the tax

after the November election, Mr. Obama spurned

conciliation. He upped the ante, calling for higher spending, a new
economic stimulus and an increase in the debt limit without congressional
approval. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell laughed out loud when he
heard the proposal. Mr. Obama used his last bit of leverage to prevail over
Republicans in the fiscal-cliff budget negotiations late last year. With the Bushincreases specific. Then,

era tax cuts due to expire Dec. 31, the president forced Republicans to accept a hefty tax hike on the top 2% of
wage earners. His short-term victory has had long-term political consequences. Republicans vowed to oppose new
tax increases, which ruled out a "grand bargain" to reduce the deficit and national debt. The exclusion of

Republicans from a role in crafting ObamaCare has also backfired. By failing to ensure that the GOP had some
influence on the health-care law, the president gave them no reason to support its implementation. With
ObamaCare more unpopular than ever, House Republicans voted last month to repeal it. The vote was largely
symbolic, but it was telling that two Democrats joined the effort. Short of repeal, Republican elected officials across
the country are committed to making the law's implementation, beginning this year, as difficult as possible. Nor is
tax reform likely to get anywhere this year or next despite Mr. Obama's support, at least rhetorically, for the idea.
He wants to eliminate tax preferences and loopholes so the government can collect more revenue. To win those
changes, though, he would need make a bargain with Republicans, offering to cut tax rates, including the top rate
on individual income, to generate faster economic growth. That clashes with Mr. Obama's zeal for higher taxes on
the well-to-do. Faced with such obstacles, the president could focus instead on his own domestic agendaif he had
one. He doesn't. He's paying the price for a re-election campaign that was based on attacking his opponent, Mitt
Romney, and not much else. In the president's State of the Union address in February, he endorsed a $9 minimum
wage and universal prekindergarten for 4-year-olds, but those proposals lack a popular mandate. If he had
campaigned for them last year, they might have better prospects now. More often than not, presidents focus on
foreign policy in their second terms. But Mr. Obama's practice is to downgrade foreign policy in favor of domestic
concerns. Where he has sought to restrain foreign governmentsRussia, Iran, North Koreahe has been
unsuccessful. His speech in May on national security and the terrorist threat revived an issue from his 2008

He is
also pushing two leftovers from his first year in office, immigration reform
and gun control. What's striking about Mr. Obama's handling of both is his
complete absence of influence. On gun control, his speeches had zero
impact. On immigration, his influence is entirely negative. He can impede
campaign, the closing of the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay. The chance that will happen is slim.

a bill. He cannot aid its passage. All this has left Mr. Obama in a state of
weakness. And Democrats are increasingly blaming him. Doug Sosnik , a

former senior adviser in the Clinton White House, wrote in a memo last month that Mr. Obama's re-election "was a
great political achievement, but the fact that he didn't set out a clear policy agenda for a second term left him
without a clear mandate to govern over a politically divided Congress." Mr. Sosnik, who is now a consultant to the
National Basketball Association, added:

"There's not a single member of either party [in

Congress] who fears paying a political price for not falling in line with the
President, making it even more difficult to get members to cast difficult
votes." Mr. Obama's top priority now is winning the House in 2014 while retaining control of the Senate. "I'm
going to do everything I can to make sure that we've got Nancy Pelosi
back in the speakership," he said last week at a Democratic fundraiser in
Chicago. In Mr. Obama's case, "everything" is unlikely to be enough

Obama holds back Immigration reform

Johnson 6-11 [Luke, Ted Cruz: Obama Is The Biggest Obstacle To Immigration

Reform, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/ted-cruz-obamaimmigration_n_3414794.html>]
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called President Barack Obama the biggest
obstacle to immigration reform and refused to rule out filibustering the
reform bill drafted by the Senate's bipartisan "gang of eight" when asked twice
about his intentions on Monday. "The biggest obstacle to passing common sense
immigration reform is President Barack Obama," Cruz said in an interview
with ABC News published Monday. "A path to citizenship is the most
divisive aspect of this bill and the White House is insisting on it." He said the
White House had crafted the Senate immigration bill to fail so the president could campaign on it. "It is designed for it to sail
through the Senate and then crash in the House to let the president go and campaign in 2014 on this issue," he said. Cruz's

comments come as groups on the right are divided over immigration

reform. Heritage Action, the advocacy arm of The Heritage Foundation,
urged a "no" vote on the bill and said that it would include it in its legislative scorecard. The Foundation came
under intense criticism -- including from conservatives -- over its analysis stating that the bill would cost over $6 trillion. The coauthor of the analysis, Jason Richwine, resigned after his Harvard dissertation came to light. In it he argued that Hispanic

immigrants to the U.S. have substantially lower IQs than whites. Crossroads GPS, a group co-founded by Karl Rove, announced
$100,000 in print and online advertising on Monday that will promote immigration reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (DNev.) has scheduled a cloture vote on the immigration bill for Tuesday. Reid said that the full legislation should come to a vote
before July 4.

No PC
Obama has lost all momentum since his reelection and he
doesnt use his Political Capital
Harris et al 6/25 [John F. Harris, Jake Sherman, Elizabeth Titus, June 24, 2013 writers for Politico
President Obama in the Doldrums http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obama-second-term-doldrums93295.html]

Not yet six months into his second term, Barack Obamas presidency is in
a dead zone. A combination of familiar Washington intransigence and a
more recent run of bad news and political setbacks have left him with less
influence over his circumstances and more buffeted by factors beyond
his control than at any time in his five years in office. But in a damning
appraisal, a wide variety of congressional Democrats and presidential
scholars said in interviews that there is another decisive factor behind
Obamas current paralysis: his own failure to use the traditional tools of
the presidency to exert his will. Obama does not instill fear one of the
customary instruments of presidential power. Five years of experience,
say lawmakers of both parties, have demonstrated that there is not a
huge political or personal cost to be paid for crossing the president.
Obama cannot count on friendship. There are plenty of politicians who
would love the political and psychic benefits of favored status from the
president. But Obamas distant style and his insular West Wing operation
have left congressional Democrats resigned, many said in interviews, to
the reality that they will never be insiders and, therefore, have no special
incentives to stay on Obamas good side. Obama is not buoyed by the power of ideas. When
President Ronald Reagan hit a similar second-term dead zone, during the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986, he was still
regarded by conservatives as the godfather of a historic movement. Obama, while retaining wide support among
progressives, remains known for a personal brand rather than an ideological one a status that has not helped
much when he is looking for friends in a storm, such as the recent uproars over alleged politicization at the Internal

Finally, Obama is standing in a

presidential pulpit that recently has proved to be the opposite of bully. So
far in 2013, he has tried to harness public opinion to bring Congress to
heel on both the budget sequestration and gun control debates. In both
cases, Republicans and in key instances, moderate Democrats
shrugged it off with apparent impunity.
Revenue Service and National Security Agency surveillance.

Obamas PC low due to scandal

Morrissey 6-26 [Ed, Obama, Clinton favorability fall in latest WaPo/ABC poll,
<http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/26/obama-clinton-favorability-fall-in-latestwapoabc-poll/>]

Thats the lead from both the Washington Post and ABC News on their latest polling, but dont get your hopes too
high. This isnt an epic collapse, or even a shocking hit to the relative standing of either Barack Obama or Hillary

It is, perhaps, the first sign that the scandals that have rocked the
Obama administration over the last two months may seriously erode
Obamas political capital and make it more difficult to push through an
agenda without significant help from Republicans on Capitol Hill : A majority of
Americans regard President Obama favorably, but his numbers have softened considerably
among his fellow Democrats, according to new polling conducted by the
Washington Post and ABC News. Obamas favorability stands at 53
percent, compared to 44 percent of Americans who view him unfavorably.
While 85 percent of Democrats regard Obama favorably, the number of
Clinton.

those who are strongly supportive of him has dropped since the start of
the year. Just 58 percent of Democrats describe themselves as having a strongly favorable view of Obama,
down from 72 percent who said the same in January. Obamas numbers among liberal as well
as moderate/conservative Democrats are also at their lowest levels in
Post-ABC polling since prior to the Democratic National Convention in the summer of 2012. ABCs report
notes the relative slide: Six in 10 Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll see Clinton favorably,
down 6 percentage points from her career high in January. Obamas seen favorably by 53 percent, down 7 points
from January and back to his pre-re-election level across most of 2012. The single-digit comedowns for Obama
and Clinton are unsurprising. Since his re-election, the presidents waded into contentious policy areas such as gun
control and immigration, while dealing with the Internal Revenue Service and National Security Administration
controversies. Obamas job approval likewise is off from his post-election high in ABC/Post polls.

Obamas PC declining
Feldmann 6-17 [Linda, Obama job approval drops 17 points among young

Americans, <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0617/Obama-jobapproval-drops-17-points-among-young-Americans>]
The latest wave of polls shows President Obamas job approval rating
drifting steadily downward, into the mid-40s, and thats hardly surprising.
Controversies around US government surveillance of telephones and the
Internet, the Internal Revenue Services targeting of tea party groups,
Justice Department snooping into journalists phone records, and the US
response to last Septembers terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, have put
the Obama administration on the defensive. Public views of Mr. Obamas
personal qualities have also taken a hit: The latest CNN/ORC International survey, released Monday,
shows that, for the first time in his presidency, half the public does not believe Obama is honest and trustworthy. All of the
above cuts into Obamas political capital, that elusive commodity that
fuels a president's second-term mojo. But perhaps most concerning for the
president are the numbers among young adults. The drop in Obama's
support is fueled by a dramatic 17-point decline over the past month
among people under 30, who, along with black Americans, had been the
most loyal part of the Obama coalition," CNN polling director Keating Holland said in the cable
networks report. Thats just one poll, and the margin of error for any one age group is high plus or minus 7.5 percent. Among
Americans age 18 to 34, Obamas now at 48 percent, not too far from 50. But its a cohort Obama can ill

afford to lose.

And there have been other recent worrying signs for the president among the young. An April survey of
3,100 voters under age 30, the so-called millennials, by the Institute of Politics at Harvard University shows that only 39 percent
trust the president to do the right thing, compared with 44 percent in 2010. The news, in fact, is bad for Washington and politicians
in general, as young voters show increasing negativity and cynicism with the political process. Almost three-fifths of young
Americans (59 percent) said they agree that elected officials seem motivated by selfish reasons an increase of 5 points since
2010. Some 56 percent agree that elected officials dont have the same priorities I have, also up 5 points from 2010. And 28
percent agree that political involvement rarely has any tangible results, an increase of 5 points since 2010. If you are 24 years old,
all you know is petty partisan politics while big issues arent getting addressed, while the economy is still struggling, IOP director
Trey Grayson told The New York Times.

Obama PC low now

Birnbaum 6-12 [Jeffrey H., Sensational season for scandal,

<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/12/sensational-season-forscandal/>]
The year started with great expectations, but has turned out to be a dud.
Only the most routine matters have made or seem likely to make
progress in 2013. President Obama began his second term with promises and much promise. Gun control, deficit
reduction and immigration reform were high on his list of legislative goals. Few insiders would have bet against them. The first two
have fallen away, and the third is iffy at best. Gun control went down with barely a shot fired in the Senate, despite the impetus
provided by the massacre in Newtown, Conn. Reduction of the budget deficit was put on autopilot when the across-the-board cuts
known as sequestration took effect. Now additional deficit-cutting has been shelved thanks to larger-than-expected tax collections
and a slowdown in federal spending. 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 presidency truly historic. He
needs more accomplishments to distinguish himself.

Second term presidents never have political capital, empirics

and gun control prove
Welch 6/10 [Matt Welch, writer for Reason.com Obamas Last Gasp at a Legacy
As his potency dwindles, the president should ease up on pot prohibition
http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/10/obamas-last-gasp-at-a-legacy]

the math of second-term presidential power is pitiless.

After winning re-election by 3.5 million votes in 2004, George W. Bush
declared that I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now
I intend to spend it. Within months, the 43rd presidents signature postelection initiative, creating private accounts for Social Security, was
declared dead on arrival by the Republican-controlled House of
Representatives. In the last Bush midterm election of 2006, energized
Democrats re-took control of Congress. So much for second-term capital.
Bill Clinton was impeached halfway through his second term. Richard
Nixon resigned in disgrace. Ronald Reagans Republicans lost control of
the Senate in 1986, and the Gipper spent the rest of his presidency
backpedaling on a botched arms-for-hostages swap. The five second-term
presidents prior to Reagan Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry
Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilsonhad it even worse during
their midterms, averaging losses of 39 House and seven Senate seats. If
President Barack Obama met the same fate in 2014, the Senate would
turn Republican and the House would feature its largest GOP majority
since 1929. Though that outcome may seem unlikely now, it is a statistical
near-certainty that the pendulum of two-party politics swings decisively
away from presidents in years five through eight of their tenure.
Americans tire of the bully at the pulpit, same-party congressmen lose
their fear of breaking ranks, and the media turns its attention to the next
presidential contest. So it should come as no surprise that, even after
winning the popular vote by 5 million and talking up his mandate,
Obama has been so rudely introduced to his own impotence. The first big
blow was the March 1 sequester spending trim, carried out over his howls
of protests and predictions of catastrophe. As possibilities for compromise
with Republicans floated away, so, too, did dim hopes of a grand
bargain on long-term entitlement spending. Thus, the president who
came into office in January 2009 vowing that the hard decisions on longterm entitlement promises would be made under my watch, not someone
elses, because we are now at the end of the road and are not in a
All hope and audacity aside,

position to kick [the can] any further, will instead hand off a ticking
entitlement bomb to his successor. Not a happy legacy, that. Obama also
spent the first few months of his second-term political capital on a series
of gun control measures that became less popular the more he stumped
for them. After even a comparatively mild and popular background check expansion failed in the Senate, the
chief executive looked more petulant than presidential, calling it a pretty shameful day for Washington, and
claiming, falsely, that there were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldnt do this. (For several coherent
arguments on precisely that topic, consult in particular Senior Editor Jacob Sullums work at reason.com.) At a press
conference not long after the gun defeat, Obama was asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl, Do you still have
the juice to get the rest of your agenda through this Congress? The president looked down, laughed awkwardly,
and said, If you put it that way, Jonathan, maybe I should just pack up and go home. Golly! It doesnt have to be

Second-term presidents have basically two options: Look

creatively for domestic reforms that appeal to the opposition party, or use
the executive branchs considerable discretion to make significant
directional changes in U.S. policy. Since Obama lacks Bill Clintons ideological slipperiness, at a
this painful.

time that Democrats have entrenched themselves considerably to the left of Clinton on economic issues and

The last real

possible exception to that rule is comprehensive immigration reform,
where electorally motivated Republicans were still negotiating with
Senate Democrats at press time, while Obama stayed away from the fray.
While progress on a reform bill has gone further than I expected, it still
faces an uphill climb, and at any rate marks the last big bipartisan
legislative package on the horizon.
Republicans have hardened in opposition, the reaching-out strategy is probably a non-starter.

As Obamas Ratings go down, so does his political capital

Logiurato, Brett 5/1/13 political reporter for Business Insider. He graduated
from Syracuse University in 2011 with degrees in newspaper and online journalism
and political science.
President Barack Obama's approval rating on three key issues is distinctly underwater,
according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University released Wednesday. The poll found that at least 10
percent more respondents disapproved than approved of Obama's handling of the
economy, gun policy, and immigration issues: On the economy, 53 percent disapprove of
Obama's job performance, while only 41 percent approve. Two weeks after the Senate failed to pass a measure that would have
expanded background checks, Obama's approval rating on "gun policy" is also 41 percent. Meanwhile, 52 percent disapprove. And

as the immigration debate continues to flare on Capitol Hill, only 40 percent approve of Obama's
handling of the issue. Fifty percent disapprove. Together, the three issues are perhaps the ones that will
dominate Washington on a domestic scale for the foreseeable future. The poll also found that on two of the issues the economy
and guns respondents said they trusted Congressional Republicans to handle the issue more than Congressional Democrats. On

Obama tried to downplay

any notion that he had lost any "juice" in getting his legislative agenda
through Congress. "If you put it that way maybe I should just pack up
and go home! Golly," he told a reporter. "As Mark Twain said, rumors of my demise might be a bit exaggerated at this
immigration, Democrats narrowly hold a 39-38 edge. In a press conference Tuesday,

point."

PC Not Key (CIR Specific)

Obama not key, Senators and Representatives will decide
passing of immigration reform
Altman 6-26 [Alex, Immigration Bill Faces Tough Odds in the House,

<http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/26/immigration-bill-faces-tough-odds-in-thehouse/>]
Barring a surprise, the bipartisan immigration bill on the floor of the Senate will be approved by the end of the
week. Two-thirds of the chamber, including 15 Republicans, voted to break a filibuster in a key procedural vote
Monday night, clearing a path for a similar number to support final passage before members scatter for the July 4
recess. Perhaps the bills architects will win the splashy 70-vote majority they have sought. Perhaps they fall a few

success in the Senate is a significant milestone in

the push to overhaul U.S. immigration laws for the first time since 1986. It
may also be its apogee. Because when the immigration debate resumes
after the holiday, the action shifts to the House of Representatives,
Washingtons legislative killing field. As things stand now, it will take a
change of heart from rank-and-file Republicans or a hairpin turn from their
embattled leader John Boehner to thread legislation through the House.
votes shy of that target. Either way,

Here is the grim reality for the bills supporters: the past three years have proven that a big portion of the House
Republican conference are willing to defy both popular opinion and political pressure in service of ideology and selfpreservation. To this group, which numbers perhaps 100 members or more, the Senate bill is unacceptable. It is too
big and too expensive. It rewards law-breakers with health-care benefits, and kicks off the citizenship process
before the border is secure. Instead of stemming the tide of illegal immigration, the partys opinion-makers warn, it
will open the floodgates for millions of new undocumented Democrats, as Rush Limbaugh puts it. The House
Republican conference both dislikes and distrusts the Senate, which is why the suggestion that a formidable margin
in the upper chamber will impact the House strikes many conservatives as laughable. Ooh, Im scared, scoffed

The
Democratic-controlled Senate is so toxic in conservative circles that those
who deign to cut deals there are regarded as heretics. Witness the excommunication
House Republican Raul Labrador of Idaho, an influential Tea Partyer and former immigration lawyer.

of Marco Rubio, who until recently was ordained as one of the high priests and potential saviors of conservatism.
Now hes getting booed at Tea Party rallies and panned as Chuck Schumers dupe by the very people who touted
him as presidential timber. Proponents of immigration reform, as well as some political handicappers, argue that the
clout of the GOPs anti-immigration wing has waned in the wake of Mitt Romneys drubbing last November.
Comprehensive reform could boost the partys paltry standing with Latinos, GOP Beltway grandees argue. While the
House bristles at taking direction from the Democratic Senate, they argue, it might listen to business lobbies like
the Chamber of Commerce, anti-tax icons like Grover Norquist, evangelical churches, and a high-tech community it

Immigration reform has a powerful advocate within

the House in former vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, plus a cadre of
conservatives who support the concept if not the Senate bill. Few people dispute
sees as an emerging donor base.

the U.S. immigration system is broken, and an overwhelming majority support efforts to fix it. These are logical

logic has had little or no effect on many House Republicans in

the recent past. They have a strong record of bucking pressure and
making unpopular choices on issues ranging from the debt ceiling to
disaster relief. The conference will meet on July 10 to map out a battle
plan on immigration. The House has three paths at its disposal. One is to try to move its own
arguments, but

comprehensive measure. The odds of that appear long, since the working group tasked with assembling a
bipartisan plan has so far come up empty. Many conservatives prefer a piecemeal approach, passing one or more
bills that beef up border security and enforcement standards without the citizenship path Democrats seek. There is
also a faction in the House that doesnt want to pass anything at all, because of fears that sending immigration
measures to a conference with the Senate could backfire. And if the obstacles on the right are many, hurdles await
on the left as well. Republicans on the Hill and even some liberals suspect that Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi
could opt to keep immigration as a cudgel for the 2014 midterms rather than rally her members behind a diluted
measure. Adherents of this theory can point to the recent failed vote on what had been a bipartisan farm bill, when
Pelosi quietly yanked Democratic support after the late addition of a controversial amendment, then denounced the

All these factors must be swirling through

Boehners mind as he wrestles with how to approach immigration.
GOP leadership as amateur hour.

Sometime in the coming months, the House Speaker may face a choice
between the preference of his members and the future of his party.
Boehner says he will observe the will of the House . Unless he changes his mind, the bill
looks destined to die.

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

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.
swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But

PC Not Key (Generic)

Obama doesnt use his political capital to broker deals on
policy issues
Alter 6/27

[Jonathan Alter The Schmoozing Gene June 27, 2013,

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/barack_obama_won_t_play_politics_in_an_excerpt_f
rom_jonathan_alter_s_the.html]

Barack Obama was able to keep his poll numbers high because the
American public saw him as above the fray. But now that his poll numbers
are dipping, he lacks the personal relationships to fall back on when the
worm turnsin part because he's stayed so above the fray. Here's how it
For years,

happened, in an excerpt from Jonathan Alter's The Center Holds: Obama and his Enemies, out now from Simon &
Schuster. By contrast, the Obamas, with the help of Valerie Jarrett, adopted an informal code in the White House.

Obama would bring members of Congress into the White House for large
meetings and maybe even give them a ride on Air Force One when he went
to their state, but the socializing they craved, the invitations to dinner or
a movie, were not often part of the package. His excuse for not having the GOP leadership
over more often was that he had repeatedly invited them and they usually said no. And he had unpleasant
memories of intensely courting Republican senators in 2009 to no avail. After passage of the Recovery Act, which

he received no Republican support at

all on his other major legislative victories of 2009 and 2010. He spent many hours
won the support of three moderate Republican senators,

with Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, whose objections to Obamacare (including some from the left) he was sure
he addressed. But under pressure from her leader, Mitch McConnell, she too voted no. Obama believed that the
days of politicians in Washington settling everything over bourbon and branch water (or, in the case of Reagan and

It used to be that if a president leaned on a

member to change his vote, most of his constituents wouldnt find out.
But in the age of instant access to voting records and 24-hour cable, the
threat of being primaried trumped any influence that might come from a
ride on Air Force One or a trip to Camp David. Besides, Obama liked to think
of himself as nontransactional, above the petty deals, donor
maintenance, and phony friendships of Washington. Here his selfawareness again failed him. In truth, he was all transactional in his work
life. He reserved real relationships for family, friends from before he was president, and a few staff. Everything
ONeill, a couple of beers) were over.

else was business. The senators and billionaires who longed to brag about their private advice to the president were
consistently disappointed. Defensive on this point, Obama didnt believe that listening to powerful blowhards was
generally worth his time. But that is the thing about relationships: Theyre investments that dont necessarily pay
off right away. His failure to use the trappings of the presidency more often left him with one less tool in his toolbox,
one less way to leverage his authority. It was a sign of his talent that he was quite good at a part of the job that he
didnt much enjoy. At fundraisers he was lithe and charming and, most of the time, seemed fully present in the
moment. Flashing that thousand-watt smile and exchanging pleasantries were enough for some, but others yearned

Obama wasnt a loner,

just a relatively normal personwarm with his friendswho preferred not
to hang out too much with people he barely knew. This was a fine quality
in an individual but problematic for a president. Part of the explanation lay in his
for at least the impression of friendship, or what passes for it in Washington.

upbringing. He hadnt spent his early life planning how to become important, as Johnson and Clinton had. Nor was
he a legacy, soaked in politics from an early age. No one had to instruct the Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes (and
Romneys) on how to build lists and get credit for their gratitude. Bargaining was in the background of most of
Obamas predecessors. Eisenhower learned to negotiate with balky allies during the World War II, and Reagan

Obama
had never been a governor herding state legislators, and his experience
closing deals with Republicans in the Illinois State Senate and the U.S.
Senate was minimal. (It was no coincidence that the last two presidents before Obama who went directly
gained bargaining experience as president of the Screen Actors Guild. Unlike Reagan, Clinton, and Bush,

from the Senate to the White House were John F. Kennedy in 1961 and Warren G. Harding in 1921, and neither got
much done with Congress.) In Democratic Chicago he rarely had to talk to people who fundamentally disagreed with
him. His self-image was that of a bridge-builder, but he came up so fast that hed never built a big one.

The

president didnt have the schmooze gene. Politics self-selects for certain traits, the most
common of which is an essential neediness, an emotional hole many politicians are trying to fill that makes them
crave attention, thrive on the artificial calories provided by superficial relationships, and make the personal
sacrifices necessary for public life. Obamas childhood in Hawaii was marked by a peculiar combination of
abandonment and unconditional love. It bred self-reliance and security. By the time he left Chicago for Harvard in
1988, he had the ambition and willingness to sacrifice that is standard equipment in politicians, but he lacked the
neediness that is usually part of the package. As he ascended, this made the inherent neediness of other
politicians, CEOs, and other high achievers an abstraction for him, not a shared condition. The backslapping,
stroking, gripping, and grinning that were second nature to politicians like Clinton and Biden were often chores for
Obama. During a scene in By the People, a documentary about the 2008 campaign, Obama complains loudly to his
staff about having to work rope lines. Where Clinton usually found such contact energizing, Obama frequently found
it enervating. There were exceptions; at the end of a campaign, when the competitive juices were flowing, he liked
pressing the flesh just fine, but he rarely stuck around to soak up the love longer than the schedule demanded. He
didnt need to. Obama wasnt as self-pitying as many politicians, but he often complained about how hard the job
was. Early on, one of his first big financial supporters, a Chicagoan, brought him up short in the Oval Office by
saying, You wanted this. We all worked like hell to put you here. Stop complaining. Obama smiled and said he was
right and not enough people talked to him that way. This supporter always knew Obama had a huge egoanyone
challenging Hillary Clinton with so little experience had to have onebut he thought Obama had been humbled by
the oppositions intransigence. He had never failed to bring anyone around before, and it changed him. You could
see it at public events in 2011, before he put on his friendly game face for the campaign. For those who knew him,
and for many who didnt, his vibe was unmistakable in the East Room: Ill flash a smile, then, please, someone get
me the hell out of here. It wasnt that he had to be back in the Oval Office for something urgent. He just didnt want
to hang out for an instant longer than he had to, even with long-lost Chicago friends. The quality that his girlfriend
from the 1980s, Genevieve cook, described as a bit of a wallthe veil, was back. The encounters when Obama
would stand very close and use his height and star power to leave admirers swooning were rarer, except at
fundraisers, when he knew he had to turn it on. He sometimes exuded an unspoken exasperation: I saved Detroit,
the DOW is up, we avoided a depressionI have to explain this to all of you again? When the president got away

Even if they disagreed

with him on certain things, most Americans still liked and trusted him. The
fact that he wasnt a typical politician and stayed above the fray was a
huge asset in their minds. The same traits that hurt him in Washington
helped keep his poll numbers afloat. As time went on, he began to enjoy his trips out of town
from elites and spent time with those he called ordinary folks, he relaxed.

not the fundraisers (as many as six in one day at the height of the campaign) but the other interactions. In his
second term, he told friends, he would spend much more time outside Washington. The comparisons between
Obama and Clinton and Obama and Johnson werent fair. Clinton was the most natural politician in memory, yet
even his Olympic-caliber schmoozing skills did nothing to protect him from impeachment. Johnson, a former Senate
majority leader known for his persuasiveness with former colleagues, had earmarks to hand out and a filibuster-

Obama didnt do himself

any favors by undervaluing the importance of personal relationships in
getting anything done in Washington. His not especially creative staff hardly helped. On the
proof supermajority in the Senate on every issue except civil rights. But

domestic side, the policymaking process was simultaneously ad hoc and super controlled, a combination that led to
risk-averse decisions when decisions were made at all. In 2008 Obama accused McCain of not being able to
multitask; now his White House staff sometimes seemed to have the same problem, focusing on only one issue at a

The close-knit group

surrounding Obama had his back but also his front, obstructing his ability
to draw close to people outside the inner circle who might help make him
a better president.
time. And the reverence for the boss within the White House was a little unhealthy.

Presidential leaderships irrelevant

Jacobs and King 10

Lawrence Jacobs and Desmond King 10, University of Minnesota, Nuffield College, 82010 Varieties of Obamaism: Structure, Agency, and the Obama Presidency,
Perspectives on Politics, 793-802
But personality is not a solid foundation for a persuasive explanation of presidential impact and the shortfalls or

presidents have brought divergent individual traits to their

jobs and yet they have routinely failed to enact much of their agendas. Preeminent
policy goals of Bill Clinton (health reform) and George W. Bush (Social Security privatization) met
the same fate, though these presidents' personalities vary widely. And presidents like Jimmy Carter
accomplishments of Obama's presidency. Modern

whose personality traits have been criticized as ill-suited for effective leadership enjoyed

comparable or
success in Congress than presidents lauded for their personal knack for leadershipfrom Lyndon
Johnson to Ronald Reagan.7 Indeed, a personalistic account provides little leverage for explaining the disparities
stronger

in Obama's recordfor example why he succeeded legislatively in restructuring health care and higher education,
failed in other areas, and often accommodated stakeholders. Decades of rigorous research find that

impersonal,

structural forces offer the most compelling explanations for presidential impact .8 Quantitative
research that compares legislative success and presidential personality finds no overall relationship.9 In his

institutional dynamics
and ideological commitments structure presidential choice and success in
ways that trump the personal predilections of individual presidents .10 Findings
magisterial qualitative and historical study, Stephen Skowronek reveals that

point to the predominant influence on presidential legislative success of the ideological and partisan composition of
Congress, entrenched interests, identities, and institutional design, and a constitutional order that invites multiple

The widespread presumption, then, that Obama's personal traits

leadership style account for the obstacles to his policy proposals is called into
question by a generation of scholarship on the presidency. Indeed, the presumption is not simply problematic
and competing lines of authority.
or

analytically, but practically as well. For the misdiagnosis of the source of presidential weakness may, paradoxically,
induce failure by distracting the White House from strategies and tactics where presidents can make a difference.
Following a meeting with Obama shortly after Brown's win, one Democratic senator lamented the White House's
delusion that a presidential sales pitch will pass health reform Just

declaring that he's still for it

doesn't mean that it comes off life support.11 Although Obama's reengagement after the Brown victory did contribute to restarting reform, the senator's
comment points to the importance of ideological and partisan coalitions in
Congress, organizational combat, institutional roadblocks, and anticipated
voter reactions. Presidential sales pitches go only so far .

Low PC inevitable and not key

Schier 11 Steven E. Schier is the Dorothy H. and Edward C. Congdon professor of
political science at Carleton College, The contemporary presidency: the presidential
authority problem and the political power trap. Presidential Studies Quarterly
December 1, 2011 lexis
Implications of the Evidence The evidence presented here depicts a decline in
presidential political capital after 1965 . Since that time, presidents have had
lower job approval , fewer fellow partisans and less voting support
Congress, less approval of their party,

policy mood

in

and have usually encountered an increasingly adverse public

as they governed. Specifically, average job approval dropped. Net job approval plummeted, reflecting greater polarization

about presidential performance.The proportion of fellow partisans in the public dropped and became less volatile. Congressional voting support
became lower and varied more. The number of fellow partisans in the House and Senate fell and became less volatile. Public issue mood usually
moved against presidents as they governed. All of these measures, with the exception of public mood, correlate positively with each other,
suggesting they are part of a broader phenomenon. That "phenomenon" is political authority. The decline in politicalcapital has produced great
difficulties for presidential political authority in recent decades. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval,
congressional support, and partisan affiliation provide less backing for a president than in times past. Because of the uncertainties of political
authority, recent presidents have adopted a governing style that is personalized, preemptive,and, at times, isolated. Given the entrenched autonomy
of other elite actors and the impermanence of public opinion, presidents have had to "sell themselves" in order to sell their governance. Samuel
Kernell (1997) first highlighted the presidential proclivity to "go public"in the 1980s as a response to these conditions. Through leveraging public
support, presidents have at times been able to overcome institutional resistance to their policy agendas. Brandice Canes-Wrone (2001) discovered
that presidents tend to help themselves with public opinion by highlighting issues the public supports and that boosts their congressional success--an

Despite shrinking political capital ,

presidents at times have effectively pursued such strategies , particularly
since 1995. Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W. Bush's careful issue selection early in
his presidency allowed them to secure important policy changes --in Clinton's case,
welfare reform and budget balance, in Bush's tax cuts and education
reform--that at the time received popular approval. This may explain the slight recovery in some presidential political capital measures since
effective strategy when political capital is questionable.

1993. Clinton accomplished much with a GOPCongress, and Bush's first term included strong support from a Congress ruled by friendly Republican

majorities. David Mayhew finds that from 1995 to 2004, both highly important and important policy changeswere passed by Congress into law at

A trend of declining political capital thus does not

preclude significant policy change , but a record of major policy accomplishment has not reversed the decline in
presidential political capital in recent years, either. Short-term legislative strategies can win policy
success for a president but do not serve as an antidote to declining
political capital over time, as the final years of both the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate.
higher rates than during the 1947-1994 period. (2)

PC Not Key Ideology

PC not key
Dickinson 9 (Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College and
taught previously at Harvard University where he worked under the supervision of
presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, 5/26, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan
Analysis of Presidential Politics, Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power,
http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-andpresidential-power/)
What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power. Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters,
have devised numerous means of measuring a presidents influence in Congress . I will devote a separate post to
discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative box scores designed to measure how many times a presidents preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the
executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress

These measures, however, are a misleading

gauge of presidential power they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because how
members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president
does . Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative endgame to gauge
presidential influence will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? this mistakes an outcome with
actual evidence of presidential influence . Once we control for other factors a member of Congress ideological and
vote with the presidents preferences? How often is a presidents policy position supported by roll call outcomes?

partisan leanings, the political leanings of her constituency, whether shes up for reelection or not we can usually
predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants . (I
am ignoring the importance of a presidents veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame,

the primary means by which

presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to determine the alternatives
from which Congress must choose. That is, presidential power is largely an exercise in agenda-setting
then, most legislative outcomes dont depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to say that presidents lack influence. Instead,

not arm-twisting. And we see this in the Sotomayer nomination. Barring a major scandal, she will almost certainly be confirmed to the Supreme Court whether Obama spends the
confirmation hearings calling every Senator or instead spends the next few weeks ignoring the Senate debate in order to play Halo III on his Xbox. That is, how senators decide to vote on
Sotomayor will have almost nothing to do with Obamas lobbying from here on in (or lack thereof).

the decision to present Sotomayor as his nominee.

His real influence has already occurred, in

Thumpers

Voting Rights Act Thumper

Voting Rights Act thumps pol cap for immigration
Sullivan 6/26 (Sean Sullivan, Published: June 26, 2013; Why the Supreme
Courts Voting Rights Act decision puts Obama in a tough spot; Washington Post;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/26/why-the-supremecourts-voting-rights-act-decision-puts-obama-in-a-tough-spot/)//KDUB
There are actions Obama can take, but like most things, sweeping changes require
Congress signing off. While its too early to write off Congress chances of getting a deal done on a new

formula, nothing in the way the body has conducted business in recent years suggests that its in the immediate
offing. And the expected Republican resistance to Democratic proposals means the odds are even longer. That
means Obama could be expected to ramp up pressure through speeches, appearances across the country and other

Obama cant be everywhere at once. He has to pick

and choose the issues he will put substantial political capital behind. With
no other major asks of Congress, applying pressure on lawmakers would
be a tall task. A CNN/ORC poll shows the public is split on the necessity of the
Voting Rights Act. Its an even taller one considering the president is also
hoping to get a sweeping immigration bill done . And he hasnt given up hopes of striking
levers his power affords him. But

a long-term deficit reduction deal. Gun control is another issue advocates of tighter restrictions on firearms are
hopeful the president will revisit.

IRS Thumper
Public hates Obama - IRS
Klein 6/27 (June 27, 2013 By Joseph Klein ; Smoking Gun: The IRSs Abuse of
Obamas Pro-Israel Enemies; Front Page Mag;
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/smoking-gun-the-irss-abuse-of-obamaspro-israel-enemies/)//KDUB
On its face, there is simply no legal justification for why the IRS would use
disputed territories, a foreign policy issue, to evaluate a groups
domestic political activity for purposes of determining eligibility for tax-exempt status. Therefore,
without some other compelling content-neutral reason to justify its
actions, the IRSs limitation of the issuance of tax-exempt status to a nonprofit educational
organization on the basis of the substantive views held by the persons who operate the
organization views that differ from the Obama administrations foreign
policies constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of
speech of such persons.

Nukes Thumper
Obama investing PC in disarmament
Rogin 6/18 senior correspondent for national security and
politics for Newsweek (Josh Rogin; Jun 18, 2013; No Word From Russia as

Obama Will Announce U.S. Nuclear Reductions; The Daily Beast;

http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/josh-rogin.html)//KDUB
Four years after the speech, Obamas record on nuclear disarmament has been mixed. His
administration spent huge amounts of time and political capital to pass
the New START nuclear-reductions treaty with Russia in 2010, which required
both countries to reduce their stockpiles of deployed nuclear weapons to
about 1,550 each by 2018. The White House has been trying to start negotiations
on a follow-up pact, but the Russians have not yet agreed to discuss further reductions. Obama now
wants to move forward with further American reductions regardless, and will
outline his desire to do so at the East side of the Brandenberg Gate in Berlin on Wednesday, two administration
officials told The Daily Beast. Administration officials made calls to leaders on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to inform them

Obama will announce a desire to have a one-third reduction in

deployed nuclear weapons beyond current commitments, to about 1,000 total
that

deployed nukes, two senior Senate aides told The Daily Beast. The New York Times reported in February that plans
for new cuts to the nuclear arsenal would be announced in this years State of the Union address, but when the
speech was delivered, Obama only said, Well engage Russia to seek further reductions in our nuclear arsenals.

Climate Thumper
Obama spent his PC on climate change
King 6/27 Editor (Ed King; 6/27; Comment: Obama raised expectations, now
he must meet them; Responding to Climate Change (RTCC);
http://www.rtcc.org/comment-obama-raised-expectations-now-he-must-meetthem/)//KDUB
Setting the plan to one side. If this speech achieved anything, it was changing the
narrative of climate change from struggle and disaster to hope and opportunity. A

low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come. And I want America to build
that engine. I want America to build that future right here in the United States of America, he added to applause.
This is the signal many business leaders want a clear sign from one of the worlds most powerful men that the low
carbon economy is the way forward. If anyone doubts the effectiveness of that message today, check the share
price of some of the biggest coal producers. Peabodys price has slumped by 17% since June 15, although it revived

Expect the war on coal rhetoric from Congress to double , and

attacks on a President avoiding the heart of democracy to get louder. And its not just
the leading coal companies or Republicans who are angry . Many greens
believe this is simply not enough to avert a climate catastrophe. Nafeez Ahmed sums it
up succinctly in the Guardian, describing it as fatally compromised given Obamas
strong support for fracking. He also picks up on a popular theme that the USAs 2009 pledge to cut
emissions 17% on 2005 levels by 2020 is far too small for the worlds second largest emitter. One veteran
environment correspondent emailed me yesterday with the line: If this is
by 1.2% last night.

leadership, then Im a banana , a fruity burst of cynicism amid all the praise for Obama. But
given the background to this speech and the political capital the President has now
staked on getting the ball rolling perhaps he deserves to be given a brief
break.

Climate change depletes all of Obamas PC

Schiffman 6/25 (Richard Schiffman; June 25, 2013; President Obama is talking
big on climate change, but will he act?; Guardian (UK); lexis)//KDUB

"If Congress won't act soon to protect future generations," President Obama vowed during the state of the union
speech in February, "I will." This afternoon at Georgetown University, the president made good on that threat. Sort

Obama gave what might turn out to be his most substantive, not to mention
controversial, address on climate changesince he took office over four years ago. I say might
turn out to be, because the devil, as they say, is in the details, and the details are not yet in. It's not clear,
for example, how much of his diminishing stock of "political capital" Obama will
be willing to spend on aggressively pushing for the climate relief package
that he outlined today. It is also not clear whether the three years plus that
remain in his soon-to-be lame duck presidency will be enough time to
accomplish his ambitious goals, still less insure that they won't be reversed by the next resident of
the White House. But the broad strokes of Obama's new plan are impressive : tough
regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, new energy efficiency standards
for appliances, renewable energy development on public lands, billions of additional
federal dollars to support the launch of green technologies, and
coordinated action with state and local governments to help mitigate and
adapt to the effects of climate change. He also pledged that the federal government would increase
the electricity it uses from renewables to 20% in the next seven years. This time, the president is not
waiting for the Republicans to come on board. He's mandating federal
agencies to make the changes unilaterally without having to go to
Congress for approval. In what will likely be the most controversial move
of.

of all, Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under

the authority of the Clean Air Act to issue new regulations on carbon
dioxide emissions from America's power plants, which are responsible for 40% of US carbon output.

Climate change thumps the DA

Revkin 6/26 (ANDREW C. REVKIN; June 26, 2013; Seeking More Presidential
Action, Less Rhetoric, on Warming; The New York Times Blogs; lexis)//KDUB
At this point, five years in, Obama should also be judged by his actions (tightened car emission
standards; delayed power plant rules) rather than his words on climate change. This is
not necessarily to criticize him, only to recognize that words are cheap and the president has
limited political capital to spend on a variety of important priorities . Sixty
percent of U.S. emissions come from two sectors - transportation and the power sector. I'll focus on these.

Obamas spending his polcap on climate policy

Krusier 6/24 a professional comedian has had the great honor
of traveling around the world entertaining U.S. troops (STEPHEN
KRUISER; June 24, 2013; The Climate Speech Will Have The Economy Seeing The
Wrong Kind Of Green; http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/24/the-climate-speechwill-have-the-economy-seeing-the-wrong-kind-of-green/)//KDUB
Obama signaled that he would prioritize his beliefs about the climate in his
second inaugural speech, so no one should be surprised by his decision to gamble
his dwindling supply of political capital on an issue that is liable to hurt
rather than help the economy. The president will, of course, argue that his green plan is good for the

economy in the long run and tout his belief that more regulations will help transform the country and create jobs in
industries that provide alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels. But the country has already been down this road in

Obamas stimulus boondoggle provided cash for Solyndra and

other green corporations that proved to be cash cows for the
presidents major contributors but a disaster to the taxpayers that were
fleeced to bolster companies that couldnt stand on their own.
the first term as

Congress is opposing Obamas climate change legislation

depletes pc
Tribune Review 6/27 (Tribune-Review; June 27, 2013; Obamas climate
monstrosity: Fight back, Congress; Trib Live;
http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/4262964-74/obama-climatecongress#axzz2XdlKqYhy)//KDUB
All this, though even halting all U.S. CO2 emissions immediately would have
only negligible climate effects. That speaks volumes about his plan's cost-benefit failings.
Thankfully, Obama can't circumvent congressional control of the federal purse
strings. Congress should move immediately to defund as much of this as
possible, says Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's
Center for Energy and Environment. That's the last, best hope for stopping
this monstrous plan.

Obama investing his Political Capital into cutting emissions,

not Immigration
The Guardian 6/25/13
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/25/obama-climate-change

Barack Obama's plans for cutting US greenhouse gas emissions represent

an important first. Piecemeal attempts have been made to address the issue, but this is the first time a
comprehensive strategy to combat climate change has been unveiled. For the first time, limits will be imposed
on the carbon dioxide output of existing power plants, which, as the biggest single source, account for 40%
of America's carbon emissions. Shares in coal have plunged but, in climate change terms, that is a good a thing. It is a sign that Mr
Obama is not tinkering around the edges, but attacking the source of the problem. It should also be acknowledged that Mr

Obama is proceeding in the teeth of opposition from the Republicandominated Congress, whose reaction to the very idea of new climate rules,
let alone their detail, was summed up by John Boehner, the house speaker,
dismissing the very idea as "absolutely crazy". Mr Obama's chosen route around a deadlocked
Congress is to use his executive authority to direct the Environmental Protection Agency to draw up new regulations. These in turn
will be subject to legal challenge by business groups which will argue that the EPA is exceeding its authority under the Clean Air Act.
Challenges have already been set in motion over plans the EPA announced last year to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new
power plants. Regulating existing plants presents more problems. Viewed from Europe, the plans are less than bold. Mr Obama's
commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels contrasts with the EU target of a 20% cut from 1990 levels,
the key being the difference in the baselines. His speech on Tuesday is not the only decision he has to make. He has yet to approve
the Keystone XL pipeline to transport tar-sands oil from Canada to the US Gulf coast refineries and ports. Without that pipeline,
Canada cannot develop a market for the third-biggest oil reserves in the world reserves that could generate three to four times
more carbon emissions per barrel than conventional oil, because of the energy-intensive process of separating the oil from the rock.
Lobbying for and against has intensified on both sides of the Atlantic, with the EU proposing to penalise Alberta's tar sands. Let us
hope that Mr Obama does not tarnish his image by letting that one through. There is no doubting that, for today, Mr Obama is not
only leveraging the power of his office. He is also investing his political capital into the

cause of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This and immigration will be

the defining domestic reforms of his second term. No cause could better merit this effort.
With the US and China, the world's biggest emitters, making tangible efforts, no bigger signal could now be sent to the rest of the
world

Snowden Thumper
Snowden scandal depletes Obamas PC
AP 6/27 (AFP; Jun 27; Obama wont scramble jets to get Snowden; Capital
News; http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2013/06/obama-wont-scramble-jets-to-getsnowden/)//KDUB
DAKAR, Jun 27 US President Barack Obama said on Thursday he would not scramble
jets to intercept any flights carrying fugitive leaker Edward Snowden and
scoffed at spending political capital to win him back from Russia . Obama,
questioned in Africa on the latest twists of the international spy drama
involving Snowden and his exposure of US phone and Internet surveillance programs, did however
admit he was worried about what other secrets might leak. His comments
came as Snowden remained in Russia, where he fled from Hong Kong, stuck in
the transit zone of a Moscow airport, apparently unable to travel on to
possible asylum in Ecuador after Washington cancelled his passport .
Obama, who has been embarrassed by the refusal of first China and then
Russia to expel Snowden, insisted the real damage to the United States lay not in international

humiliation, but in the exposure of key spying programs. But he ruled out military action should Snowden eventually

I am not going to be scrambling jets to get a

29-year-old hacker, Obama said, at a media conference in Senegal. The US leader also said
that he had not called the Chinese or Russian presidents to plead with
them to hand Snowden over, because his government was using regular
legal channels for an extradition case. I have not called President Xi (Jinping) personally or
manage to get on a flight out of Russia. No,

President (Vladimir) Putin personally. The reason is, number one, I shouldnt have to. This is something that

Obama said that the US

and China relationships were broad and ranged over many issues and that
he would not get down to wheeling and dealing with Russia and China
over one extradition case. Washington had warned earlier in the week that its
relations with China would undoubtedly be impacted by the failure to honour its
routinely is dealt between law enforcement officials in various countries.

extradition request for Snowden, and it did not believe the decision to let him leave Hong Kong was simply the

China however dismissed the idea that an

individual case could disrupt relations, which both sides are trying to
improve as witnessed at an informal summit between Xi and Obama in California this
action of a local immigration official.

month. While they have lashed out at China, they have adopted a softer tone towards Russia, as behind the scenes
negotiations apparently take place between governments and judicial authorities in the two countries. We certainly
understand the fact that Mr. Snowden chose to travel to Moscow, chose to travel to Russia, creates issues that the
Russian government has to consider, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday. We also believe that
when it comes to Mr. Snowden, well, we agree with President Putin that we dont want the situation to harm our

Washington believes there is a clear, legal basis for Russia to

expel Snowden, despite the lack of an extradition treaty between Washington and
relations.
Moscow.

Obamas perception is ruined he has no character

Mondoweiss 6/18 (Mondoweiss is a news website devoted to covering

American foreign policy in the Middle East; June 18, 2013; Challenging Obama on
core principles, Snowden shows greater leadership than the president; lexis)//KDUB
This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the
rule of law rather than men. He still has plenty of time to go down in history as the
President who looked into the abyss and stepped back, rather than

leaping forward into it. Questioning the character of the president he'd
once believed in, Snowden said that Obama has not been willing to spend
the "political capital" necessary to end human rights violations. shortly after
assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of la w,
deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital
to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo , where
men still sit without charge.... Everyone on the left understands this now about Obama:
He does not know how to commit personal capital to a principle. While Snowden
spends every ounce in his possession. Snowden is like Obama in that he thrust himself on to the national scene as
an idealist and change agent. This New York Times profile of him[2] emphasizes his ambition and sense of grandeur
despite the fact that he didn't graduate from high school-- a fact Snowden made a joke about yesterday: "If they
had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school."
And let's be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with ambition and grandeur: they are the necessary motors for
independent people of achievement. Because I believe in Snowden's leadership, I am most afraid that he will be
silenced in months and years to come. I think we actually need his voice and wisdom, that despite his poetical claim
that the current climate is breeding whistle-blowers- Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing
simply because they'll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it. Instead, these draconian responses simply build
better whistleblowers- --Snowden is special, he is a person of mental scope and civic commitment, who is not
unsocialized, as some media reports would have it, no, he is sophisticated, witness the methods he chose of going
forward. And it is vital to have someone of such large intellectual and personal dimensions engaged to help us sort
these complex issues out. What a shame that the mainstream media is completely on the fence about Snowden.
They know that Snowden has struck a chord in the American public. But they are afraid to come out against him or
for him, because they don't want to go against the government. You'd think that NPR's Brooke Gladstone [3]would
embrace the principle of human knowledge as a corrective to unlimited national power in the computerized age of

As
Snowden himself observed, "Initially I was very encouraged [by the media]. Unfortunately, the
mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I
was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than , say, the largest program
of suspicionless surveillance in human history." A couple of other Snowden comments I
especially liked yesterday. Here's another challenge to Obama's leadership: If the Obama
administration responds with an even harsher hand against me, they can be
assured that they'll soon find themselves facing an equally harsh public
response.
surveillance-- no, like everyone else with a mainstream seat, her comments on Snowden waffled meaninglessly.

Obama is preoccupied with Snowden

Reuters 6/27 (Jeff Mason and Mark Felsenthal; DAKAR | Thu Jun 27, 2013;
Obama jabs Russia, China on failure to extradite Snowden; Reuters;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/27/us-usa-security-snowdenidUSBRE95Q0SW20130627)//KDUB
CHARGES OF U.S. HYPOCRISY Snowden's case has raised tensions between the
United States and both China and Russia. On Thursday, Beijing accused
Washington of hypocrisy over cyber security. Obama's remarks in Senegal seemed
calibrated to exert pressure without leading to lasting damage in ties with either country. " The more the
administration can play it down, the more latitude they'll have in the
diplomatic arena to work out a deal for him (Snowden)," said Andy Smith, director of the University of New
Hampshire Survey Center. Obama indicated that damage to U.S. interests wa s largely
limited to revelations from Snowden's initial leak . "I continue to be concerned about the
other documents that he may have," Obama said. "That's part of the reason why we'd like to have Mr. Snowden in

Snowden's disclosures of widespread eavesdropping by the U.S.

National Security Agency in China and Hong Kong have given Beijing considerable
ammunition in an area that has been a major irritant between the
countries. China's defense ministry called the U.S. government
surveillance program, known as Prism, "hypocritical behavior." "This 'double
standard' approach is not conducive to peace and security in cyber space," the
custody." Still,

the top U.S.

military officer dismissed comparisons of Chinese and American snooping
in cyber space. "All nations on the face of the planet always conduct intelligence operations in all domains,"
state news agency Xinhua reported, quoting ministry spokesman Yang Yujun. In Washington,

Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an audience at the Brookings
Institution. "China's particular niche in cyber has been theft and intellectual property." Dempsey said. "Their view is
that there are no rules of the road in cyber, there's nothing, there's no laws they are breaking, there's no standards
of behavior." In Ecuador, the leftist government of President Rafael Correa said it was waiving preferential rights
under a U.S. trade agreement to demonstrate what it saw as its principled stand on Snowden's asylum request.
Correa told reporters Snowden's situation was "complicated" because he has not been able to reach Ecuadorean
territory to begin processing the asylum request. "In order to do so, he must have permission of another country,

In a deliberately provocative touch, Correa's

government also offered a multimillion dollar donation for human rights
training in the United States. The U.S. State Department warned of "grave
difficulties" for U.S.-Ecuador relations if the Andean country were to grant
Snowden asylum, but gave no specifics.
which has not yet happened," Correa said.

Snowden eliminated any political support Obama had

Weisbrot 6/28 - co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

(Mark Weisbrot; 28 Jun 2013; Obama retreats on Snowden;

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/20136289750269657.html)//KDU
B
In his videotaped interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden said that the worlds most powerful
intelligence agencies (like the CIA) were so formidable that [n]o one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want

On Wednesday President Obama beat a

hasty retreat from his global public relations and diplomatic, and political
campaign against Snowden. It was quite an amazing, if implicit, admission of
defeat. Here was the president of the worlds most powerful nation, with the worlds most influential media
to get you, they'll get you in time. That remains to be seen.

outlets having rallied to his cause, now quietly trying to lower the profile of an issue that his own government had

He didnt talk to the presidents of China

or Russia, he said, because I shouldn't have to. This is something that routinely is dealt with between law
enforcement officials in various countries. Except that it has been dealt with by these other
governments in the same way that Americans deal with annoying
telemarketing phone calls. Hong Kong casually hung up on the Obama
Administrations extradition request. President Putin provided a jovial
buzz off response on Wednesday, saying that Snowden was a free man, and
with an analogy to shearing a piglet, made it clear that he had more
important things to think about than helping an unfriendly arrogant power
get its hands on a pesky whistleblower. US Secretary of State John Kerrys threats that a
elevated to one of the biggest stories in the world.

failure to follow Washingtons directives would have consequences turned out to be nothing more than bluff and

bluster. I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker, said Obama in response to a question as
to whether he would try to force down a plane carrying Snowden away from Russia. That was the best news of the

Snowden, because that scenario was quite possibly one of his biggest obstacles to his freedom. He
could conceivably get to Latin America without flying through US air space
or stopping in countries that take orders from the United States, but what
would stop the US government from forcing his plane down almost anywhere along
week for

the way? International law, you might say, but I can already hear the snickering from the White House and the

Ecuador, dismissed by
stood defiant and one-upped Washingtons
threat to cut off its preferential access to US markets if it offered asylum
to Snowden. We dont need no stinking trade preferences, was the non-literal English translation. "In the
Pentagon. It was a humbling episode for the POTUS and his State Department. Little
right-wing pundits as a banana republic,

face of threats, insolence and arrogance of certain US sectors, which have pressured to remove the preferential
tariffs because of the Snowden case, Ecuador tells the world we unilaterally and irrevocably renounce the
preferential tariffs," said President Rafael Correa yesterday. "It is outrageous to try to delegitimise a state for
receiving a petition of asylum," he added. Just to drive the point home,

the Ecuadorian government

also offered the United States $23m for human rights training, to help
the US government avoid torture, extra-judicial killings, and other acts
that denigrate humanity. But the real surprise is that it took the White
House so long to realise that they were much better off if they could edge
this story out of the news cycle. First, of course, there were the revelations themselves,that the US
government had been spying on tens of millions of Americans, in secret and apparent violation of the Fourth
Amendment to the constitution. Not to mention the spying on the rest of the worlds citizens. Second, the pursuit of
Snowden revealed some things that Washington doesnt like to advertise: not least that its influence in the world

No wonder Obama decided to retreat.

His team could see where this debate might lead if it kept going . The war on
has been sinking like a stone over the past decade or so.

terror is getting stale, and the Cold War framework in which they tried to recast Snowdens civil disobedience is
really old. I mean, why exactly should Americans be scared of Russia in the 21st century or China, which doesnt
have a military base outside its own country (as compared to the Pentagons hundreds of bases throughout the
globe?) And is Snowden a traitor or a spy just because he fled to Hong Kong and the Russian airport in order to
avoid political persecution? Even if he had no contact with any government and didnt sell or give them any
classified information? Even if he only gave information to reporters, and worked with them not to publish anything

The Obama administration thought that by

charging Snowden under the Espionage Act, it could re-define him as a
traitor, but that too may have backfired. Since he clearly didnt commit any
such crime, the charge gave any government or judicial system good legal
grounds for granting him asylum. And why do they need all this information they are gathering
that might harm the security of Americans?

anyway? Sociologist Todd Gitlin has provided a nice overview of how our government has traditionally used
domestic surveillance to oppose, infiltrate, disrupt, and discredit (sometimes through violent provocations)
opposition political movements. In 2011, the Boston police, federally-funded Boston Regional Intelligence Center,
and FBI appear to have been so fixated on peaceful activists like the Occupy movement, Code Pink, and Veterans
for Peace that they seem to have missed the real terrorists that bombed the Boston marathon, despite having the
intelligence on one of them dumped in the FBIs lap. There are tens of millions of Americans who already
understand very well that the war on terror has been used as a pretext to erode our civil liberties at home and
commit terrible crimes abroad. Snowdens courageous whistle-blowing and Glenn Greenwalds relentless efforts to
inform the public have brought more people into the realm of questioning the whole rotten framework that justifies
these abuses and atrocities. Who is our government protecting anyway, when they invade other countries and
create new enemies every week by dropping drone-bombing civilians in places like Pakistan or Yemen? Americans

Dissenting voices have grown as

the story continues. Some petitions: at the White House web site, for a presidential pardon, signed by
are more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.

123,000; Roots Action, hands off Snowden (31,000); Avaaz, for respecting Snowdens rights and terminating the
PRISM program (1.3 mn). Yesterday a number of celebrities (including Oliver Stone, Danny Glover, John Cusack)
prominent whistle-blowers (Daniel Ellsberg, Joe Wilson, Thomas Drake, Colleen Rowley), and experts (Noam
Chomsky, Juan Cole, and many others) launched a petition to President Rafael Correa to grant political asylum to

the Obama team has every reason to want this whole story to go
away. But he may not find it so easy to get rid of it .
Snowden. Yes,

Syria Thumper
Congress opposes Obama Syria
AP 6/27 (Associated Press, Published: June 27; Bipartisan group pushes measure
barring Obama from arming Syrian rebels without Congress; Washington Post;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/bipartisan-group-pushes-measurebarring-obama-from-arming-syrian-rebels-without-congress/2013/06/27/49c51c70df46-11e2-8cf3-35c1113cfcc5_story.html)//KDUB
WASHINGTON A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing a resolution that
would prevent President Barack Obama from arming the Syrian rebels without
congressional approval. Countering the loud Senate voices clamoring for action, the libertarian
Republicans and liberal Democrats told a Capitol Hill news conference that
they fear the United States being dragged into the deadly civil war that
has killed more than 100,000 based on the latest estimates. If we intervene
militarily, we will exacerbate the situation, said Rep. Chris Gibson, R-N.Y., who
served more than two decades in the Army with multiple tours to Iraq and deployments to
Kosovo and Haiti. He said he was concerned about the U.S. getting sucked into a very difficult situation when

budget cuts have hit the military hard. Democratic Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont said everyone recognizes that
Syria is a humanitarian crisis as rebels have fought the regime of President Bashar Assad for more than two years.

warned, however, about Americanizing a civil war. The Obama

administration announced earlier this month that it would start sending
weapons to Syrian opposition groups, after it found conclusive evidence
that Assads regime has used chemical weapons against opposition forces. The White
He

House said multiple chemical attacks last year with substances including the nerve agent sarin killed up to 150
people. Britain and the United States notified the United Nations of 10 different incidents of alleged chemical
weapons use by the Syrian government, a U.N. diplomat said Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity
because the incidents have not been publicly divulged.

Gun Control Thumper

Obama is spending pc on gun control ignoring other issues
Glater 6/28 (Irving W. Glater; June 28, 2013; Obama's gun control efforts were
misleading; Sea Coast Online; http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20130628OPINION-306280339)//KDUB
A week after the S.649 defeat a poll was jointly conducted by the Washington
Post and the Pew Research Center, both very respectable organizations. The
poll found that only 13 percent of the public was "angry" that the bill was defeated, while 39 percent were

"relieved" or "happy." What does that tell you when compared with Obama's 90 percent claim? Incidentally,

that

wouldn't be the first time that Obama has used false or misleading
information to promote the passage of one of his pet ideas (e.g. Obamacare).
Regardless, while he must be aware of the huge national and international
problems facing America (e.g. lousy economy, national debt, Syria, nuclear Iran), Obama has chosen
to continue to spend his political capital on trying to force his agenda of
anti-gun bills through Congress. He has lost his compass!

XO Solves
Failure doesnt matter Obama can solve the impacts through
XOs
The Hill 2-16 (Dems: Obama can act unilaterally on immigration reform
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/283583-dems-recognize-thatobama-can-act-unilaterally-on-immigration-reform#ixzz2LEvg4R5R)
President Obama can and will take steps on immigration reform in the
event Congress doesn't reach a comprehensive deal this year, according to
several House Democratic leaders. While the Democrats are hoping Congress will
preclude any executive action by enacting reforms legislatively, they say
the administration has the tools to move unilaterally if the bipartisan talks
on Capitol Hill break down. Furthermore, they say, Obama stands poised to use
them. "I don't think the president will be hands off on immigration for any
moment in time," Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), the head of the House Democratic Caucus, told reporters
this week. "He's ready to move forward if we're not." Rep. Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), vice
chairman of the Democratic Caucus, echoed that message, saying Obama is "not just beating the
drum," for immigration reform, "he's actually the drum major." "There are
limitations as to what he can do with executive order," Crowley said Wednesday, "but he did say that if
Congress continued to fail to act that he would take steps and measures
to enact common-sense executive orders to move this country forward ." Rep.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who heads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said there are "plenty" of
executive steps Obama could take if Congress fails to pass a reform
package. "The huge one," Grijalva said, is "the waiving of deportation" in order to keep families
together. "Four million of the undocumented [immigrants] are people who overstayed their visas to stay with
family," he said Friday. "So that would be, I think, an area in which there's a great deal of executive authority that
he could deal with." The administration could also waive visa caps , Grijalva said, to ensure
that industries like agriculture have ample access to low-skilled labor. "Everybody's for getting the smart and the
talented in, but there's also a labor flow issue," he said. To be sure, Obama and congressional Democrats would
prefer the reforms to come through Congress both because that route would solidify the changes into law and
because it would require bipartisan buy-in. Still, House Republicans have been loath to accept one of the central
elements of Obama's strategy: A pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11-12 million undocumented people

when the
House Judiciary Committee met earlier this month on immigration reform,
much of the discussion focused on whether there is some middle ground
between citizenship and mass deportation. If we can find a solution that is short of a
currently living in the country a move which many conservatives deem "amnesty." Indeed,

pathway to citizenship, but better than just kicking 12 million people out, why is that not a good solution? Rep.
Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) asked during the hearing. Obama on Tuesday spent a good portion of his State of the Union
address urging Congress to send him a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year. Central to that package, he
said, should be provisions for "strong border security," for "establishing a responsible pathway to earned
citizenship" and for "fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods and attract the highly-skilled
entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy." "We know what needs to be done,"
Obama said. "So lets get this done." Becerra said he and other immigration reformers have had two meetings with
the White House on immigration this month, one with the executive team working on the issue and, more recently,
with Obama himself. Becerra said administration officials "essentially" know what reforms they want "and they
have communicated that to both House and Senate members, bipartisanly" but they also want Congress to take
the lead. "They're

giving Congress a chance to work its will to move this," Becerra

said. "But I don't think he's going to wait too long . "If you were to ask him would he be
prepared to submit a bill if Congress isn't ready he would tell you, I have no doubt, 'I can do it in a heartbeat,'"

"The president will move forward where he can if Congress

doesn't act."
Becerra added.

AT: Specific Impacts

AT: Economy Impact

Immigration reforms not key to the economy
Castelletti et al 10 [Brbara, economist at the OECD Development Centre, ,
Jeff Dayton-Johnson, 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 university-educated 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
over-qualification rates are above 15%, these results point to a high degree of over-qualification among immigrants

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.
compared to the native-born in Latin American countries.

Economic decline doesnt cause war

Tir 10 Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is
an Associate Professor in the Department of International Affairs at the University of
Georgia [Jaroslav Tir, Territorial Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and
Territorial Conflict, The Journal of Politics, 2010, Volume 72: 413-425)]
Empirical support for the economic growth rate is much weaker. The
finding that poor economic performance is associated with a higher
likelihood of territorial conflict initiation is significant only in Models 3
4.14 The weak results are not altogether surprising given the findings
from prior literature. In accordance with the insignificant relationships of Models 12 and 56, Ostrom
and Job (1986), for example, note that the likelihood that a U.S. President will use force
is uncertain, as the bad economy might create incentives both to divert
the publics attention with a foreign adventure and to focus on solving the
economic problem, thus reducing the inclination to act abroad . Similarly,
Fordham (1998a, 1998b), DeRouen (1995), and Gowa (1998) find no relation between

a poor economy and U.S. use of force. Furthermore, Leeds and Davis (1997) conclude
that the conflict-initiating behavior of 18 industrialized democracies is
unrelated to economic conditions as do Pickering and Kisangani (2005) and
Russett and Oneal (2001) in global studies. In contrast and more in line with my findings of a significant
relationship (in Models 34), Hess and Orphanides (1995), for example, argue that economic recessions are linked
with forceful action by an incumbent U.S. president. Furthermore, Fordhams (2002) revision of Gowas (1998)
analysis shows some effect of a bad economy and DeRouen and Peake (2002) report that U.S. use of force diverts
the publics attention from a poor economy. Among cross-national studies, Oneal and Russett (1997) report that
slow growth increases the incidence of militarized disputes, as does Russett (1990)but only for the United States;
slow growth does not affect the behavior of other countries. Kisangani and Pickering (2007) report some significant
associations, but they are sensitive to model specification, while Tir and Jasinski (2008) find a clearer link between
economic underperformance and increased attacks on domestic ethnic minorities. While none of these works has
focused on territorial diversions, my own inconsistent findings for economic growth fit well with the mixed results
reported in the literature.15 Hypothesis 1 thus receives strong support via the unpopularity variable but only weak

These results suggest that embattled leaders

are much more likely to respond with territorial diversions to direct signs
of their unpopularity (e.g., strikes, protests, riots) than to general
background conditions such as economic malaise. Presumably, protesters can be
support via the economic growth variable.

distracted via territorial diversions while fixing the economy would take a more concerted and prolonged policy
effort. Bad economic conditions seem to motivate only the most serious, fatal territorial confrontations. This implies
that leaders may be reserving the most high-profile and risky diversions for the times when they are the most
desperate, that is when their power is threatened both by signs of discontent with their rule and by more systemic
problems plaguing the country (i.e., an underperforming economy).

Impossible to predict the economic benefits

Khimm, 13 (Suzy, How much will immigration reform cost?, February 1 st, 2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/01/how-much-willimmigration-reform-cost/)
Theres a lot of evidence pointing to the economic benefits of adding more legal immigrants to the economy.

Whats less clear is how much a comprehensive immigration overhaul would

affect the federal budget. While more legal immigrants could cost taxpayers more in health care,

education, and other social services, they would also contribute more tax revenues. Ultimately, there will be a lot of
political pressure to produce a reform that costs as little as possible, possibly even reducing the deficit in the long
term. In 2007,

the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the Senates proposed

bipartisan immigration reform would increase the deficit by about $18 billion over 10
years, but would have a relatively small net effect on the deficit over 20 years. Heres how that number breaks
down: Direct federal spending on immigrants would cost $23 billion over 10 years, mostly because of Medicaid and
refundable tax credits. At the same time, the overhaul would generate $48 billion in new revenue, mostly through
increased Social Security taxes. So under the 2007 overhaul, newly legal immigrants would have generated far
more revenue than they take in from the government. Its partly because most undocumented immigrants are
working age and wouldnt immediately incur major Social Security and Medicare costs. Its also because the 2007
bill required immigrants to pay back taxes and forced them to wait for years before receiving federal benefits.

the process of implementing reform itself setting up a legalization process, new

carries its own price tag, of $43 billion over 10 years. So
ultimately, CBO estimated that the total cost of the 2007 immigration overhaul was
$18 billion. How would the math work out now? Since neither Congress nor the White House has
actually put out a bill, its not clear . But there are a few things that we do know: Obamacare
However,

enforcement measures, and so forth

expanded federal health insurance, and an estimated 7 million undocumented immigrants might theoretically
qualify for coverage under its provisions, as my colleague Sarah Kliff explains. That could add to the cost of
immigration reform, depending on how many ultimately became legal citizens and how long they would have to
wait to receive benefits. (Both the White House and the Senate gang agree that undocumented immigrants with
provisional legal status wouldnt qualify for benefits.) At the same time, it could also introduce a large number of
younger, healthier people into insurance pools, which could potentially reduce overall insurance costs, says Michael
Fix, senior vice-president of the Migration Policy Institute. The jury is still really out. Its also unclear what the
cost of implementation will be: As Ive reported earlier, weve already hit most of the 2007 targets for border
security, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And the Senate Gang of Eights plan is vague about what
securing our border will really mean this time around. Most of the security reforms involve more use of
technology, rather than personnel, but the government already has a track record of investing into tech-driven
boondoggles in the name of border security. So

the price tag of immigration reform will really depend

on legislative debate that Congress has begun to wade into. There will be a lot of
pressure on Congress to produce a bill thats either revenue-neutral or will actually reduce the deficit, both by
restricting any federal spending on immigrants and limiting the upfront appropriations on implementation.

AT: Competitiveness Impact

The US already has an overwhelming technological lead
RAND, 08 (June 12th, 2008, RAND Corporation for policy analysis, US still leads
the world in science and technology, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200806/rc-usl061008.php)
The United States accounts for 40 percent of the total world's spending on
scientific research and development, employs 70 percent of the world's Nobel
Prize winners and is home to three-quarters of the world's top 40 universities. An inflow of foreign
students in the sciences -- as well as scientists and engineers from overseas -- has helped the
United States build and maintain its worldwide lead, even as many other
nations increase their spending on research and development . Continuing this
flow of foreign-born talent is critical to helping the United States maintain its lead, according to the study. " Much
of the concern about the United States losing its edge as the world's
leader in science and technology appears to be unfounded," said Titus Galama, coauthor of the report and a management scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "But the United States
cannot afford to be complacent. Effort is needed to make sure the nation maintains or even extends its standing."

U.S. investments in research and development have not lagged in recent years, but
instead have grown at rates similar to what has occurred elsewhere in the world -- growing even faster
than what has been seen in Europe and Japan. While China is investing heavily in research

and development, it does not yet account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which
continues to be dominated by the United States, Europe and Japan, according to RAND researchers. However, other
nations are rapidly educating their populations in science and technology. For instance, the European Union and
China each are graduating more university-educated scientists and engineers every year than the United States.
Policymakers often receive advice from ad hoc sources. Although their viewpoints are valuable, they should be
balanced by more complete and critical assessments of U.S. science and technology, said report co-author James
Hosek, a RAND senior economist. The absence of a balanced assessment can feed a public misperception that

U.S. science and technology is failing when in fact it remains strong, even
preeminent.

Its not zero-sum the US can free-ride off other countries

tech
RAND, 08 (July 2008, RAND Corporation for policy analysis, U.S. Competitiveness
in Science and Technology, Report Prepared for the Secretary of Defense,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.pdf)
As with other countries, U.S. economic growth, increase in standard of living, and
S&T progress depend on the United States ability to absorb (make economic use
of) recent innovations made at home or abroad. The rise of R&D and
innovation activity in other nations suggests that the pool of technology
created outside the United States may be growing and that the United
States is likely to benefit from increased productivity from technology
invented abroad. There is no reason to believe that the globalization of
S&T and the rise of other nations impacts the United States capability to
absorb new technology directly, as this capability is to a large extent determined by private sector
know-how, business incentives, consumers willingness to try new technologies, and the legal and regulatory
framework. Some technology applications do not require much S&T capacity, or much knowledge of S&T within the
user community or the general public. For example, solar collectors or filters for water purification can significantly
enhance the productivity of workers in a developing country without the need for them to understand how these
devices work. But many technology applications do require S&T capacity (see Silberglitt et al., 2006a, 2006b). The

S&T capacity of advanced countries, including an educated and technically

astute workforce and public, is the reason why they are highly capable of

implementing new technology, and why developing nations such as China

and India have partial capability, but are well ahead of Latin America, the
Middle East, and Africa in this regard.

AT: High Tech Visas Impacts

Newest, most-qualified report says no shortage
Hickey 13 [Walter, B.S. Applied Mathematics (William and Mary), Politics and
Markets Reporter
Business Insider, A Brand New Report Shows Just How Wrong Silicon Valley Is About
A Tech Worker Shortage, Business Insider, 5/31, http://www.businessinsider.com/abrand-new-report-shows-just-how-wrong-silicon-valleys-claim-of-a-stem-shortage-is2013-5#ixzz2Wcm0nFLe]
A new report from the esteemed Georgetown Center on Education and
the Workforce presents a pretty significant rebuttal to that claim. Released on Wednesday, the
annual report looks at how new college graduates are faring in the recession-era economy.

That it's titled "Hard

you a decent idea on how millennials are doing. Most interesting is

the technology sector numbers. Were there truly a STEM shortage were demand for STEM
majors to exceed supply one would expect that unemployment statistics for
recent STEM graduates would be outstandingly low. The reality? Nope .
Times" should give

From the report: Unemployment seems mostly concentrated in information systems (14.7 %) compared with

hiring tends to be
slower for users of information compared to those who write programs
and create software applications. Let's get a little perspective here. According to the
report, new information science graduates have worse unemployment
than sociology (9.9%), archaeology (12.6%) and English (9.8%) majors. Hard
Times What gives? If there's a STEM shortage, why are one in every eleven
recent computer science graduates out of a job? Why are one in every
seven information science majors out of work if Silicon Valley is so
desperate to import talent? The reality is that from an economic
perspective we don't have a STEM shortage . What we may have is a "STEM majors who
have the skills that Silicon Valley prefers" shortage. But to say we have a STEM shortage is
needlessly hyperbolic .
computer science (8.7%) and mathematics (5.9%). As noted in an earlier report,

We have more high tech works than jobs for them

Salzman et al 4-24 (Hal Salzman is Professor at the John J. Heldrich Center for
Workforce Development and the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public
Policy at Rutgers University. Daniel Kuehn is a doctoral candidate in American
Universitys Department of Economics. B. Lindsay Lowell is Director of Policy Studies
at the Institute for the Study of International Migration, Georgetown University.
GUESTWORKERS IN THE HIGH-SKILL U.S. LABOR MARKET An analysis of supply,
employment, and wage trends Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #359
http://www.epi.org/files/2013/bp359-guestworkers-high-skill-labor-marketanalysis.pdf)
Our examination of the IT labor market, guestworker flows, and the STEM education pipeline finds consistent and

the United States has more than a sufficient supply of

workers available to work in STEM occupations: The flow of U.S. students
(citizens and permanent residents) into STEM fields has been strong over the past
decade, and the number of U.S. graduates with STEM majors appears to
be responsive to changes in employment and wages. For every two students that U.S.
clear trends suggesting that

colleges graduate with STEM degrees, only one is hired into a STEM job. In computer and information science and in
engineering, U.S. colleges graduate 50 percent more students than are hired into those fields each year; of the

computer science graduates not entering the IT workforce, 32 percent say it is because IT jobs are unavailable, and

the
supply of graduates is substantially larger than the demand for them in
industry.
53 percent say they found better job opportunities outside of IT occupations. These responses suggest that

No STEM shortage.

Benderly, January/February 2012 (Beryl Lieff writer for Science Magazine and
Prism, What Scientist Shortage, Columbia Journalism Review, p.
http://www.cjr.org/reports/what_scientist_shortage.php?page=all&print=true)
The senators comments echo the conventional wisdom about Americas
scientific labor force, repeated in countless media articles and broadcasts, and by business and political
leaders all the way up to and including President Obama: we are failing to produce a sufficient
quantity of scientists and engineers and therefore must import large numbers
of foreigners to remain innovative and competitive. Just a pair of recent examples: a Washington Post op-ed
on August 4, 2011, that explained how to curb our engineering shortage and a New York Times story on
November 4, 2011, headlined Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (Its Just so Darn Hard), that highlighted a
call by the president and industry groups for colleges to graduate 10,000 more engineers a year. But

what

we all know, as Senator Cornyn put it, turns out not to be true and the perpetuation of this
myth is discouraging Americans from pursuing scientific careers. Leading experts on the STEM
workforce, including Richard Freeman of Harvard, Michael Teitelbaum of the Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation, Paula Stephan of Georgia State University, Hal Salzman of
Rutgers, Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown, and Norman Matloff of the U niversity of
C alifornia-Davis, have said for years that the US produces ample numbers of
excellent science students . In fact, according to the N ational S cience B oards
authoritative publication Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, the
country turns out three times as many STEM degrees as the economy can
absorb into jobs related to their majors.

AT: Aerospace Impact

Alt cause question of demand not workforce
Blakey 12 [Marion, Aerospace Industries Association president, Saving The
Defense Industrial Base, Breaking Defense, 12/27/12,
http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/27/saving-the-defense-industrial-base/]

If 9/11 brought to an abrupt end Francis Fukuyamas End of History thesis that the spread of liberal democracies

recent events have provided the

United States an even more ominous warning that we must be prepared
and free market capitalism might lead to an era of peace,

to address current and emerging long-term threats to our military

superiority. Certainly, countering Irans ambition to become a nuclear power
and its ongoing efforts to destabilize the Middle East is a real concern. And we must also take
seriously the idea that our strategic Pacific Pivot may need to be implemented quicker than our military
planners initially envisioned. This falls saber rattling between China and Japan over a set of
contested tiny islands in the South China Sea and East China Sea serve as a sobering reminder that America
could well find itself involved in a war between two great Asian powers in
the near future. Unfortunately, these challenges are occurring at a time
when the U.S. defense budget is being significantly squeezed by
tremendous fiscal pressures. And we know from past eras of defense budget
retrenchment that investments in new equipment and research and
development of the new systems and capabilities needed to maintain
Americas vital technological edge are often first on the chopping block .
There is a corollary concern for national defense involving the scientists,
engineers and technicians whose innovation we count on to ensure our
nation remains second to none. AIA has documented how mandatory sequestration
budget cuts will put at risk 2.14 million jobs across the economy . We have a real
concern that once pink slips come to valuable defense workers, we may lose their talents and skills for good.

Visas fail security clearance issues

Blakey 12 [Marion, Aerospace Industries Association president, Saving The
Defense Industrial Base, Breaking Defense, 12/27/12,
http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/27/saving-the-defense-industrial-base/]

A number of factors are leading students away from considering defense-oriented careers. A report released this
October by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) laid it on the line. While a workforce with robust STEM
capabilities is critical to sustaining U.S. preeminence, wrote the authors, Today,

the STEM activities

of the DOD are a small and diminishing part of the nations overall
science and engineering enterprise. The report focused not only on the
lack of DOD STEM programs, but on the difficulty of hiring foreign
nationals for defense work because they cannot obtain security
clearances . Yet they constitute more than 50 percent of Americas new
graduates in STEM disciplines.

AT: Air Power Impact

New weapon systems level the playing field
Goon and Kopp, 10 -- *Graduate of the US Naval Test Pilot School and **First
Class Honours from the University of Western Australia, Ph.D., M.A. from Monash
University, Senior Member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Member of the Institution of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (*Peter
and **Carlo, "A Perspective on the Quadrennial Defense Review", Air Power
Australia, February 10th 2010, June 1st 2010, http://www.ausairpower.net/APANOTAM-100210-1.html)
In the air combat domain, anti-access and area-denial weapons
technologies comprise rapidly deployable, highly mobile advanced radars
and Surface to Air Missile systems, counter-stealth radars, passive
geolocation sensors, and advanced digital air defence C4 networks, all of

which were developed to work in concert with advanced fighter aircraft such as the Su-35S Flanker and the stealthy,
F-22-like Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA, unveiled last week. In the maritime combat domain, anti-access and area-denial
weapons technologies comprise advanced air, sea, sub and coastal battery launched supersonic anti-ship cruise
missiles (ASCM), terminally guided anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM), quiet submarines armed with digital

In the basing domain, proliferating cruise

missiles and terminally guided ballistic missiles render many existing US
foreign bases effectively unusable for deployment of aircraft, warships
and ground forces, and the logistical elements needed to sustain these.
These weapons are now seriously challenging the ability of the United
States and its close allies to conduct military interventions in many parts
of the world. A nation which is equipped with much less than the full gamut of anti-access and area-denial
torpedoes, including supercavitating designs.

weapons will be in the position to hold key US and allied in theatre assets at serious risk. Over the coming decade,

this trend will drive the United States toward disproportionate responses
if a contingency demands intervention, as many elements of the existing
and currently planned US force structure will simply be unusable.

Air power not key -to overall power or deterrence their

evidence is biased
Axe 9 (David, military correspondent, regular contributor to The Washington
Times, C-SPAN, and Wired, 3/30/9, http://www.warisboring.com/2009/03/30/f-22sversus-russias-rusting-ramshackle-air-force/)

Analyst Gregory Martin, a retired Air Force general, said the erosion of world influence is largely the result of weak
public support for the F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters, which are built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop

In
other words, stealth fighters equal national power. And the absence of stealth fighters equals
weakness. Hogwash . The economic crisis is having an effect on every country, unevenly. Arguably, the U.S. is
faring better than most as investors flee to the comparative safety of the dollar. Power in the world is a
relative thing: if everyone else gets much weaker, and we stay the same or only grow a little weak, then we
Grumman. If you cant afford that [mix], then your national objectives have to be scaled back, Martin said.

are, in fact, more powerful than we were before. Get it? The global recession, alone, does not mean we are losing
influence. In fact, the recession might even boost our influence, by underscoring just how much the world depends

power does not hinge on

fighter jets. We could retire every single fighter in the U.S. Air Force, tomorrow, and
still remain the most powerful nation in the world, by far. National power is a complex and
on America as a consumer market. But more importantly, American national

shifting thing, comprising military force, financial and cultural influence, leadership in international coalitions and
organizations and even language. Every country in the world teaches American English to its business students,
aviators and sea captains. Does that have anything to do with the F-22? Do some of our biggest exports music,
movies and television depend on a squadron of F-35s flying orbits over North Dakota? Ignore the noise coming

out of Washingtons punditocracy as the Obama Administration shapes its first defense budget. And when that
budget is published, and it (inevitably) includes cuts to Air Force fighter programs, take a deep breath before

Nearly everyone telling you we must buy a given quantity of stealth

fighters, or lose global influence, has a financial stake in advocating such purchases.
Of the speakers at the Wednesday confab: * Loren Thompson, from the Lexington Institute, runs a private
consultancy for the defense industry, with clients including Lockheed Martin * Thompsons colleague, Rebecca
Grant, also runs her own consultancy for the defense industry * Gregory Martin has been a
Northrop Grumman consultant The U.S. Air Force is in deep trouble, but its trouble of its own making. And
its testimony to just how overwhelming, and sustainable, is Americas
military, cultural, linguistic and financial dominance in the world that our
primary military air service can commit slow, institutional suicide without
alarming too many people, aside from a few hardware nerds like me and the consultants who get rich
panicking and consider:

gabbing about certain pointy airplanes on behalf of wealthy corporate clients.

AT: Bioweapons Impact

No risk of weaponization risk is exaggerated
Johnson, at the Wall Street Journal, 8/11/2K10 (Keith, "Gaisn in Bioscience Cause
Terror Fears",
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703722804575369394068436132.
html//arnav-kejriwal)

Fears of bioterror have been on the rise since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, stoking tens of billions of dollars of
government spending on defenses, and the White House and Congress continue to push for new measures. But the

fear of a mass-casualty terrorist attack using bioweapons has always been

tempered by a single fact: Of the scores of plots uncovered during the past decade,
none have featured biological weapons. Indeed, many experts doubt
terrorists even have the technical capability to acquire and weaponize deadly
bugs. The new fear, though, is that scientific advances that enable amateur scientists to carry out once-exotic

experiments, such as DNA cloning, could be put to criminal use. Many well-known figures are sounding the alarm
over the revolution in biological science, which amounts to a proliferation of know-howif not the actual pathogens.
"Certain areas of biotechnology are getting more accessible to people with malign intent," said Jonathan Tucker, an
expert on biological and chemical weapons at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Geneticist
Craig Venter said last month at the first meeting of a presidential commission on bioethics, "If students can order
any [genetic sequences] online, somebody could try to make the Ebola virus." Mr. Venter is a pioneer in the field
whose creation of a synthetic organism this spring helped push the debate about the risks and rewards of
bioscience from scientific journals to the corridors of power in Washington. "We are limited more by our imagination
now than any technological limitations," Mr. Venter said. Scientists have the ability to manipulate genetic material
more quickly and more cheaply all the time. Just as "Moore's Law" describes the accelerating pace of advances in
computer science, advances in biology are becoming more potent and accessible every year, experts note. As
recently as a decade ago, the tools and techniques for such fiddling were confined to a handful of laboratories like
those at leading research universities. Today, do-it-yourself biology clubs have sprung up where part-timers share

movement has
been aided by gear that can turn a backyard shed into a microbiology lab .
That has prompted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to reach out to
amateur biologists, teaching them proper security measures and asking
them to be vigilant of unscrupulous scientists. "The risk we're seeing now is that these
tips on how to build high-speed centrifuges, isolate genetic material, and the like. The

procedures are becoming easier to do," said Edward You, who heads the outreach program at the FBI's Directorate
for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Biological weapons date back millennia . Rotting and
plague-stricken corpses once were catapulted over besieged city walls. Wells were routinely poisoned. More

fears that terrorist groups such as al Qaeda might deploy weapons

of mass destruction have kindled fears of bioterrorism . Those fears
reached fever pitch in the months after the World Trade Center was
downed, when anthrax-filled mail killed five people and prompted panic. That's
recently,

when Washington started boosting spending on biodefense, improving security at laboratories that work with
dangerous pathogens and stockpiling antidotes. Last fall, President Barack Obama ordered the creation of a
bioethics commission, and the group spent much of its first meeting parsing the threat of biological terrorism. He

issued an executive order earlier this month to beef up security for the
most dangerous pathogens, which include anthrax, ebola, tularensis, smallpox and the
reconstructed 1918 Spanish flu bug. Both houses of Congress have legislation in the
works to strengthen the country's ability to detect, prevent and, if necessary,
recover from large-scale attacks using bioweapons. All the government
attention comes despite the absence of known terrorist plots involving
biological weapons. According to U.S. counterterrorism officials, al Qaeda last actively tried
to work with bioweaponsspecifically anthraxbefore the 2001 invasion of that
uprooted its leadership from Afghanistan. While terrorists have on occasion used
chemical weaponssuch as chlorine and sarin gasnone have yet employed a
biological agent, counterterrorism officials and bioweapons researchers say. The U.S.
anthrax attacks were ultimately blamed on a U.S. scientist with access to
also

military bioweapons programs. That's why many experts caution that,

despite scientific advances, it is still exceedingly tough for terrorists to
isolate or create, mass produce and deploy deadly bugs. Tens of thousands
of Soviet scientists spent decades trying to weaponize pathogens, with
mixed results. Though science has advanced greatly since the Cold War, many of the same challenges
remain. "I don't think the threat is growing, but quite the opposite," said
Milton Leitenberg, a biological-weapons expert at the Center for International and
Security Studies at the University of Maryland. Advances in biological science and the proliferation of
knowledge are a given, he said, but there has been no indication they are
being used by terrorists. "The idea that four guys in a cave are going to
create bioweapons from scratchthat will be never, ever, ever," he said.

Technical barriers make bio-terror impossible our ev cites 5

specific obstacles.
National Journal 05 (April 23rd lexis)
some experts have oversimplified
the significant technical challenges to building catastrophic biological
weapons and have overestimated the abilities of terrorist groups to
overcome them. "How do you kill a lot of people? There, you've got to get involved with airborne, deadly
Technical Challenges On the other hand, critics argue that

pathogens such as Bacillus anthracis spores, and that's fairly technically demanding to do," Zilinskas said.

Potential difficulties, experts say, include obtaining proper equipment and an

appropriate strain of pathogen; storing and handling the pathogen properly;
growing it to produce a greater quantity; processing it to develop the desirable characteristics; testing it;
and dispersing it. A terrorist group would need to have suitably educated and knowledgeable people, and
sufficient time and freedom from government scrutiny, to do the work, they say. Potentially the
toughest challenge, experts say, is "weaponization" -- processing an agent
to the point that it can resist environmental stresses, survive dissemination, and
increase its ability to infect (pathogenicity) and to harm (toxicity). This is particularly true if the terrorists want to
spray the agent, which is a more effective approach for a mass attack than spreading an agent through human-tohuman contact. "While collection and purification knowledge is widespread among ordinary scientists,
weaponization is obviously a military subject, and much of the knowledge that surrounds it is classified," wrote
Danzig, who believes that terrorists nevertheless might be able to develop catastrophic biological weapons. The key
difficulty for producing an aerosolized weapon, Danzig said, "would be to produce a pathogen formulation in sizes
that would be within the human respiratory range and that could be reliably stored, handled, and spread as a stable
aerosol rather than clump and fall to the ground. Mastering these somewhat contradictory requirements is tricky...
The challenge becomes greater as attackers seek higher concentrations of agent and higher efficiency in

Stanford's Chyba agrees on the difficulties of weaponization. "Aerosolization

is clearly [a] serious hurdle. I just find it hard, currently, to imagine a Qaeda offshoot
-- or, for that matter, any of the current non-state groups that I have read about -being technically proficient in that." (Note: Danzig is a former Navy secretary who is now a
dissemination."

Pentagon bioterrorism consultant and the Sam Nunn Prize fellow in international security at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies in Washington)

AT: Clean Tech Impact

Clean tech cant compete with fossil fuels still too expensive
Rotman 11 (David Rotman, editor for Technology Review, Praying for an Energy
Miracle, Technology Review, 4, http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/32383/)

In its conference room is a large chart showing the declining cost of electricity produced by solar panels over the
last three decades. The slightly bumpy downward-sloping line is approaching a wide horizontal swath labeled
"grid

parity"the stage at which electricity made using solar power will be

as cheap as power generated from fossil fuels. It is the promised land for renewable
power, and the company, 1366 Technologies, believes its improvements in manufacturing techniques can help

even though siliconbased photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly to electricity, have been coming
down in price for years, they are still too expensive to compete with fossil
fuels. As a result, solar power accounts for far less than 1 percent of U.S. electricity production. And 1366
make it possible for solar power to finally get there. It's an ambitious target:

founder Emanuel Sachs, who is the company's chief technology officer and an MIT professor of mechanical
engineering, says thateven though solar might be "within striking distance" of natural gas, existing solar technology
won't be able to compete with coal. "To displace coal will take another level of cost reduction," says Sachs. That's
where 1366's breakthrough comes in. The company is developing a way to make thin sheets of silicon without
slicing them from solid chunks of the element, a costly chore. "The only way for photovoltaics to compete with coal
is with technologies like ours," he says.The

problem, however, is that we are probably

not just a few breakthroughs away from deploying cheaper, cleaner energy
sources on a massive scale. Though few question the value of developing new energy technologies,
scaling them up will be so difficult and expensive that many policy experts say such advances alone, without the
help of continuing government subsidies and other incentives, will make little impact on our energy mix.

Regardless of technological advances, these experts are skeptical that

renewables are close to achieving grid parity, or that batteries are close
to allowing an electric vehicle to compete with gas-powered cars on price
and range. In the case of renewables, it depends on how you define grid parity and whether you account for
the costs of the storage and backup power systems that become necessary with intermittent power sources like

If you define grid parity as "delivering electricity whenever you

want, in whatever volumes you want," says David Victor, the director of the
Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San
Diego, then today's new renewables aren't even close. And if new energy technologies
solar and wind.

are going to scale up enough to make a dent in carbon dioxide emissions, he adds, "that's the definition that
matters." Not surprisingly, Gross's solution is based on software. Large solar thermal plants cost more than a billion
dollars to build, and one reason for the high cost is that tens of thousands of specially fabricated mirrors have to be
precisely arranged so that they focus the sunlight correctly. But what if you used plain mirrors on a simple metal
rack and then used software to calibrate them, adjusting each one to optimize its position relative to the sun and
the central tower? It would take huge amounts of computing power to manipulate all the mirrors in a utility-scale
power plant, but computing power is cheapfar cheaper than paying engineers and technicians to laboriously

eSolar can
expects to

position the mirrors by hand. The potential savings are impressive, according to Gross; he says that
install a field of mirrors for half what it costs in other solar thermal facilities. As a result, he

produce electricity for approximately 11 cents per kilowatt-hour, enticingly close to the
price of power from a fossil-fuel plant.Still, it's not good enoughat least in the United
States, where natural-gas plants can produce power for around 6 cents
per kilowatt-hour.

Clean tech collapse comingreduced governmental

subsidization, cant compete with fossil fuels, investment
decreasing now
Victor and Yanosek 11 (DAVID G. VICTOR is a Professor at the School of
International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego,

and Director of the school's Laboratory on International Law and Regulation, KASSIA
YANOSEK, Founding Principal of Tana Energy Capital LLC, has worked in private
equity and at Bechtel and BP. The Crisis in Clean Energy, Foreign Affairs,
July/August 2011, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67903/david-g-victor-andkassia-yanosek/the-crisis-in-clean-energy)
After years of staggering growth, the clean-energy industry is headed for a crisis . In most
of the Western countries leading the industry, the public subsidies that have propelled it to
25 percent annual growth rates in recent years have now become
politically unsustainable. Temporary government stimulus programs -- which in 2010 supplied one-fifth
of the record investment in clean energy worldwide -- have merely delayed the bad news. Last year, after
20 years of growth, the number of new wind turbine installations dropped
for the first time; in the United States, the figure fell by as much as half.
The market value of leading clean-energy equipment manufacturing
companies has plummeted and is poised to decline further as government
support for the industry erodes.The coming crisis could make some of the
toughest foreign policy challenges facing the United States -- from energy
insecurity to the trade deficit to global warming -- even more difficult to
resolve. The revolution in clean energy was supposed to help fix these
problems while also creating green jobs that would power the economic
recovery. Some niches in clean energy will still be profitable, such as residential rooftop solar installations and
biofuel made from Brazilian sugar cane, which is already competitive with oil. But overall, the picture is grim. This
is true not only for the United States but also for the rest of the world,
because the market for clean-energy technologies is global .Whether this shakeout
will strengthen or weaken the clean-energy industry will depend on how policymakers, notably in the United States,

The root cause of today's troubles is a boom-and-bust cycle of

policies that have encouraged investors to flock to clean-energy projects
that are quick and easy to build rather than invest in more innovative
technologies that could stand a better chance of competing with
conventional energy sources over the long haul . Indeed, nearly seven-eighths
of all clean-energy investment worldwide now goes to deploying existing
technologies, most of which are not competitive without the help of
government subsidies. Only a tiny share of the investment focuses on innovation.
prepare for it.

AT: Warming Impact

No impact to warming
Idso and Idso 11 (Craig D., Founder and Chairman of the Board Center for the
Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and Sherwood B., President Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Carbon Dioxide and Earths
Future Pursuing the Prudent Path, February,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/ prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf)
As presently constituted, earths atmosphere contains just slightly less than 400
ppm of the colorless and odorless gas we call carbon dioxide or CO2. Thats only fourhundredths of one percent . Consequently, even if the air's CO2
concentration was tripled, carbon dioxide would still comprise only a little
over one tenth of one percent of the air we breathe, which is far less than
what wafted through earths atmosphere eons ago, when the planet was a virtual
garden place. Nevertheless, a small increase in this minuscule amount of CO2 is
frequently predicted to produce a suite of dire environmental
consequences, including dangerous global warming, catastrophic sea level rise, reduced agricultural output,
and the destruction of many natural ecosystems, as well as dramatic increases in extreme weather phenomena,

these frightening future

scenarios are derived from a single source of information: the everevolving computer-driven climate models that presume to reduce the
important physical, chemical and biological processes that combine to
determine the state of earths climate into a set of mathematical
equations out of which their forecasts are produced. But do we really know what all of
such as droughts, floods and hurricanes. As strange as it may seem,

those complex and interacting processes are? And even if we did -- which we don't -- could we correctly reduce
them into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the future? Some
people answer these questions in the affirmative. However, as may be seen in the body of this report,

real-

world observations fail to confirm essentially all of the alarming

predictions of significant increases in the frequency and severity of droughts, floods and hurricanes that
climate models suggest should occur in response to a global warming of the magnitude that was experienced by
the earth over the past two centuries as it gradually recovered from the much-lower-than-present temperatures
characteristic of the depths of the Little Ice Age. And other observations have shown that the rising atmospheric
CO2 concentrations associated with the development of the Industrial Revolution have actually been good for the
planet, as they have significantly enhanced the plant productivity and vegetative water use efficiency of earth's
natural and agro-ecosystems, leading to a significant "greening of the earth." In the pages that follow, we
present this oft-neglected evidence via a review of the pertinent scientific literature. In the case of the biospheric
benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, we find that with more CO2 in the air, plants grow bigger and better in
almost every conceivable way, and that they do it more efficiently, with respect to their utilization of valuable
natural resources, and more effectively, in the face of environmental constraints. And when plants benefit, so do all
of the animals and people that depend upon them for their sustenance. Likewise,

in the case of climate

model inadequacies , we reveal their many shortcomings via a comparison

of their "doom and gloom" predictions with real-world observations. And
this exercise reveals that even though the world has warmed substantially
over the past century or more -- at a rate that is claimed by many to have been unprecedented
over the past one to two millennia -- this report demonstrates that none of the
environmental catastrophes that are predicted by climate alarmists to be
produced by such a warming has ever come to pass. And this fact -- that there
have been no significant increases in either the frequency or severity of
droughts, floods or hurricanes over the past two centuries or more of
global warming -- poses an important question. What should be easier to predict: the effects of global
warming on extreme weather events or the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations on global

temperature? The first part of this question should, in principle, be answerable; for it is well defined in terms of the
small number of known factors likely to play a role in linking the independent variable (global warming) with the
specified weather phenomena (droughts, floods and hurricanes). The latter part of the question, on the other hand,
is ill-defined and possibly even unanswerable; for there are many factors -- physical, chemical and biological -- that
could well be involved in linking CO2 (or causing it not to be linked) to global temperature. If, then, today's climate
models cannot correctly predict what should be relatively easy for them to correctly predict (the effect of global
warming on extreme weather events), why should we believe what they say about something infinitely more

we should
pay the models no heed in the matter of future climate -- especially in
terms of predictions based on the behavior of a non-meteorological
parameter (CO2) -- until they can reproduce the climate of the past, based on the behavior of one of the most
complex (the effect of a rise in the airs CO2 content on mean global air temperature)? Clearly,

basic of all true meteorological parameters (temperature). And even if the models eventually solve this part of the

we should still reserve judgment on their forecasts of global

warming; for there will yet be a vast gulf between where they will be at
that time and where they will have to go to be able to meet the much
greater challenge to which they aspire
problem,

Warming is irreversible
ANI 10 (IPCC has underestimated climate-change impacts, say scientists, 3-20,
One India, http://news.oneindia.in/2010/03/20/ipcchas-underestimated-climatechange-impacts-sayscientis.html)
According to Charles H. Greene, Cornell professor of Earth and atmospheric
science, " Even if all man-made greenhouse gas emissions were stopped

tomorrow and carbon-dioxide levels stabilized at today's concentration, by the end of this
century, the global average temperature would increase by about 4.3
degrees Fahrenheit, or about 2.4 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, which is
significantly above the level which scientists and policy makers agree is a
threshold for dangerous climate change." "Of course, greenhouse gas
emissions will not stop tomorrow, so the actual temperature increase will
likely be significantly larger, resulting in potentially catastrophic impacts to society unless other
steps are taken to reduce the Earth's temperature," he added. "Furthermore, while the oceans have slowed the
amount of warming we would otherwise have seen for the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the
ocean's thermal inertia will also slow the cooling we experience once we finally reduce our greenhouse gas

This means that the temperature rise we see this century will
be largely irreversible for the next thousand years. "Reducing greenhouse
gas emissions alone is unlikely to mitigate the risks of dangerous climate
change," said Green.
emissions," he said.

Sulfate aerosols chec

Hausfather 8 Zeke, Regular Contributor to the Yale Forum on Climate Change,
June 24th, [COMMON CLIMATE MISCONCEPTIONS Why Reducing Sulfate Aerosol
Emissions Complicates Efforts to Moderate Climate Change The Yale Forum on
Climate Change and the Media,
http://yaleclimatemediaforum.org/ccm/0608_sulphate_aerosol_emissions.htm]
With all the attention surrounding carbon dioxide these days, it is easy to forget that there are a number of
other important natural and human-driven factors ("forcings" in climate circles) that
influence Earth's climate. Among the most important of these are sulfate
aerosols, microscopic particles smaller than a millionth of a meter suspended in the air. Sulfate
aerosols are produced primarily from sulphur dioxide (SO2) emitted during
the combustion of fossil fuels. Along with ozone precursors, they are primary causes of acid rain
and of lung irritation and ground-level haze or smog in polluted areas . Sulfate aerosols also have a
strong cooling effect on Earth, both through their ability to scatter

incoming light and because of their propensity to increase cloud formation

and reflectivity. Among the most significant changes in climate change modeling between the 2001 IPCC
Third Assessment Report (TAR) and the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007 was a revision of the expected
trajectory of human-induced sulfate aerosol emissions. In the earlier report, scientists assumed that aerosols would
increase in rough proportional to economic growth. The authors of the 2007 report realized that emissions of
aerosols, which have direct and immediate negative health effects to those in the area surrounding their emission,
will likely be targeted for reductions as countries like China and India become wealthier. This emissions reduction

Sulfate aerosols are the

most significant substance in a category of aerosols tending to help cool
the climate. Aerosols decrease radiative forcing in two ways: through
direct aerosol effects as a result of an increased scattering and absorption
of incoming solar radiation, and through indirect effects resulting from
their ability to serve as cloud condensation nuclei. An increased number
of cloud condensation nuclei have a number of different effects: they
increase the reflectivity of clouds by making them denser and giving them
higher liquid water content, they increase the height of clouds, and they
increase cloud lifetime. Figure One, below, shows the major climate forcings over the past 120 years.
would mirror a similar process that occurred in Europe and the United States.

The major positive forcings include CO2 at 1.66 watts per meter squared (W m-2), methane (CH4) at 0.46 W m-2,
nitrous oxide (N2O) at 0.16 W m-2, and various halocarbons (CFCs, HCFCs, etc.) at 0.34 W m-2. Aerosol direct
effects account for -0.5 0.4 W m-2 negative forcing, with SO2 comprising -0.4 W m-2. Indirect effects are around
-0.7 W m-2, with a large uncertainty range of -1.8 to -0.3 W m-2. Aerosols are the primary reason why Earth is still
at around 380 parts per million CO2-equivilent (CO2e), rather than the 460 ppm CO2e projected if all the positive
forcings were added together. Conveniently enough,

aerosols pretty much cancel out the

warming

from all the non-CO2 greenhouse gases. 0608_ccm_Fig1.jpg - 31186 Bytes Figure One. Radiative
forcing of major climate factors over the past 123 years. Figure from Hansen et al 2005. There are a number of
different projections for sulfate aerosol emissions over the next century based on assumptions regarding the rate of
economic growth, population growth, and technological development. Figure Two, below, shows an aggregation of
all models of anthropogenic sulfate emissions used in the most recent IPCC report. Specific scenarios vary widely,
but the median value across all models results by the year 2100 in sulfate aerosol emissions of 35 million metric
tons, roughly one half of current emissions. 0608_ccm_Fig2.jpg - 55341 Bytes Figure Two. Projections of future
aerosol emissions for SRES (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) and post-SRES scenarios. Figure from the third
working group of the latest IPCC report. A reduction of anthropogenic SO2 of around 50 percent worldwide over the
next century, as projected in the most recent IPCC report, would result in a significant warming effect on the global
climate. Sulfates are extremely short-lived particles, and emission reductions would have immediate effects on
radiative forcing. A 50 percent reduction in sulfate aerosol emissions would reduce by half their current radiative
forcing of -0.83 W m-2. This change in forcings would increase global temperatures by roughly 0.36 degrees C (.64
F) relative to a scenario where aerosol emissions remain constant. Figure three below shows the practical
implications of a reduction in aerosols in the next century. If current greenhouse gas concentrations remain constant
at current levels, scientists project about 1.34 degrees C (2.41 F) warming relative to pre-industrial temperatures by
the end of the century (the world has already warmed 0.74 degrees C (1.33 F) in the past century, and 0.60 degrees
C (1.08F) additional warming is in the pipeline as a result of Earth's thermal inertia). A reduction of anthropogenic
atmospheric sulfate aerosols by 50 percent means that 1.34 degrees C (2.41 F) warming suddenly becomes 1.70
degrees C (3.06 F). Constant 2005 GHG Concentrations Constant SO2 1.34 degrees C (2.41 F) Reduced SO2 1.70

Based on a simple calculation of radiative forcings of

the current atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases at
equilibrium, assuming a climate sensitivity of roughly 0.87 degrees K. Also
assuming that anthropogenic SO2 represent only 72 percent of total
atmospheric SO2 flux and that the indirect aerosol effects of SO2 account
for around 62 percent of total indirect aerosol forcing , or -0.43 W m-2
degrees C (3.06 F) Figure Three.

AT: Cyberwar Impact

No risk of cyber war
Clark 12

(MA candidate Intelligence Studies @ American Military University, senior analyst Chenega
Federal Systems, 4/28/12 (Paul, The Risk of Disruption or Destruction of Critical U.S. Infrastructure by an Offensive
Cyber Attack, American Military University)

Homeland Security worries that our critical infrastructure and

key resources (CIKR) may be exposed, both directly and indirectly, to multiple threats
because of CIKR reliance on the global cyber infrastructure, an infrastructure that is
under routine cyberattack by a spectrum of malicious actors (National
Infrastructure Protection Plan 2009). CIKR in the extremely large and complex U.S. economy spans
multiple sectors including agricultural, finance and banking, dams and water resources, public health
and emergency services, military and defense, transportation and shipping, and energy (National
The Department of

Infrastructure Protection Plan 2009). The disruption and destruction of public and private infrastructure is part of
warfare, without this infrastructure conflict cannot be sustained (Geers 2011). Cyber-attacks are desirable because

prior to the creation

of Stuxnet, the first cyber-weapon, the ability to disrupt and destroy critical
infrastructure through cyber-attack was theoretical. The movement of an
offensive cyber-weapon from conceptual to actual has forced the U nited
States to question whether offensive cyber-attacks are a significant threat
they are considered to be a relatively low cost and long range weapon (Lewis 2010), but

that are able to disrupt or destroy CIKR to the level that national security is seriously degraded. It is important to
understand the risk posed to national security by cyber-attacks to ensure that government responses are

The risk posed to

CIKR from cyber-attack can be evaluated by measuring the threat from
cyber-attack against the vulnerability of a CIKR target and the consequences
of CIKR disruption. As the only known cyber-weapon, Stuxnet has been thoroughly
analyzed and used as a model for predicting future cyber-weapons. The
U.S. electrical grid, a key component in the CIKR energy sector, is a target that has been
analyzed for vulnerabilities and the consequences of disruption predicted the electrical
grid has been used in multiple attack scenarios including a classified scenario provided to
appropriate to the threat and balance security with privacy and civil liberty concerns.

the U.S. Congress in 2012 (Rohde 2012). Stuxnet will serve as the weapon and the U.S. electrical grid will serve as
the target in

this risk analysis

that

concludes that there is a low risk of

disruption or destruction of critical infrastructure from a an offensive cyber-weapon

because of the complexity of the attack path, the limited capability of nonstate adversaries to develop cyber-weapons, and the existence of multiple
methods of mitigating the cyber-attacks. To evaluate the threat posed by a Stuxnet-like cyberweapon, the complexity of the weapon, the available attack vectors for the weapon, and the resilience of the
weapon must be understood. The complexity how difficult and expensive it was to create the weapon identifies
the relative cost and availability of the weapon; inexpensive and simple to build will be more prevalent than
expensive and difficult to build. Attack vectors are the available methods of attack; the larger the number, the more
severe the threat. For example, attack vectors for a cyberweapon may be email attachments, peer-to-peer
applications, websites, and infected USB devices or compact discs. Finally, the resilience of the weapon determines
its availability and affects its usefulness. A useful weapon is one that is resistant to disruption (resilient) and is
therefore available and reliable. These concepts are seen in the AK-47 assault rifle a simple, inexpensive, reliable
and effective weapon and carry over to information technology structures (Weitz 2012). The evaluation of

Stuxnet identified malware that is unusually complex and large and required
code written in multiple languages (Chen 2010) in order to complete a variety of
specific functions contained in a vast array of components it is one of
the most complex threats ever analyzed by Symantec (Falliere, Murchu and Chien
2011). To be successful, Stuxnet required a high level of technical knowledge
across multiple disciplines, a laboratory with the target equipment
configured for testing, and a foreign intelligence capability to collect

information on the target network and attack vectors (Kerr, Rollins and Theohary
2010). The malware also needed careful monitoring and maintenance because it
could be easily disrupted; as a result Stuxnet was developed with a high degree of configurability and was
upgraded multiple times in less than one year (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011). Once
introduced into the network, the cyber-weapon then had to utilize four known
vulnerabilities and four unknown vulnerabilities , known as zero-day exploits, in order
to install itself and propagate across the target network (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011). Zeroday exploits are incredibly difficult to find and fewer than twelve out of the
12,000,000 pieces of malware discovered each year utilize zero-day exploits and
this rarity makes them valuable, zero-days can fetch $50,000 to $500,000 each on the
black market (Zetter 2011). The use of four rare exploits in a single piece of
malware is unprecedented (Chen 2010). Along with the use of four unpublished exploits,
Stuxnet also used the first ever programmable logic controller rootkit, a
Windows rootkit, antivirus evasion techniques, intricate process injection routines, and
other complex interfaces (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011) all wrapped up in layers of
encryption like Russian nesting dolls (Zetter 2011) including custom encryption algorithms (Karnouskos
2011). As the malware spread across the now-infected network it had to utilize additional
vulnerabilities in proprietary Siemens industrial control software (ICS) and hardware used to
control the equipment it was designed to sabotage. Some of these ICS vulnerabilities were
published but some were unknown and required such a high degree of inside
knowledge that there was speculation that a Siemens employee had been
involved in the malware design (Kerr, Rollins and Theohary 2010). The unprecedented
technical complexity of

the

Stuxnet

cyber-weapon, along with the extensive technical and

financial resources and foreign intelligence capabilities required for its development and deployment,

indicates

that the malware was likely developed by a nation-state (Kerr, Rollins and Theohary
2010). Stuxnet had very limited attack vectors. When a computer system is connected to the public Internet a host
of attack vectors are available to the cyber-attacker (Institute for Security Technology Studies 2002). Web browser
and browser plug-in vulnerabilities, cross-site scripting attacks, compromised email attachments, peer-to-peer
applications, operating system and other application vulnerabilities are all vectors for the introduction of malware

Networks that are not connected to the

public internet are air gapped, a technical colloquialism to identify a physical separation
between networks. Physical separation from the public Internet is a common
safeguard for sensitive networks including classified U.S. government
networks. If the target network is air gapped, infection can only occur
through physical means an infected disk or USB device that must be
physically introduced into a possibly access controlled environment and connected to the air gapped
into an Internetconnected computer system.

network. The first step of the Stuxnet cyber-attack was to initially infect the target networks, a difficult task given

Stuxnet was
introduced via a USB device to the target network, a method that suggests that the
attackers were familiar with the configuration of the network and knew it was not connected to the public
the probable disconnected and well secured nature of the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Internet (Chen 2010). This assessment is supported by two rare features in Stuxnet having all necessary
functionality for industrial sabotage fully embedded in the malware executable along with the ability to selfpropagate and upgrade through a peer-to-peer method (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011). Developing an
understanding of the target network configuration was a significant and daunting task based on Symantecs
assessment that Stuxnet repeatedly targeted a total of five different organizations over nearly one year (Falliere,
Murchu and Chien 2011) with physical introduction via USB drive being the only available attack vector. The final
factor in assessing the threat of a cyber-weapon is the resilience of the weapon. There are two primary factors that
make Stuxnet non-resilient: the complexity of the weapon and the complexity of the target. Stuxnet was highly
customized for sabotaging specific industrial systems (Karnouskos 2011) and needed a large number of very
complex components and routines in order to increase its chance of success (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011). The
malware required eight vulnerabilities in the Windows operating system to succeed and therefore would have failed
if those vulnerabilities had been properly patched; four of the eight vulnerabilities were known to Microsoft and
subject to elimination (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011). Stuxnet also required that two drivers be installed and

required two stolen security certificates for installation (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011); driver installation would
have failed if the stolen certificates had been revoked and marked as invalid. Finally, the configuration of systems is
ever-changing as components are upgraded or replaced. There is no guarantee that the network that was mapped
for vulnerabilities had not changed in the months, or years, it took to craft Stuxnet and successfully infect the
target network. Had specific components of the target hardware changed the targeted Siemens software or
programmable logic controller the attack would have failed. Threats are less of a threat when identified; this is
why zero-day exploits are so valuable. Stuxnet went to great lengths to hide its existence from the target and
utilized multiple rootkits, data manipulation routines, and virus avoidance techniques to stay undetected. The
malwares actions occurred only in memory to avoid leaving traces on disk, it masked its activities by running under
legal programs, employed layers of encryption and code obfuscation, and uninstalled itself after a set period of
time, all efforts to avoid detection because its authors knew that detection meant failure. As a result of the
complexity of the malware, the changeable nature of the target network, and the chance of discove ry,

Stuxnet is not a resilient system. It is a fragile weapon that required an

investment of time and money to constantly monitor, reconfigure, test and deploy over the
course of a year. There is concern, with Stuxnet developed and available publicly, that the
world is on the brink of a storm of highly sophisticated Stuxnet-derived cyberweapons which can be used by hackers, organized criminals and terrorists
(Chen 2010). As former counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke describes it, there is concern that the technical
brilliance of the United States has created millions of potential monsters all over the world (Rosenbaum 2012).

The techniques behind cyber-attacks are

constantly evolving and making use of lessons learned over time (Institute
for Security Technology Studies 2002) and the publication of the Stuxnet code may make it
easier to copy the weapon (Kerr, Rollins and Theohary 2010). However, this is something of a zero-sum
game because knowledge works both ways and cyber-security techniques are
Hyperbole aside, technical knowledge spreads.

also evolving , and understanding attack techniques more clearly is the first step toward increasing
security (Institute for Security Technology Studies 2002). Vulnerabilities are discovered and
patched, intrusion detection and malware signatures are expanded and
updated, and monitoring and analysis processes and methodologies are expanded
and honed. Once the element of surprise is lost, weapons and tactics are
less useful , this is the core of the argument that uniquely surprising stratagems like Stuxnet
are single-use, like Pearl Harbor and the Trojan Horse, the very success [of these
attacks] precludes their repetition (Mueller 2012). This paradigm has already been seen
in the son of Stuxnet malware named Duqu by its discoverers that is based on the same modular code
platform that created Stuxnet (Ragan 2011). With the techniques used by Stuxnet now
known, other variants such as Duqu are being discovered and countered by
security researchers (Laboratory of Cryptography and System Security 2011). It is obvious that the
effort required to create, deploy, and maintain Stuxnet and its variants is
massive and it is not clear that the rewards are worth the risk and effort.
Given the location of initial infection and the number of infected systems in Iran (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011) it

A significant amount
of money and effort was invested in creating Stuxnet but yet the expected
result assuming that this was an attack that expected to damage production was minimal at best.
Iran claimed that Stuxnet caused only minor damage, probably at the Natanz enrichment facility,
is believed that Iranian nuclear facilities were the target of the Stuxnet weapon.

the Russian contractor Atomstroyeksport reported that no damage had occurred at the Bushehr facility, and an
unidentified senior diplomat suggested that Iran was forced to shut down its centrifuge facility for a few days

Even the most optimistic estimates believe that

Irans nuclear enrichment program was only delayed by months, or perhaps
(Kerr, Rollins and Theohary 2010).

years (Rosenbaum 2012). The actual damage done by Stuxnet is not clear (Kerr, Rollins and Theohary 2010) and
the primary damage appears to be to a higher number than average replacement of centrifuges at the Iran
enrichment facility (Zetter 2011). Different targets may produce different results. The Iranian nuclear facility was a
difficult target with limited attack vectors because of its isolation from the public Internet and restricted access to

What is the probability of a successful attack against the U.S.

electrical grid and what are the potential consequences should this critical infrastructure be disrupted or
its facilities.

power systems are

a high priority target for military and insurgents and there has been a trend towards
destroyed? An attack against the electrical grid is a reasonable threat scenario since

utilizing commercial software and integrating utilities into the public Internet that has increased vulnerability
across the board (Lewis 2010).

Yet

the

increased vulnerabilities are mitigated by

an

increased detection and deterrent capability that has been honed over many
years of practical application now that power systems are using
standard, rather than proprietary and specialized, applications and
components (Leita and Dacier 2012). The security of the electrical grid is also enhanced
by increased awareness after a smart-grid hacking demonstration in 2009
and the identification of the Stuxnet malware in 2010; as a result the public and
private sector are working together in an unprecedented effort to
establish robust security guidelines

and cyber security measures (Gohn and Wheelock 2010).

No risk of cyberattack and no impact if it does happen

Birch, 12 former foreign correspondent for the Associated Press and the Baltimore Sun who has written
extensively on technology and public policy (Douglas, Forget Revolution. Foreign Policy.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/01/forget_revolution?page=full)
"That's a good example of what some kind of attacks would be like," he said. "You don't want to overestimate the
risks. You don't want somebody to be able to do this whenever they felt like it, which is the situation now. But this is
not the end of the world." The question of how seriously to take the threat of a cyber attack on critical infrastructure
surfaced recently, after Congress rejected a White House measure to require businesses to adopt stringent new
regulations to protect their computer networks from intrusions. The bill would have required industries to report
cyber security breaches, toughen criminal penalties against hacking and granted legal immunity to companies
cooperating with government investigations. Critics worried about regulatory overreach. But the potential cost to
industry also seems to be a major factor in the bill's rejection. A January study by Bloomberg reported that banks,
utilities, and phone carriers would have to increase their spending on cyber security by a factor of nine, to $45.3
billion a year, in order to protect themselves against 95 percent of cyber intrusions. Likewise, some of the bill's
advocates suspect that in the aftermath of a truly successful cyber attack, the government would have to bail the
utilities out anyway. Joe Weiss, a cyber security professional and an authority on industrial control systems like
those used in the electric grid, argued that a well-prepared, sophisticated cyber attack could have far more serious
consequences than this summer's blackouts. "The reason we are so concerned is that cyber could take out the grid
for nine to 18 months," he said. "This isn't a one to five day outage. We're prepared for that. We can handle that."

pulling off a cyber assault on that scale is no easy feat. Weiss agreed that hackers
intent on inflicting this kind of long-term interruption of power would need to use a
tool capable of inflicting physical damage. And so far, the world has seen only one
such weapon: Stuxnet, which is believed to have been a joint military project of Israel and
the United States. Ralph Langner, a German expert on industrial-control system security, was among the first
But

to discover that Stuxnet was specifically designed to attack the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system
(SCADA) at a single site: Iran's Natanz uranium-enrichment plant. The computer worm's sophisticated programs,
which infected the plant in 2009, caused about 1,000 of Natanz's 5,000 uranium-enrichment centrifuges to selfdestruct by accelerating their precision rotors beyond the speeds at which they were designed to operate.

Professionals like Weiss and others warned that Stuxnet was opening a Pandora's Box : Once
it was unleashed on the world, they feared, it would become available to hostile states,
criminals, and terrorists who could adapt the code for their own nefarious purposes.
But two years after the discovery of Stuxnet, there are no reports of similar attacks
against the United States. What has prevented the emergence of such copycat viruses? A 2009 paper
published by the University of California, Berkeley, may offer the answer. The report, which was released a
year before Stuxnet surfaced, found that in order to create a cyber weapon capable of
crippling a specific control system -- like the ones operating the U.S. electric grid -six coders might have to work for up to six months to reverse engineer the targeted
center's SCADA system. Even then, the report says, hackers likely would need the help of
someone with inside knowledge of how the network's machines were wired together
to plan an effective attack. "Every SCADA control center is configured differently ,

with different devices, running different software/protocols ," wrote Rose Tsang, the report's
author. Professional hackers are in it for the money -- and it's a lot more cost-efficient
to search out vulnerabilities in widely-used computer programs like the Windows operating
system, used by banks and other affluent targets, than in one-of-a-kind SCADA systems linked to generators and

only the world's industrial nations have the means to use the
Internet to attack utilities and major industries. But given the integrated global
economy, there is little incentive, short of armed conflict, for them to do so. "If
you're a state that has a number of U.S. T-bills in your treasury, you have an
economic interest in the United States," he said. "You're not going to have an interest
in mucking about with our infrastructure." There is also the threat of retaliation . Last
year, the U.S. government reportedly issued a classified report on cyber strategy that
said it could respond to a devastating digital assault with traditional military force .
The idea was that if a cyber attack caused death and destruction on the scale of a military assault, the United
States would reserve the right to respond with what the Pentagon likes to call "kinetic"
weapons: missiles, bombs, and bullets. An unnamed Pentagon official, speaking to the Wall Street Journal,
summed up the policy in less diplomatic terms: " If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will
put a missile down one of your smokestacks." Deterrence is sometimes dismissed as a toothless
switches. According to Pollard,

strategy against cyber attacks because hackers have such an easy time hiding in the anonymity of the Web. But

investigators typically come up with key suspects , if not smoking guns, following cyber
intrusions and assaults -- the way suspicions quickly focused on the United States and Israel after Stuxnet
was discovered. And with the U.S. military's global reach, even terror groups have to
factor in potential retaliation when planning their operations.

Zero risk of cyber attack- new studies

Leyden 11

(The ill-informed leading the ill-informed... By John Leyden Get more from this author Posted in
Government, 17th January 2011 11:23 GMT)

Cyberwar hype is inhibiting government attempts to develop an

appropriate response to cybersecurity threats, say computer scientists. A
heavyweight study by UK computer scientists for the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) concludes that it is "highly unlikely" there will
ever be a "pure cyber war, comparable with recent conflicts in Afghanistan or the Balkans.
Suggestions to the contrary are down to "heavy lobbying" by suppliers , the
report's authors Professor Peter Sommer of the London School of Economics and Dr Ian Brown of the Oxford
Internet Institute, University of Oxford conclude. It is unlikely that there will ever be a true cyberwar .

The
reasons are: many critical computer systems are protected against known
exploits and malware so that designers of new cyberweapons have to
identify new weaknesses and exploits; the effects of cyberattacks are
difficult to predict on the one hand they may be less powerful than hoped
but may also have more extensive outcomes arising from the
interconnectedness of systems, resulting in unwanted damage to
perpetrators and their allies. More importantly, there is no strategic reason why any aggressor
would limit themselves to only one class of weaponry.

AT: US-India Impact

Relations wont collapse over Visa policy

Daily News and Analysis 10 [U.S. politicians are trying to save their jobs]
New Yorks Democrat senator Charles Schumer calls Infosys a chop shop. The US government hikes
visa fees for Indian companies which employ more than 50% of H1B and L1
visa holders. President Barack Obama asserts that his policies will ensure American jobs do not any more go
to China, India or Germany. Do these smoke signals add up to a serious crisis point
for Indo-US relations? Probably not. These straws should be seen as nothing more than a
political game which has marginal economic significance for the two countries. Indo-US business
relations are nowhere near the brink, and they do not spell doom for
either side immediately or in the future. It has been customary in India to read a little too
much into every American posture in the business arena, but the time has come to treat American politicians in the
same way that we do our ours with amusement, if not disdain. It is not surprising that American politicians make
the usual loud and ineffective noises about saving American jobs. They are actually trying to save their own jobs .

AT: US-China Impact

Export and visa controls deter potential talent now

National Academies, 1-8-09, National Security Controls on Science and

Technology Are Broken and Should Be Restructured,
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12567
Many U.S. export and visa controls, developed during the Cold
War era to prevent the transfer of technological and scientific advances to
our enemies, now harm U.S. national security and economic prosperity, says a new report from the
WASHINGTON --

National Research Council. The current regulations were designed for a world that no longer exists and are
unsuitable for today's adversaries. Immediate executive action is needed to restructure this system to prevent
further declines in U.S. scientific and technological competitiveness .
"In the modern
globalized world of science and technology, restrictions on the flow of information, technology, and scientists can
negatively impact both U.S. competitiveness and security," said John Hennessy, president of Stanford University

The current system of export

controls and visa regulations uses a series of lists to inform the licensing
decisions of the departments of State and Commerce , including the United States
Munitions List and the Commerce Control List. Items are regularly added to the lists but
rarely taken off. According to the report, this list-based system has become a
"technological Maginot Line." Due to restrictions on the transfer of military technology, current
and co-chair of the committee that wrote the report.

export controls slow maintenance of military equipment, discourage foreign defense contractors from purchasing
U.S. equipment, and hamper international trade that could provide valuable information on the technical
capabilities of foreign militaries. In business, U.S. restrictions provide a road map for foreign competitors,

Visa
controls and "deemed export controls," the transfer of dual-use
technology or source code to foreign nationals within the U.S., have made
U.S. laboratories and universities less attractive to foreign researchers
and have helped drive knowledge-intensive jobs overseas. Significant changes are
highlighting the specific technologies and products in which other countries should invest research dollars.

needed to create a system that is protective of both national security and economic prosperity.
"[The United
States] needs to change to a philosophy that everything is open and restricted only when it is demonstrated that it
needs to be," said committee co-chair Brent Scowcroft, president of the Scowcroft Group and former U.S. national

To ensure that the U.S. has access to the most talented

scientists, the visa application process should incorporate skills-based
preferential processing and should be streamlined so that legitimate
foreign researchers and students have an easier time entering the United States.
security adviser.

Student visas should be extended so that recent graduates have time to find work with U.S.-based employers, and

qualified U.S. scientists should be allowed to vouch for the technical

credibility and legitimacy of visa applicants in their field as a means of
aiding consular officials and expediting the application process .

AT: Ag Impacts
Labor shortage is inevitable reform is irrelevant
Plumer 1-29 (Brad, Were Running out of Farm Workers. Immigration Reform
Wont Help Wonkblog @ The Washington Post)
But looser immigration laws may not be able to keep our food cheap forever. A
recent study suggests that U.S. farms could well face a shortage of low-cost labor in the years
ahead no matter what Congress does on immigration . Thats because Mexico is getting
richer and can no longer supply as many rural farm workers to the United States. And it wont be nearly as easy to
import low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere. For decades, farms in the United States have relied heavily
on low-wage foreign workers mainly from Mexico to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural
workers in the United States were foreign-born. (And half of those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.)
All that cheap labor has helped keep down U.S. food prices, particularly for labor-intensive fruits and vegetables.
But that labor pool is now drying up. In recent years, weve seen a spate of headlines like this from CNBC:
California Farm Labor Shortage Worst Its Been, Ever. Typically, these stories blame drug-related violence on the
Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the decline. Hence the call for new guest-worker programs. But a

Mexico is getting
richer. And, when a country gets richer, its pool of rural agricultural labor
shrinks. Not only are Mexican workers shifting into other sectors like construction, but Mexicos own farms are
increasing wages. That means U.S. farms will have to pay higher and higher
wages to attract a dwindling pool of available Mexican farm workers.
new paper from U.C. Davis offers up a simpler explanation for the labor shortage.

Immigrants wont come low wages

Taylor and Charlton 3-8 (J. Edward and Diane, Taylor is a Prof of Ag and
Resource Economics and Director of the Center on Rural Economies of the
Americans and Pacific Rim @ the U of California Davis, and Charlton is a PhD
Student in Ag and Resource Economics @ UC Davis, Oxford University Press, Why
Are Mexicans Leaving Farm Work, And What Does This Mean for US Farmers)
http://blog.oup.com/2013/03/mexicans-farm-work-united-states/
Agriculture in North America traditionally has had its comparative advantage in having access to abundant low-

Around 70% of the United States hired farm workforce is

Mexico-born, according to the National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS). Fruit, vegetable, and horticultural
skilled labor from Mexico.

farms in the US have enjoyed an extended period of farm labor abundance with stable or decreasing real wages.
However ,

new panel data reveal a declining long- term trend in the farm
labor supply in rural Mexico. In coming years, US farmers will need to offer
higher wages to induce new workers to migrate northward to US farm
jobs.

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

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
Thursday. James said

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 resourcepoor, 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.

Ag labor shortages are exaggerated

Martin 7 (Philip Martin, professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California,
Davis, 07, Farm Labor Shortages: How Real? What Response?
http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back907.html)
News reports and editorials suggest widespread farm labor shortages.

The Los Angeles Times described a

nationwide farm worker shortage threatening to leave fruits and vegetables rotting in fields.1 The Wall Street Journal in a July 20, 2007, editorial claimed that farmers
nationwide are facing their most serious labor shortage in years. The editorial asserted that 20 percent of American agricultural products were stranded at the farm gate
in 2006, including a third of North Carolina cucumbers, and predicted that crop losses in California would hit 30 percent in 2007. The Wall Street Journal editorial continued that,
since growers can only afford to pay so much and stay competitive, some U.S. growers are moving fruit and vegetable production abroad. The New York Times profiled a
southern California vegetable grower who rented land in Mexico to produce lettuce and broccoli because, the grower asserted: I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I did

These reports of farm labor shortages are not

accompanied by data that would buttress the anecdotes, like lower production of fruits and
vegetables or a rise in farm wages as growers scrambled for the fewer workers available. There is
a simple reason. Fruit and vegetable production is rising, the average earnings of farm workers
are not going up extraordinarily fast, and consumers are not feeling a pinch the cost of fresh fruits and
that [raise U.S. wages] I would raise my costs and I would not have a legal work force.2

vegetables has averaged about $1 a day for most households over the past decade.

Failing agriculture infrastructure causes high food prices

UN Committee on Transport 8 United Nations Economic and Social Council,
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC, TRANSPORT
AND POVERTY: FROM FARM TO MARKETEXTENDING THE REACH OF LOGISTICS,
http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/ct2008/ctr_2e.pdf
SUMMARY Recent increases in the price of food and concerns over its availability
and access to it have focused attention on overcoming problems related to the
transport of agricultural food products. Rising transport costs can account for
up to two thirds of food prices. In addition, spoilage between farm and market as a result of

inadequate transport, storage and processing render a large share of perishable food unusable, which is having a
major impact on the poorer segment of communities in the region. While food trades are increasingly complex and
some countries have put in place advanced logistics solutions, the majority of the countries in Asia and the Pacific
have yet to establish the infrastructure and institutional frameworks needed to ensure the efficient, seamless
transport of foods from farm to market. This document contains a preliminary investigation of the way transport and
logistics impact the sustainable development of the food industry and identifies issues that need to be further
addressed at the national and regional levels. Delegations may wish to share their experiences and progress and
discuss challenges concerning food transport and logistics. The Committee may also wish to propose further
research that could be presented to the Forum of Asian Ministers of Transport in 2009 as the basis of a regional
exchange of experiences to enhance the availability of and access to food through improved transport and logistics.

Recent soaring food prices have brought the agricultural food industry
into the international spotlight. Table 1 shows the dramatic increase in the cereal export prices of the
INTRODUCTION 1.

main suppliers to the Asian region. While prices in major grain trades increased by some 50-70 per cent between

mid-2007 and mid-2008, those for rice, the main staple food in Asia, nearly tripled over the same period of time.
Although the food market situation differs from country to country and future development remains highly
uncertain, a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations suggests that food prices are
likely to remain high in the years to come.

2. Transport and logistics account for a large

part of final food prices and increasing oil and energy costs have made
this topic even more relevant. Despite the high share of transport costs and the
increased incidence of food spoilage in the process of transport and storage,
questions of food transport and logistics have not been addressed in a
comprehensive and coherent manner at the international level. A report by the
United States Government Accountability Office in April 2007 showed that transport
and other overhead costs consumed 65 per cent of United States food aid dollars,
mainly due to rising fuel prices. 2 3. Inadequate logistics systems not only increase
costs but also impact the availability of food to consumers. According to a report by
the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, Chinas cold storage capacity is estimated to cover
only 20-30 per cent of demand. A lack of controlled atmosphere and refrigeration equipment leads to spoilage
losses of up to 33 per cent of perishable food. 3 In India, various research studies by the Economic Times
Intelligence Group and the Investment Information and Credit Rating Agency reveal that large quantities of grain

logistics, inadequate storage

and a lack of transport infrastructure. 4 4. Furthermore, adequate infrastructure
and access to transport services are prerequisites for the development of
sustainable food trade, and requirements are becoming increasingly complex in
importing countries and regions as more countries move into sophisticated trading
in fresh fruit and vegetables, meat or fish at the domestic or international levels.
are wasted due to improper handling and storage, pest infestation, poor

AT: Food Shortages Impact

Multiple alternate causes to food prices
Teslik 08 Assistant Editor at Council on Foreign Relations (Lee Hudson, Food
Prices, 6/30/2008, http://www.cfr.org/publication/16662/food_prices.html)

Before considering factors like supply and demand within food markets, it is important to understand the umbrella
factors influencing costs of production and, even more broadly, the currencies with which and economies within

Rising energy prices have direct causal implications for

the food market. Fuel is used in several aspects of the agricultural production
process, including fertilization, processing, and transportation . The percentage of total
which food is traded. Energy Prices.

agricultural input expenditures directed toward energy costs has risen significantly in recent years. A briefing from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture notes that the U.S. agricultural industrys total expenditures on fuel and oil are

These costs are typically

passed along to customers and are reflected in global spot prices (i.e. the current price a
forecast to rise 12.6 percent in 2008, following a rise of 11.5 percent in 2007.

commodity trades for at market). The input costs of electricity have also risen, furthering the burden. Though it isnt
itself an energy product, fertilizer is an energy-intensive expense, particularly when substantial transport costs are
borne by local farmersso that expense, too, is reflected in the final price of foodstuffs. (Beyond direct causation,
energy prices are also correlated to food prices, in the sense that many of the same factors pushing up energy
pricespopulation trends, for instance, or market speculationalso affect food prices.) Currencies/Inflation. When
food is traded internationallyparticularly on commodities exchanges or futures marketsit is often denominated

the valuation of the dollar has fallen with respect to many

other major world currencies. This means that even if food prices stayed steady with respect to a
basket of currencies, their price in dollars would have risen . Of course, food prices have not stayed steady
in U.S. dollars. In recent years,

they have risen across the boardbut if you examine international food prices in dollar terms, it is worth noting
that the decline of the dollar accentuates any apparent price increase. Demand Demand for most kinds of food has
risen in the past decade. This trend can be attributed to several factors: Population trends. The worlds population
has grown a little more than 12 percent in the past decade. Virtually nobody argues that this trend alone accounts
for rising food pricesagricultural production has, in many cases, become more efficient, offsetting the needs of a
larger populationand some analysts say population growth hasnt had any impact whatsoever on food prices. The
shortcomings of a Malthusian food-price argument are most obvious in the very recent past. Richard Posner, a
professor of law and economics at the University of Chicago, argues this point on his blog. He notes that in 2007 the
food price index used by the FAO rose 40 percent, as compared to 9 percent in 2006clearly a much faster rate

experts say
population trends, distinct from sheer growth rates, have had a major impact on
food prices. For instance, the past decade has seen the rapid growth of a global middle
class. This, Posner says, has led to changing tastes, and increasing demand for food that is less
efficient to produce. Specifically, he cites an increased demand for meats. Livestock require farmland for
grazing (land that could be used to grow other food), and also compete directly with humans for
food resources like maize. The production of one serving of meat, economists say, is vastly less efficient than
the production of one serving of corn or rice. Biofuels. Experts say government policies that provide
incentives for farmers to use crops to produce energy , rather than food, have
exacerbated food shortages. Specifically, many economists fault U.S. policies diverting maize crops to
the production of ethanol and other biofuels. The effects of ramped-up U.S. ethanol production
than global population growth for that year, which measured a little over 1 percent. Nonetheless,

which President Bush called for as part of an initiative to make the United States energy independentwas
highlighted in a 2007 Foreign Affairs article by C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer. Runge and Senauer write that
the push to increase ethanol production has spawned ethanol subsidies in many countries , not
just the United States. Brazil, they note, produced 45.2 percent of the worlds ethanol in 2005 (from sugar cane),
and the United States 44.5 percent (from corn). Europe also produces biodiesel, mostly from oilseeds. In all cases,
the result is the diversion of food products from global food markets, accentuating demand, pinching supply, and
pushing up prices. Joachim von Braun, the director general of IFPRI, writes in an April 2008 briefing (PDF) that 30
percent of all maize produced in the United States (by far the largest maize producer in the world) will be diverted
to biofuel production in 2008. This raises prices not only for people buying maize directly, but also for those buying
maize products (cornflakes) or meat from livestock that feed on maize (cattle). Speculation. Many analysts point to

speculative trading practices as a factor influencing rising food prices. In May 2008 testimony (PDF)

before the U.S. Senates Committee on Homeland Security, Michael W. Masters, the managing partner of the hedge
fund Masters Capital Management, explained the dynamic. Masters says institutional investors like hedge funds and
pension funds started pouring money into commodities futures markets in the early 2000s,

pushing up futures

contracts and, in turn, spot prices. Spot traders often use futures markets as a benchmark for what price they
are willing to pay, so even if futures contracts are inflated by an external factor like a flood of interest from pension
funds, this still tends to result in a bump for spot prices. Still, much debate remains about the extent to which
speculation in futures markets in fact pushes up food prices. In general we [economists] think futures markets are
a good reflection of whats likely to happen in the real future, says IFPRIs Orden. Orden acknowledges that more
capital has flowed into agricultural commodities markets in recent years, but says that he tends to think these

Even as
demand for agricultural products has risen, several factors have pinched global
supply. These include: Development/urbanization. During the past half decade, global economic growth
has featured expansion throughout emerging markets, even as developed economies in the United
markets are pretty efficient and that you shouldnt look for a scapegoat in speculators. Supply

States, Europe, and Japan have cooled. The economies of China, India, Russia, numerous countries in Southeast
Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, and a handful of achievers in the Middle East and Africa have experienced

industrial and service sector

development has clustered. The result has often been a boost for per capita earnings
but a drag on domestic agriculture, as discussed in this backgrounder on African agriculture.
Farmland has in many cases been repurposed for urban or industrial development
projects. Governments have not, typically, been as eager to invest in modernizing farm equipment or irrigation
techniques as they have been to sink money into urban development. All this has put an increased
burden on developing-world farmers, precisely as they dwindle in number and
supply capacity. Production capacity in other parts of the world has increased by leaps and bounds as
strong economic growth rates. This is particularly true in Asian cities, where

efficiency has increased, and, as previously noted, total global production exceeds global demand. But

urbanization opens markets up to other factorstransportation costs and risks , for

instance, which are particularly high in less accessible parts of the developing world and prevent the
smooth functioning of trade, even where there are willing buyers and sellers. Weather. Some of the
factors leading to recent price increases have been weather-related factors that tightened supply in
specific markets. In 2008, for instance, two major weather events worked in concert to squeeze Asian rice
productionCyclone Nargis, which led to massive flooding and the destruction of rice harvests in Myanmar; and a
major drought in parts of Australia. Estimates indicate Myanmars flooding instantly destroyed a substantial portion
of Myanmars harvest, limiting the countrys ability to export rice. Meanwhile, Australias drought wiped out 98
percent of the countrys rice harvest in 2008, forcing Canberra to turn to imports and further straining Asias rice

Agricultural trade barriers have long been faulted for gumming up

trade negotiations, including the Doha round of World Trade Organization talks. But in the midst of the recent
food pinch, a different kind of trade barrier has emerged as a problem export bans. As discussed before (in
market. Trade policy.

the instance of the Philippines meeting difficulty in its efforts to import rice), several exporters have tightened the
reins in light of domestic supply concerns. According to the UNs World Food Program, over forty countries have
imposed some form of export ban in an effort to increase domestic food security. India, for instance, imposed bans
on exporting some forms of rice and oil in June 2008a move that

took food off the market, led to

stockpiling, and brought a spike in prices . China, Kazakhstan, and Indonesia, among other countries,
have introduced similar bans. The distorting effects of these barriers are particularly troubling in the developing
world, where a much larger percentage of average household income is spent on food. The African Development
Bank warned in May 2008 that similar moves among African countries could rapidly exacerbate food concerns on
the African continent. A group of West African countries, meanwhile, sought to mitigate the negative effects of

flaws in food aid

policies have limited its effectiveness and in some cases exacerbated price pressures on
food. CFR Senior Fellow Laurie Garrett discusses some of these factors in a recent working paper. Garrett cites
export bans by exempting one another. Food aid policy and other policies. Experts say

illogical aid policies such as grants for irrigation and mechanization of crop production that the Asian Development
Bank plans to give to Bangladesh, a densely populated country without a spare millimeter of arable land. Garrett
also criticizes food aid policies (U.S. aid policies are one example) that mandate food aid to be doled out in the form

food grown in the United

States is far more expensive, both to produce and to transport, than food grown in
recipient countries. Such a policy guarantees that the dollar value of donations goes
much less far than it would if aid were directed to funds that could be spent in local
markets. Other experts note additional policies that limit supply. In a recent interview with CFR.org, Paul Collier,
of crops grown by U.S. farmers, rather than cash. The rub, she says, is that

an economics professor at Oxford University, cites European bans on genetically modified crops as a prime
example.

Alt cause honeybees

AP 08 (Honey Bee Crisis could lead to higher food prices,

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-sick-bees,0,622176.story)
WASHINGTON Food prices could rise even more unless the mysterious decline in
honey bees is solved, farmers and businessmen told lawmakers Thursday. "No bees, no crops,"
North Carolina grower Robert D. Edwards told a House Agriculture subcommittee. Edwards said he had to cut his

About three-quarters of
flowering plants rely on birds, bees and other pollinators to help them reproduce.
Bee pollination is responsible for $15 billion annually in crop value. In 2006, beekeepers
cucumber acreage in half because of the lack of bees available to rent.

began reporting losing 30 percent to 90 percent of their hives. This phenomenon has become known as Colony
Collapse Disorder. Scientists do not know how many bees have died; beekeepers have lost 36 percent of their
managed colonies this year. It was 31 percent for 2007, said Edward B. Knipling, administrator of the Agriculture
Department's Agricultural Research Service. "If

there are no bees, there is no way for our

nation's farmers to continue to grow the high quality, nutritious foods our country
relies on," said Democratic Rep. Dennis Cardoza of California, chairman of the horticulture and organic
agriculture panel. "This is a crisis we cannot afford to ignore."

Alt cause Population growth

Von Braun, 08 Director General of the International Food Policy Research
Institute (Joachim, April 2008
High Food Prices: What should be done?, http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/bp/bp001.asp)
At the same time, the growing world population is demanding more and different
kinds of food. Rapid economic growth in many developing countries has
pushed up consumers' purchasing power, generated rising demand for
food, and shifted food demand away from traditional staples and toward
higher-value foods like meat and milk. This dietary shift is leading to
increased demand for grains used to feed livestock.

AT: Protectionism Impact

The U.S. will never abandon free trade--institutions and selfinterest check
Ikenson, 09 director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies (Daniel, Center

for Trade Policy Studies, Free Trade Bulletin 37, A protectionism fling,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10651)
A Growing Constituency for Freer Trade The WTO/GATT system was created in the first place to
deter a protectionist pandemic triggered by global economic contraction. It was created to deal with the
very situation that is at hand. But in today's integrated global economy, those rules are not the only
incentives to keep trade barriers in check. With the advent and proliferation of
transnational supply chains, cross-border direct investment, multinational joint ventures, and equity tieups, the "Us versus Them" characterization of world commerce no longer applies.
Most WTO members are happy to lower tariffs because imports provide consumers
with lower prices and greater variety, which incentivizes local business to improve quality and
productivity, which is crucial to increasing living standards. Moreover, many local economies now rely upon access
to imported raw materials, components, and capital equipment for their own value-added activities.

To improve

chances to attract investment and talent in a world where capital (physical, financial, and human) is
increasingly mobile, countries must maintain policies that create a stable business
climate with limited administrative, logistical, and physical obstacles. The experience of India is instructive. Prior

to reforms beginning in the 1990s, India's economy was virtually closed. The average tariff rate on intermediate
goods in 1985 was nearly 150 percent. By 1997 the rate had been reduced to 30 percent. As trade barriers were
reduced, imports of intermediate goods more than doubled. The tariff reductions caused prices to fall and Indian
industry suddenly had access to components and materials it could not import previously. That access enabled
Indian manufacturers to cut costs and use the savings to invest in new product lines, which was a process that
played a crucial role in the overall growth of the Indian economy.16 India's approach has been common in the
developing world, where most comprehensive trade reforms during the past quarter century have been undertaken
unilaterally, without any external pressure, because governments recognized that structural reforms were in their
country's interest. According to the World Bank, between 1983 and 2003, developing countries reduced their
weighted average tariffs by almost 21 percentage points (from 29.9 percent to 9.3 percent) and unilateral reforms
accounted for 66 percent of those cuts.17 The Indispensible Nation The United States accounts for the highest
percentage of world trade and has the world's largest economy. The WTO/GATT system is a U.S.-inspired and U.S.shaped institution. Recession in the United States has triggered a cascade of economic contractions around the
world, particularly in export-dependent economies. Needless to say, U.S. trade policy is closely and nervously

despite the occasional anti-trade rhetoric of the Democratic

Congress and the protectionist-sounding campaign pledges of President Obama, the United States is
unlikely to alter its strong commitment to the global trading system . There is simply
too much at stake. Like businesses in other countries, U.S. businesses have become
increasingly reliant on transnational supply chains . Over 55 percent of U.S. import value in 2007
was of intermediate goods, which indicates that U.S. producers depend highly on imported
materials, components, and capital equipmen t. And there is also the fact that 95 percent of
the world's population lives outside of the United States, so an open trade policy is
an example to uphold.
observed in other countries. But

AT Remittances Impact
Remittances are resilient and too many alt causes
Ratha 9 (Dilip, "India is the top recipient of remittances," Worldbank,
blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/india-is-the-top-recipient-of-remittances)
The resilience of remittances arises from the fact that while new
migration flows have declined, the stock of migrants has been relatively
unaffected by the crisis. Sources of risk to this outlook include uncertainty
about the depth and duration of the current crisis, unpredictable
movements in exchange rates, and the possibility that immigration
controls may be tightened further in major destination countries.

AT: Indian Econ Impact

Econ Collapse Inevitable- Food prices and bureaucratic
inefficiencies
Schuman 11- American author and journalist who specializes in Asian

economics, politics and history. Asia business correspondent for TIME Magazine
(Michael, Indias economy: Headed for trouble? 1/18/11, http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/01/18/india
%E2%80%99s-economy-headed-for-trouble/)

Just look at the mess India finds itself in. The wholesale price index soared 8.4% in
December compared to a year earlier. Prices of onions, vegetables and other staples
are rising even faster. The latest read of the government food price index shows they jumped
almost 17% in a year. That's a serious, serious matter for a country with so many
people still stuck in poverty nothing eats into the food on a poor man's dinner table like rapidly rising
prices. Certain basic foods, like onions, are such a crucial ingredient in Indian cooking that people just can't live
without them, so rising prices at the local market hit hard. The government has been scrambling to contain the
damage, by, for example, banning the export of onions. Some of this food inflation could well be temporary a
result of unusual weather conditions that hurt the onion crop, for example. India is also not the only country facing
escalating prices, especially of food. Prices of commodities are rising across the board , with the
Food and Agriculture Organization's food price index hitting a record in December. But India's inflation is also its

A mix of loose budgets and easy money (leftover from recession-busting efforts) with a
lackluster approach towards much-needed reforms (more deregulation, for example) and
investments (i.e., in infrastructure) have created bottlenecks that spawn inefficiencies and
push up prices. Here's more from Courtis: If you have aggressive monetary and fiscal policy, together with
own fault.

booming labor market expansion, you better have hugely powerful supply side policies, or inflation can only
explode... guess what, in the absence of China style aggressive supply side policies -infrastructure, deregulation,
opening of the economy, education--, inflation is exploding... and which means quickly dropping competitiveness.

Collapse Inevitable- decreasing competitiveness and rampant

inflation
Schuman 11- American author and journalist who specializes in Asian
economics, politics and history. Asia business correspondent for TIME Magazine

(Michael, Indias economy: Headed for trouble? 1/18/11, http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/01/18/india

%E2%80%99s-economy-headed-for-trouble/)

India's predicament is somewhat symbolic of what's happening to emerging

markets overall. After splashing money around for the past two years trying to keep
their economies growing as the West sank, they're now dealing with the
consequences of those policies. Part of the problem as well has been inflicted upon them by policy in the
struggling West. The expansionary practices of the Federal Reserve have likely helped
stoke inflation by ramping up the amount of cash in the world economy. But the troubles
in India should also act as a wake-up call for New Delhi. India needs to focus more on improving its infrastructure
and education systems and continuing the process of deregulation that sparked its economic miracle in the first
place to ensure its growth stays healthy. Goldman Sachs economist Tushar Poddar hopes India's policymakers will
get the message. Here's what Poddar said in a recent report: We would stress that despite the risks mentioned
above, the underlying structural growth story remains strong. If unbridled optimism about economic fundamentals
gives way to an appreciation of risks which can then be meaningfully priced by markets and addressed by

The situation is also a

lesson for the rest of the emerging world. Growth solves many problems but creates
others, so policymakers have to do just as much to manage that growth in good
times as nurture it in bad times.
policymakers, we think it would lead to a more sustainable growth environment.

AT: Mexican Econ Impact

Mexican economy resilient
Nevaer, 09 [LousNew America Media, News Report, In Global Economic Crisis,
Mexico Is Resilient]
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?
article_id=b8dc03d6f2792eba9e84392106c2c6f4>

MERIDA, Mexico The economic crisis sweeping the globe has spared no nation, but some are showing remarkable
resilience. Mexico's economic performance, for example, has shown tremendous strength .
When the U.S. Federal Reserve extended a loan of $30 billion each to the central banks of Brazil, South Korea,
Singapore and Mexico, Mexico did not touch those funds. It simply reinvested them in Treasury bonds, leaving them
in accounts in New York. This is no accident.

It stems from prudent economic policies

implemented after the December 1994 devaluation of the Mexican peso that sent
the economy into a tailspin. At that time, President Ernesto Zedillo had been in office a few days, and his
entire agenda was thrown into disarray by the crisis. The Clinton administration had to issue an emergency $50
billion loan - which Mexico paid back ahead of schedule and with interest - and the International Monetary Fund,
or IMF, helped craft a recovery program. It was a painful adjustment as budgets were slashed, fiscal restraint was
implemented across the board, and the Mexican people saw their investments and savings diminish. That was 15
years ago, and the lessons learned the hard way are now paying off: Mexico's stock market fell 23
percent in 2008, the "best" performing major index at a time when the U.S. markets fell 38 percent and Russian
markets collapsed by an astounding 70 percent. Last fall, some feared that the Mexican economy would not be able
to escape the turmoil engulfing the United States, and

the Mexican peso fell almost 30 percent vis--vis the

American dollar. It has since recovered, although it has suffered a 20 percent devaluation
since the economic crisis began last summer. These currency fluctuations reflect the fact that, because of the North
American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, neither Mexico nor Canada have "decoupled" from the U.S. economy.

There are several reasons for Mexico's economic resilience. One is the fiscal
restraint that Zedillo initiated and that his successor, Vicente Fox, continued. Fox, a former corporate
executive, made significant strides in eliminating Mexico's foreign debt . Mexico's current
president, Felipe Calderon, has kept spending in line , even as revenues have increased. When
disaster struck, Mexico had a balanced budget, almost no foreign debt and rising
federal revenues, allowing it to intervene to stabilize prices . Mexico also dodged the
housing speculation that brought its neighbor to its knees. Mexico's financial system
has always been stringent in extending credit. Americans roll their eyes at the bureaucracy this
entailed - two forms of ID are required to open a bank account in Mexico; when customers request checks, they
have to pick them up at the bank, where their signature and ID are verified; credit card applications must be made
in person at the financial institution, and not over the phone or through unsolicited mail-in applications. As a result,
"identity

theft" is almost non-existent in Mexico, and it was nearly impossible for a housing
bubble to emerge there. Another factor is the windfall oil profits despite the sudden drop in

oil prices. When oil peaked at $147 a barrel last summer, there was disbelief around the world: Would it shoot up to
$200 or fall back? The conventional wisdom was that $100 a barrel for oil was the new reality going forward, and
there was a frenzy to lock in prices through futures contracts. Mexican officials at Pemex, the state-owned oil
monopoly, didn't believe that price was sustainable; their economic models indicated that, with slacking demand
due to the recession, a price range between $60 and $80 was "sustainable." Other countries - most notably
Venezuela and Russia - were more ambitious, and reckless. Both countries let spending explode, believing that

Mexico, by
was prudent, saving the oil windfall, and Mexican traders implemented a
strategy that hinged on the price of oil falling below the $60 to $80 range . "They're
great traders," Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp., said of Pemex futures traders. " If the
economy continues to slow, they're looking like geniuses." The world economy has
more than slowed: It has hit a wall. And Mexico is collecting $90 to $110 per barrel today,
for oil that is trading in the $38 to $45 range at the beginning of 2009. Having hedged its exports,
Mexico is getting a premium, and a significant windfall that will total several billion
dollars this year, enough to sustain social spending without massive federal deficits
they could finance anything they wanted. The economies in both countries today are in freefall.
comparison,

AT: Hunger Impact

Hunger related deaths declining
The Hunger Project 08 (Decline in the number of hunger related deaths,
http://www.thp.org/reports/decline.htm)
Recent studies indicate that 24,000 individuals die each day of hungerrelated causes, according to The Hunger Project, a global organization committed to the end of world
hunger. This figure is a significant decline from the organization's earlier,
widely-used estimate of 35,000 per day. "While this number still represents a horrendous and
unnecessary human tragedy, it also indicates that progress can and is being made," stated Joan Holmes, President

The Hunger
Project bases its estimates on conclusions drawn from various studies of
undernutrition, malnutrition and mortality. This year, the Unicef "Progress of Nations" report
of The Hunger Project. The world does not have direct measurements of hunger-related deaths.

summarized many of those studies by saying that one-half of child deaths can be attributed to hunger. While there
are far fewer studies on hunger and mortality in adults, most experts agree that 3/4 of all hunger-related deaths are
children below the age of 5.

Over the past two decades, child mortality rates from

all causes have fallen more rapidly than the rate of population growth,
indicating an overall decline in hunger-related deaths.

Alt cause GM crops cause mass crop failure and famine

Ho 1/21/07 (Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, director of the London-based Institute for Science

in Society (ISIS), Making the World GM-Free and Sustainable,

http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/gm-free-sustainable.html)
Genetically modified (GM) crops epitomize industrial monoculture, with its
worst features exaggerated. They are part and parcel of the
"environmental bubble economy," built on the over-exploitation of natural
resources, which has destroyed the environment, depleted water and fossil fuels and
accelerated global warming. As a result, world grain yields have been falling for six
of the seven past years. Expanding the cultivation of GM crops at this time
is a recipe for global bio-devastation, massive crop failures and global
famine. GM crops are a dangerous diversion from the urgent task of getting our food system sustainable in
order to really feed the world.

AT Deficit Impact
Immigration doesnt help the deficit
Unger 2/3 -- Forbes Contributor (Rick, 2013, "Will The Cost Of Immigration
Reform Explode The National Deficit?"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/03/will-the-cost-of-immigrationreform-explode-the-national-deficit/)
According to Barletta, citing a 2007 Heritage Foundation study, the tab for allowing immigrants a
path to citizenshipeven after considering an increase in tax collection from
those who are brought into the system will total some $2.6 trillion in Medicaid,
Medicare, Social Security and other costs to the American taxpayer. Mr. Krugman promptly and
vehemently disagreed, labeling the costs to the federal government of creating a path to citizenship pocket

Considering that nobody has yet to actually put forth a

bill that would get the Congressional Budget Office moving on scoring any proposed legislation, we dont
change. So, who is telling the truth?

really know . We can, however, get a sense of what might lie ahead based on the numbers presented by the
CBO when scoring a similar pathway to citizenship proposal put forth by a bipartisan committee in the United States
Senate in 2007 a proposal that was supported by the Bush White House but ultimately never made it to a full vote
in the Senate. The 2007 CBO report concluded that federal spending resulting from a pathway to citizenship would
run about $23 billion over ten years with the costs coming primarily from government expenditures in Medicaid and
refundable tax credits. However, the report also determined that legalization would generate $48 billion in new
revenue, primarily as a result of bringing in more contributions to Social Security, noting that the majority of newly
legalized immigrants would be working agemeaning they would not be calling on Social Security and Medicare
payouts for many years but would, instead, be making contributions to the program. While these numbers reveal a

when we add to the equation the estimated cost of implementing

the 2007 proposal$43 billion over ten yearsthe net cost of that immigration
reform plan totaled a loss of about $18 billion over a ten-year period. And while the CBO
anticipated that this $18 billion would be added to the deficit, when looked at over a 20 year period, the CBO
characterized the costs as having a relatively small net effect. If these
net plus,

numbers are even close to accurate, there is little question that the truth is much closer to Mr. Krugmans
suggestion that the cost is little more than a rounding error in the federal budget rather than the cataclysmic

But that was 2007 and things have changed quite a bit since
that timechanges that could dramatically affect the relative costs and benefits of
bringing undocumented immigrants out from the shadows. Certainly, the most significant of these
changes would have to be the arrival of the Affordable Care Act and the
government subsidies that could flow to what is estimated to be seven million
newly minted Americans who could benefit financially from the healthcare reform law.
impact alleged by Congressman Barletta.

No internal link legalization wont solve the deficit

Hill et al. 10. [Laura E., research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, a National Institute of
Aging postdoctoral fellow, Magnus Lofstrom, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, Joseph M.
Hayes, a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California, where he studies migration and population
change throughout the state, Immigrant Legalization Assessing the Labor Market Effects, Public Policy Institute of
California, www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_410LHR.pdf#ppic]

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

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
found in both groups.

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.