You are on page 1of 96


-How does US Mexico relations translate to heg in the Middle east

If they say it doesn’t

-what’s the impact to US-Mexico relations

-Why is HSI key (hint, it’s not)

-What card in the 1AC says that

-Does the aff solve for anything other than ERO’s enforcement
Case cards
Advantage 1 Frontlines
Election of Lopez Obrador thumps US-Mexico relations – NAFTA, racism, ag workers,
and Venezuela
Linthicum and Wilkinson 7/2/18 – Kate Linthicum is a correspondent in Mexico City who covers
Latin America. Tracy Wilkinson has covered wars, crises and daily life on three continents. Los Angeles
“Rocky under Trump, U.S.-Mexico relations will be tested under new president Lopez Obrador”;

The U.S.-Mexico relationship could change dramatically under Mexican President-elect Andres Manuel
Lopez Obrador, who appears ready to put less of an emphasis on relations with the U.S. than his
country’s other recent leaders and less afraid of angering his counterparts north of the border. Lopez
Obrador, who easily won the presidency in Sunday’s election and will take office in December, has rattled observers in Washington who are
unsure about how he will conduct himself and Mexico’s foreign affairs. The 64-year-old former mayor of Mexico City, a veteran leftist, has long
favored a future for Mexico that is less dependent on the United States — a stark departure from numerous recent Mexican leaders who
worked hand in glove with their American counterparts. His distrust of the United States is shaped in part by his
biography and in part by his read on history. The night of President Trump’s election in 2016, Lopez Obrador wrote a message
to his fellow Mexican citizens, urging them not to worry about the impact of Trump’s policies south of the Rio Grande. “We must not forget that
Mexico, by the effort and sacrifice of the fathers of our country, is a free, independent and sovereign country, not a colony, nor a protectorate,”
he wrote. “It does not depend on any foreign government.” Those patriotic musings, which he published last year in a book of essays called
“Oye Trump” (Listen, Trump), offer insight into how Lopez Obrador may regard Mexico's closest neighbor when he is sworn in on Dec. 1.
“There are a lot of unanswered questions,” said Earl Anthony Wayne, a fellow at the nonpartisan Wilson Center think tank in
Washington and former U.S. ambassador to Mexico. Those include how the new president would handle renegotiation
of the North American Free Trade Agreement; cooperation with the U.S. on drug-trafficking and
immigration; and the united front against rogue countries like Venezuela. “Mexican presidents have long seen their
country’s future tied to the U.S., but Lopez Obrador is more skeptical,” said Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute and
the author of a recent book about U.S.-Mexico relations. “I don’t think he’s anti-American. But I think he’s distrustful of the U.S. and
less invested in deepening ties with the U.S.” Trump, who has used harsh language to describe Mexicans, telephoned Lopez
Obrador Monday to congratulate him. They spoke for half an hour, talking about trade and border security, both men’s offices said. The State
Department also reached out, saying his election demonstrated “the Mexican people’s commitment to democratic values.” “The United States
and Mexico share a lasting friendship based on strong economic, cultural and historical ties that bind our nations,” spokeswoman Heather
Nauert said. The United States, she added, “looks forward to deepening our vibrant partnership.” His opponents often sought to portray Lopez
Obrador as a dyed-in-the-wool leftist in the mold of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez or the Castros of Cuba. In reality, Lopez Obrador is more
pragmatic than the more hardcore ideologues. He advocates redistribution of wealth, but he also values Mexico’s entrepreneur class and
industries like petroleum and gas exploitation.
If recent history is any indication, the first months of Lopez Obrador’s
government are likely to see a Mexican cold shoulder toward the United States. When Enrique Peña Nieto was
elected in 2012 to replace U.S.-friendly Felipe Calderon, he ended many of the relationships with the U.S. that had allowed U.S. and Mexican
officials to work shoulder to shoulder on security and other issues. Only after a year or so did Peña Nieto reestablish those ties. And then, after
Trump was elected, the
Mexican government struggled to maintain a relationship despite the insults and
harsh rhetoric coming from the White House. That was accomplished largely through a personal friendship between Mexican
Foreign Secretary Luis Videgaray and Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner. Lopez Obrador does not share such friendships with
Trump’s inner circle. And that could have an impact on numerous aspects of the bilateral relationship, including the renegotiation of NAFTA.
“The Peña Nieto administration would go to great lengths to save NAFTA,” Selee said. “If President Trump
wants to pull out, I don’t know how far Lopez Obrador will go to save it.” The United States, which works closely
with Mexican law enforcement on migration matters as well as its fight against drug cartels, watched Lopez Obrador's rise warily. Each year, the
U.S. spends on average about $100 million on the Merida Initiative, a bilateral partnership forged in 2007 to help reduce the power of drug
trafficking in Mexico. That money has been used to help train police, prosecutors and judges, fund improvements of prisons and jails and aid an
ongoing overhaul of the criminal justice system. At the same time, Mexico — contrary to Trump’s claims — works substantially to stop illegal
immigration to the United States; it has detained nearly 150,000 Central Americans crossing Mexico en route to the U.S. in the last year and a
half. Whether Lopez Obrador will continue to cooperate with the U.S. on immigration and security issues remains to be seen. Lopez Obrador
has repeatedly said he hopes to forge a relationship “based on friendship” with the U.S. But in
rallies around the country in the
months leading up to his election, he also expressed his frustration with the treatment of Latino
immigrants in the U.S. and the devastating effect of low-cost American agricultural imports on Mexico’s
farmers. Born to shopkeepers in Tabasco, an agrarian and oil-rich state in southern Mexico that has seen little benefit from NAFTA
compared with Mexico’s north, Lopez Obrador views free-market policies and trade with the U.S. with suspicion. He believes working families
have been left behind, and wants to push Mexico to be more independent in its production of food and gasoline. He
is also an amateur
historian who has frequently highlighted the United States’ past aggressions against his country. In 2016 he
published a book about Catarino Garza, a Mexican revolutionary who launched a campaign into Mexico from Texas to start an uprising against
the dictator Porfirio Diaz at the turn of the 20th century. In the text, Lopez Obrador laments U.S. President James Polk’s expansionist efforts,
which he calls "a Yankee invasion," and the "tragic" loss of a large part of Mexico's territory. He goes on to quote Mexican norteño band Los
Tigres del Norte: “I didn’t cross the border, the border crossed me.” “I think he has a read of Mexican history in which the relationship with the
U.S. has not always been helpful,” Selee said. “When he looks at U.S.-Mexico history, he reads it as a history of

US-Mexico relations can’t solve for crippling heg in the middle east- we peaked in the
90s and we’re never getting that back. The aff assumes that relations in one part of
the globe will translate to heg in other parts, but that’s just not how it works and
shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept hegemony
Gilbert Achcar, Tom Mills 01 June, 2015 “The End Of Empire?: Violence And US Hegemony In The Middle
East” New Left project,
violence_and_us_hegemony_in_the_middle_east //OM

Yes indeed, it has been weakening for years. The peak of US influence in the region was reached in the wake of the first
US war on Iraq in 1991. On the backdrop of the Soviet Union’s terminal crisis, the US seized the opportunity provided by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of
Kuwait to stage a massive military deployment in 1990 and launched a large-scale war in the region. Even the Syrian regime, which up until then had been for the
most part a client of the Soviet Union, took part in the US-led war on Iraq. This is an episode, by the way, which those who believe that the Syrian regime is ‘anti-
imperialist’ tend to forget – just as they forget its repeated onslaught on left-wing and Palestinian forces and refugee camps in Lebanon during the 1975-1990 war
there. The peak in US hegemony over the Middle East was thus reached in the early 1990s. Bush
senior and his administration, which
presided over this moment, attempted to consolidate it by addressing what was, and still is, seen as a
major source of tension for US interests in the region: the Israel-Palestine conflict. For this they set off
the so called ‘peace process’, which started in Madrid, Spain in the autumn of 1991. It was taken further
by the Clinton administration with the Oslo Accords between the PLO and Israel, signed in Washington
in September 1993. There were, however, two major weaknesses in this configuration. One perceived
obstacle to complete US hegemony was Iran. The other, despite the 1991 war, was Iraq, because the
United States had not been in a position to invade and occupy the whole country, including its capital,
and had no immediate alternative to Saddam Hussein. So they kept him in power, allowing him, soon
after the cessation of their onslaught in the same year 1991, to crush the rebellion that unfolded in
southern Iraq. This uprising was seen as a Shia rebellion and therefore one which could be exploited by Iran. At that time Washington also allowed Saddam
Hussein to crush the Kurdish insurgency in northern Iraq. So the US left Saddam Hussein in power, albeit under a very criminal

embargo which was meant to keep him under control and prevent him from rebuilding his military
forces. During the Clinton presidency, the CIA tried more than once, through covert operations, to foster
an alternative to Saddam Hussein. But they failed miserably. The pressure started rising in the United
States for a new and more complete invasion of Iraq, a pressure spearheaded by the same people who
were later to join the George W. Bush administration – the people involved in the Project for the New
American Century. The rest of the story is familiar: the 9/11 attacks provided a pretext which was seized
on by the Bush administration, with lies about connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and about
weapons of mass destruction, in order to invade and occupy Iraq in 2003. This went ahead despite the warnings of
advisors within the US and British establishments. The George W. Bush administration’s hubris led to unintended negative consequences. The invasion and

occupation – which were intended as part of a scheme to establish full unhindered control over the Gulf
region because of its strategic importance due to oil – backfired completely. Quite soon after the
invasion, beginning in 2004, the occupation became a major problem for the United States. In 2006 the
country exploded into a sectarian civil war which the US was unable to control. So 2004 was the point when US
influence began to decline? Yes, the turning point was the Fallujah massacre perpetrated by US troops, which

enabled Al-Qaeda and other elements in the Sunni insurgency to recruit a lot of people. It signalled a
clear shift in Iraq’s Arab Sunni areas against the United States, which built up to a disastrous situation
for Washington in 2006. That’s when the Bush administration was forced to change its strategy under
pressure from the US foreign policy establishment backed by Congress. The Baker-Hamilton
Commission, a bipartisan congressional commission, devised a new strategy – the so called ‘surge’. In light
of this new strategy, the US occupiers bought off Sunni Arab tribes, removing most of the constituency on which Al-Qaeda and similar groups were drawing. And
they managed indeed to almost eradicate Al-Qaeda from Iraq in 2008, preparing the ground for US withdrawal from that country, as its occupation had become
deeply unpopular at home. Obama was elected with a promise of withdrawal from Iraq, which was completed by
end 2011, even though none of the key goals of the 2003 invasion had been achieved. The main
objective was not the removal of Saddam Hussein – that was the easy part; it was long term US control
over Iraq and its oil. And that was not achieved. Nouri al-Maliki’s government, put in place in 2006 under Bush, turned out to be as much,
if not more, subordinate to Tehran than to Washington. And with the departure of US troops in 2011 the balance tipped decisively in favour of Tehran. In sum,

the US left Iraq under the control of its main enemy in the region. That was a miserable failure indeed:
it discredited US power in the whole region and emboldened opponents of US hegemony everywhere.
In 2011, therefore, US influence in the region reached its lowest point, as the withdrawal from Iraq was
carried on while the Arab uprising was unfolding, bringing down key allies of the United States, notably
Mubarak in Egypt. The United States has not yet recovered from this low point. Its brief ‘leading-from-behind’ adventure in Libya ended up in another
blatant fiasco that only aggravated this weakening.

Trump wrecks heg – severs alliance commitments and destroys the liberal world order
Kagan 18, Robert Kagan is the Stephen & Barbara Friedman Senior Fellow with the Project on
International Order and Strategy in the Foreign Policy program at Brookings and a contributing
columnist for The Washington Post. He is the author of the forthcoming book “The Jungle Grows Back:
America and Our Imperiled World.” ["Trump’s America does not care," Washington Post, 6-14-2018,

The second approach was where U.S. foreign policy seemed headed under President Barack Obama, and
most saw the election of Donald Trump as another step toward withdrawal. It turns out there was a third
option: the United States as rogue superpower, neither isolationist nor internationalist, neither withdrawing nor in decline, but active, powerful
and entirely out for itself. In recent months, on trade, Iran, NATO defense spending and perhaps even North Korea, President
has shown that a president willing to throw off the moral, ideological and strategic constraints that
limited U.S. action in the past can bend this intractable world to his will , at least for a while. Trump is not
merely neglecting the liberal world order; he is milking it for narrow gain, rapidly destroying the trust
and sense of common purpose that have held it together and prevented international chaos for seven
decades. The successes he is scoring — if they are successes — derive from his willingness to do what
past presidents have refused to do: exploit the great disparities of power built into the postwar order,
at the expense of the United States’ allies and partners. At the core of that order was a grand bargain. To ensure the
global peace that Americans sought after being pulled into two world wars, the United States became the main provider of security in Europe
and East Asia. In Europe, the U.S. security guarantee made European integration possible and provided political, economic and psychological
safeguards against a return to the continent’s destructive past. In East Asia, the American guarantee ended the cycle of conflict that had
embroiled Japan and China and their neighbors in almost constant warfare since the late 19th century. The security bargain had an economic
dimension. The allies could spend less on defense and more on strengthening their economies and social welfare systems. This, too, was in line
with American goals. The United States wanted allied economies to be strong, to counter extremism on both the left and right, and to prevent
the arms races and geopolitical competitions that had led to past wars. The United States would not insist on winning every economic contest
or every trade deal. The perception by the other powers that they had a reasonably fair chance to succeed economically and sometimes even
to surpass the United States — as Japan, Germany and other nations did at various times — was part of the glue that held the order together.
This bargain was the foundation of a liberal world order that benefited all participants, including the United States. But it left the United States’
allies vulnerable, and they remain vulnerable today. They count on the American security guarantee and on access to the United States’ vast
market — its prosperous consumers, financial institutions and innovative entrepreneurs. In the past, U.S. presidents were unwilling to exploit
this leverage. They believed the United States had a stake in upholding the liberal world order, even if it meant abiding by or paying lip service
to international rules and institutions to provide reassurance. The alternative was a return to the great-power clashes of the past from which
the United States could never hope to remain uninvolved. To avoid a world of war and chaos, the United States was, up to a point, willing to
play Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians’ ropes, in the interest of reassuring and binding the democratic community together. Europeans and
others may have found the United States selfish and overbearing, too eager to use force and too willing to pursue its goals unilaterally, but
even President George W. Bush’s America cared about them, if only because Americans had learned through painful experience that they had
no choice but to care. The United States’ allies are about to find out what real unilateralism looks like and
what the real exercise of U.S. hegemony feels like, because Trump’s America does not care. It is
unencumbered by historical memory. It recognizes no moral, political or strategic commitments. It
feels free to pursue objectives without regard to the effect on allies or, for that matter, the world. It
has no sense of responsibility to anything beyond itself. Is this what the American people want?
Maybe. Many these days call for greater realism and less idealism in U.S. foreign policy. Here it is.
Trump’s policies are pure realism, devoid of ideals and sentiment, pursuing a narrow “national
interest” defined strictly in terms of dollars and cents and defense against foreign attack. Trump’s world
is a struggle of all-against-all. There are no relationships based on common values. There are merely
transactions determined by power. It is the world that a century ago brought us two world wars.

-AND their Lizza 17 card is powertagged AF it doesn’t say the word hegemony in
relation to the US once in the actual card, control F it, the word hegemony is used 3
times in their entire 1AC doc.

-The internal link from us-mexico relations and US heg is literally nonexistent fuck off
Advantage 1 2NC cards
US-Mexico Relations

ICE isn’t the source of strain on US-Mexico relations- the wall, and trump’s racism are
major factors. And, AMLO wouldn’t dare strengthen relations with the US, 80% of
Mexicans hate trump and oppose US-Mexico relations
Sabrina Rodriguez, 7-1-2018, "Anti-Trump populist poised to clinch Mexican presidency," POLITICO,
election-trump-populist-lopez-obrador-664243 Sabrina Rodriguez is a fellow at POLITICO, covering trade and agriculture. She started off at Politico in 2015 as a
member of POLITICO Journalism Institute and returned the following year as an intern for POLITICO Pro. Sabrina, a Northwestern University grad, previously
interned at Chalkbeat New York, Miami New Times and The Miami Herald. A Miami native, she most recently covered the first months of the Trump administration
at Diario Perfil in Buenos Aires, Argentina. //OM

MEXICO CITY — Mexicans

on Sunday appear likely to elect a left-wing populist president who has campaigned
on standing up to President Donald Trump, potentially ushering in a more confrontational era of U.S.-
Mexico relations on everything from immigration policy to trade. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a former mayor of Mexico
City who styles himself as a champion for rural Mexico, has enjoyed a double-digit lead over the other top candidates from the country’s major parties for months.
His vows to eradicate violence and official corruption — long unaddressed by outgoing Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto’s ruling PRI party — have played a
major role in lifting him to the head of the pack. But his
pledge to defend Mexicans from Trump, coupled with his
nationalistic rhetoric, has also bolstered his standing with Mexican voters. López Obrador traveled
through the U.S. after Trump was elected to advocate for Mexican immigrants living in the states and
even published a book called "Oye, Trump" ("Listen Up, Trump") that condemns Trump’s plans to build a border wall and “his attempts to
persecute migrant workers.” Mexico “will never be the piñata of any foreign government,” López Obrador, 64, told more than 90,000 supporters at a rally here to
close out his campaign on Wednesday. The
election of López Obrador — like Trump, known for his impulsive and
nationalistic tendencies — could further strain U.S-Mexico relations. The candidate, nicknamed AMLO, says illegal
migration to the U.S. should be addressed with economic development programs, not a border wall. And
while he supports continued talks to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, he’s also been a critic of free trade in the past, arguing that Mexico
needs to be more self-sufficient. “AMLO won’t hold back the way Peña Nieto has,” said Mark Feierstein, former senior director for western hemisphere affairs at the
National Security Council. “Peña Nieto has been very passive toward Trump and toward the United States.” López Obrador, a two-time failed presidential candidate,
is now running as the candidate for the left-wing National Regeneration Movement (Morena), a party he founded in 2014. He frames himself as a political outsider
even though he has been a politician for decades. His popularity stems from widespread distrust of the ruling parties, including Peña Nieto’s PRI, which held power
from 1929 to 2000 and regained the presidency in 2012. Less than 20 percent of Mexicans support Peña Nieto’s administration, according to Mexican consulting
firm GEA-ISA. López Obrador’s opponents — PRI’s José Antonio Meade and Ricardo Anaya, who’s running under an unlikely coalition of right-left parties — have
also said they will demand respect from Trump. Being
critical of Trump is seen as an easy way to unite Mexicans, who
widely dislike the U.S. president. More than 80 percent of Mexicans have a negative opinion of Trump,
according to a June poll by Mexican consulting firm Consulta Mitofsky. Peña Nieto’s failure to stand up to Trump’s insults against Mexico and its people further hurt
his popularity, particularly after he welcomed then-candidate Trump to Mexico in 2016. In 2017, Peña Nieto faced widespread criticism for sitting silently next to the
American president on the sidelines of the G-20 meetings in Germany while Trump repeated that Mexico would pay for a border wall. In April, Peña Nieto finally
gave a defiant address, telling Trump to respect Mexico because challenges in the U.S.-Mexico relationship “never justify a threatening attitude or lack of respect
between the countries.” The speech was widely praised, even by López Obrador, but many argued that it came too late. Against that backdrop, López Obrador’s
fiery rhetoric is resonating with voters. López
Obrador “answers to his domestic constituencies, especially as many feel
that Peña Nieto has been like Trump’s doormat,” said Ana Quintana, senior analyst on Latin America and the Western Hemisphere at
the Heritage Foundation.

Tag me, more AMLO won’t work with trump cards

MATTHEW DOWD Jun 21, 2018, 2:51 PM ET, “Why the upcoming presidential election in Mexico matters
to Americans”
americans-column/story?id=56060865 Matthew John Dowd is an American political consultant. He was
the chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign and is the current ABC News
political analyst //OM
As the political and human struggle on immigration continues to unfold, many Americans are focused on how this national crisis will affect the November elections.
But there is an election south of the border that is likely to have huge implications for President Trump
and our relations with a key country in our hemisphere. At this point, U.S. relations with the two major countries in North America --
Canada and Mexico -- are at the lowest point in my lifetime. Trump recently insulted the leader of Canada, Justin Trudeau, and has instituted tariffs on our northern
neighbor that have upset people in both countries .
Trump’s stand on building a border wall and his harsh immigration
policies toward Mexico has alienated this once key ally, and it is only bound to get worse in the
aftermath of the elections in Mexico on July 1. While Pena Nieto, the incumbent president of Mexico, has infrequently pushed back
against Trump, he has been very circumspect in his words and actions. He has tried to keep the ties between Mexico and America strong. Nieto is limited to one
term and his likely successor will be Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a left-leaning nationalist known by many as AMLO. AMLO
is more than 20
points ahead of his nearest competitor and has a very high probability of winning by a landslide. He has
gone out of his way to say relations with the United States will change and has promised to confront
Trump forcefully as president. “Trump and his advisers speak of the Mexicans the way Hitler and the
Nazis referred to the Jews, just before undertaking the infamous persecution and the abominable
extermination,” he said recently about the Trump administration. I can point to three reasons why AMLO is likely to succeed overwhelmingly in his election
in 10 days. 1. As we have seen in America, and in many countries throughout the world, there is a rising tide of nationalism that is occurring. Many citizens have
been left behind in the global economy and a wave of protectionism has gripped people in their frustration and anger. Without leaders offering a new thoughtful
international approach and incumbent leaders trying to protect the status quo, many voters are turning inward and looking to protect only their country. President
Macron of France and Trudeau of Canada were able to succeed in this environment of global fear because they were able to speak compellingly for change and
hope without resorting to nationalism. The incumbent legacy parties in Mexico do not have candidates who were inspirational or who presented a platform of
change, and thus a leftist nationalist will likely be elected in Mexico. 2. For nearly a century, power in Mexico has been held by the two major incumbent parties --
PRI and PAN -- and voters in Mexico are tired of this status quo. While AMLO has been popular in past elections he was never able to beat the incumbent parties,
but today voters feel unrepresented by these two parties and are willing to go for something new and different. We see this same phenomenon beginning to occur
in the United States. The fastest rising and largest group of voters in America are independents. Both major parties are viewed unfavorably by a majority of
Americans even though Democrats have an advantage now over Republicans. Moreover, there are not many viable independents who are running for office, but
that day is coming. Though AMLO represents a minor party, he is seen as an independent and will win in part because of that. 3. Maybe most importantly, AMLO is
going to win to a large degree because of Trump’s harsh words and actions towards Mexico and its citizens. Trump has created a political environment in Mexico
where voters there want a strong leader who will push back against him. Mexico's citizens see Trump as a bully and are turning to AMLO to stand up for their
interests. If
the White House thinks the relationship with Mexico today is complicated and uneasy,
government officials will need to get ready for a dynamic with serious conflicts when AMLO is elected.
This is a relationship headed from counseling to possibly divorce court. It is an amazing phenomenon
that the United States will soon have strained relationships with two of our longtime allies. So while political
analysts and the press focus on the midterm elections and what course corrections those might bring come November, this election coming soon in Mexico will
have dramatic consequences as well.
Heg isn’t key to middle east/ heg bad / can’t solve

And, violence in the Middle east peaked and grew with the growth of US hegemony, it
doesn’t solve
Gilbert Achcar, Tom Mills 01 June, 2015 “The End Of Empire?: Violence And US Hegemony In The Middle
East” New Left project,
violence_and_us_hegemony_in_the_middle_east Gilbert Achcar is a Lebanese academic, writer, and
socialist. He is a Professor of Development Studies and International Relations at the School of Oriental
and African Studies of the University of London. Tom Mills is a researcher and PhD candidate at the
School of Applied Sciences at the University of Bath. His doctoral research examines the BBC’s
relationship with economics elites and the state.//OM

Violence in the region is not new, alas. If anything,the peak of violence coincided with the peak of US hegemony. Think of
the violence of the US onslaught on Iraq in 1991, which turned that country back to the Stone Age in the
words of the UN special reporter. Think of the devastating embargo imposed on Iraq thereafter, which caused the

death of 90,000 people, by UN estimates, every year for twelve years, while the country was under almost continual bombing. And
then think of the shift after 9/11 and the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 . Think of the level of violence reached in Iraq soon

afterwards, especially the brutality of US occupation. The idea that it is the decline of US influence that
led to increased violence will then appear what it truly is: a completely absurd proposition. The fact is
that the United States is mainly responsible for the levels of violence reached in the Middle East. This is not
to say that the US has sole responsibility, nor to exonerate the Arab regimes, nor even to overlook the failing by the progressive movements in the region in
providing an alternative. But the main responsibility is definitely that of the United States. First of all, the
United States has been cultivating
despotic regimes in the region for several decades, thereby sowing the seeds of violence; and it has
been cultivating the most extreme type of fundamentalism through its alliance with the Saudi kingdom,
by far the most repressive, reactionary, antidemocratic and anti-women state on Earth. The United States played a
major role in defeating the progressive, secular ,Arab nationalist regional radicalisation that was led by Nasser’s Egypt, fostering Islamic fundamentalism as a major
weapon against it. Washington
is also responsible for very high levels of violence through its unconditional
support for the State of Israel. In fact, a decisive turning point in the levels of violence in the region was
the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. We could go on. In so many ways therefore, the US has been sowing the seeds of
violence in the region – a violence it directly contributed to with the invasion and occupation of Iraq in
2003, the torture at Abu Ghraib and the attempts to use sectarian cleavages to control the country, thus
creating the conditions for everything we are witnessing today. All this provided the most direct
background to the rise of ISIS. The spread of the most reactionary brand of Islamic fundamentalism, and
the degree of violence in Iraq under US-British occupation: these are the two main factors at the roots of ISIS. But you also have
the fact that the United States refused to arm the mainstream Syrian opposition as it emerged after the first few months of the uprising, when the uprising started
turning into a civil war in response to the regime’s murderous onslaught, fully backed by Iran and Russia. The United States refused to provide
the initial Syrian mainstream opposition with the defensive weapons it was requesting, above all anti-
aircraft weapons, and even forbade its regional allies from providing such weapons. This led to what we
have been seeing: an extremely ruthless regime with a total free hand to use air power in the most
devastating and cruel way against the population, along with a full range of deadly weapons, including
chemical weapons. Obama’s so-called ‘red line’ when it came to chemical weapons was only meant to reassure Israel. But Washington just contemplated
Syria being destroyed, creating a sharp feeling there that the United States and Israel are both very happy to see Syria torn apart. The Iran-assisted

Syrian regime’s violence was the major reason for the growth of ISIS in Syria, and was complemented by
the anti-Sunni sectarian policy of the Iran-sponsored Maliki government in Iraq. Shocking violence
breeds shocking violence through a rise to the extremes that leads into what I called some years ago
‘the clash of barbarisms’, a clash in which the United States is the main culprit and protagonist.

Trump wrecks hegemonic legitimacy – retrenchment, withdrawal from institutions,

severs alliances
Braaten 16, Daniel Braaten, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Texas Lutheran University. His
main research interests are in the areas of global governance, human rights, and U.S. foreign policy. His
research has been published in the Review of International Studies, Journal of Peace Research, Journal
of Human Rights, and Human Rights Review. ["WPTPN: The Legitimacy of American Hegemony in the
Age of Trump," Duck of Minerva, 12-03-16,

My use of the term hegemony is only to acknowledge the role the U.S. has taken to build, maintain, and
benefit from the post-World War II global order and how Trump’s foreign policy may impact America’s
role in maintaining this system going forward. Already commentators are arguing that a Trump
Presidency (coupled with the Brexit vote and a global surge in nationalism) spells the end of this system . So how might a
Trump presidency undermine the legitimacy that underlies America’s hegemonic position and the
post-World War II system of international institutions, embedded liberalism, and democracy? Legitimacy
is rightful authority and is essential for the effectiveness of any political order whether domestic or international. Hegemonic legitimacy
then is the rightful authority accrued to the most powerful state in the international system. A
hegemonic state cannot exercise effective leadership if its actions are viewed as illegitimate, and one
might go so far as to say a powerful state cannot become a hegemonic state without legitimacy . A
powerful state without legitimacy is just that – a powerful state, which may be able to influence political outcomes to a certain degree through
coercion and the application of material power, but will never be able to order international politics because it lacks
the legitimacy of consent from the follower states. In previous academic work, my coauthor David Rapkin and I argued that
America’s hegemonic legitimacy is based on four factors: shared values, open accessible decision-making procedures, strategic restraint, and
the provision of global public goods. Based on these four factors how
might American legitimacy fare under a Trump
Presidency? Before we can answer that question we need a rough idea of what a Trump foreign policy might look like. During the
presidential campaign Donald Trump made many erratic and contradictory promises for what he would do when he was President. Despite the
many contradictions of the Trump campaign, as the journalist Evan Osnos shows, he has been consistent on three main issues: One of them is
his belief that the United States is fundamentally being damaged by immigration. Number two is his belief that trade deals have done more
damage to the United States than they have helped. And number three is his belief that the United States does too much for the world. As he
said in 2015, ‘I want to take back everything that the United States has given the world’. Needless to say, this “America First” foreign
policy represents a radical departure from the liberal internationalism of Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama and even the Neo-conservatism of George W. Bush in each of the four areas that undergird US
hegemonic legitimacy . Shared Values : As Michael Barnett points out, “Trump’s vision of America in the world is
all power and no purpose.” His foreign policy does not even make a rhetorical gesture to support for
human rights, democracy, the rule of law, or support for global economic prosperity. In fact he has
explicitly endorsed and advocated for extreme violations of human rights and has open disdain for
international humanitarian law not to mention what impact the American economic nationalism
advocated for by Trump will have on the rest of the world. None of this is to say that U.S. foreign policy has always been
conducted with support for democracy, human rights, and global economic prosperity at the forefront. The U.S. is certainly guilty of violating
many of these values over the past decades but the
U.S. has also made a rhetorical commitment to these values a
part of its foreign policy along with actual support for these values in the context of supporting its own
national security and domestic economic prosperity. What is unprecedented is the open disdain by
Trump for many of the values that underlie the current system and his desire to radically alter them.
Open accessible decision-making procedures : Robert Tucker and David Hendrickson argue that one of the pillars of
American legitimacy in the post-World War II international order was/is its commitment consensual
modes of decision-making. This was reflected in the decision-making structures of international institutions such as the UN and World
Bank. Of course the U.S. still has decision-making advantages in these institutions and others but their overall structure allows for meaningful
input from participating countries. Diplomacy is another key factor in allowing allies access to decision-making procedures and providing a
mechanism to let them know their concerns are being heard. Trump’s general “America first” approach to U.S. foreign
policy indicates that he will have little time for maintaining a commitment to international institutions
and will probably be openly hostile to institutions such as the WTO. Trump’s appointment of South Carolina
Governor Nikki Haley as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. indicates some willingness to work with the institution but the fact that the Secretary of
State appointment has been so fraught does not bode well for traditional American diplomacy. This, as Elizabeth Saunders and James Lebovic
remind us, is
not “splashy” and therefore doesn’t seem to interest the President elect but it is vital for
maintaining America’s legitimacy. The only international diplomacy Trump does seem interested in is that which will benefit him
Strategic Restraint : The concept of strategic restraint is most closely related with John
Ikenberry’s argument that the U.S. bound itself to international institutions post-World War II in order
to limit some of its own autonomy as a means of inducing follower states to join the order without fear
of being dominated. At its most basic level, strategic restraint requires adhering to international law
and maintaining treaty obligations . As part of his first 100 day plan, President-elect Trump promises to re-
negotiate or withdraw from NAFTA and effectively withdraw American support for the Paris Climate
Accord. Of course, Trump also made provocative statements throughout the campaign questioning the importance of NATO and America’s
commitment to it although there are now some signs that Trump may be softening his opposition. Overall, Trump has expressed

disdain for international law especially in terms of trade agreements and has spoken widely about
abandoning many American treaty commitments. Providing Global Public Goods : Joseph Nye argues
that the U.S. should provide global public goods because not only does the U.S. reap benefits from such
goods but also that they “legitimize our power in the eyes of others.” Global public goods produced by a
hegemonic state can be both diffused- such as promoting peace and stability and more concrete and
specific- such as effective military engagement or serving as an engine for global economic prosperity. It
can be argued as to how effective the U.S. is currently in providing global public goods, but Trumps position that the U.S. “does

too much for the world” indicates a greater retrenchment for the U.S. in the future and much less of
a willingness to even attempt providing global public goods. Trump’s “America first” foreign policy
does not bode well for American hegemonic legitimacy . Assuming he is able to accomplish what he proposes, a
Trump Presidency would likely spell a significant reduction in U.S. engagement with the world coupled
with flagrant violations of international law and its treaty obligation when it does engage. Declining
American legitimacy will make it more difficult for the U.S. to achieve its foreign policy goals as
states will be less accommodating and less likely to support U.S. actions if they view these actions as
coming from an unrestrained superpower rather than a legitimate political actor that takes their
interests (at least to a certain degree) into consideration when taking action. This post is not meant as a blind
defense of the status quo as there are many inadequacies with the current international order and there are many possible reforms that can
and should be made to make it more fair and equitable. However, nothing Donald Trump offers in the way of
temperament, leadership, ideology, or policy portends any positive reform of the system but rather
an unraveling which opens up the possibility for a much more dangerous world.
Advantage 2

China is already solving for IP theft

Yu Yongding, 4-1-2018, "US accusations of Chinese IP theft just don’t add up,"
states/article/2152860/why-us-accusations-ip-theft-china-dont-add Yu Yongding, a former president of the China Society of World Economics
and director of the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, served on the Monetary Policy
Committee of the People’s Bank of China from 2004 to 2006. //OM

The final issue raised by the Section 301 report relates to cyber-enabled theft of IP and sensitive commercial information, which the US claims is
carried out by the Chinese government. The report acknowledges that since 2015 – when China and the US agreed that neither would
“conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information
for commercial advantage” – the number of detected incidents of Chinese cyber-espionage has declined. The
Section 301 report was, it seems clear, based on rumour, imagination and half-truths Yet some US officials insist that this likely reflects a shift
towards more centralised, practised and sophisticated attacks by a smaller number of actors. The truth is that China has been making
steady progress in its protection of property rights. As Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute of International Economics
points out, “China’s payments of licensing fees and royalties for the use of foreign technology have soared
in recent years, reaching almost [US$30 billion] last year, nearly a fourfold increase over the last decade”. In fact, Lardy continues, “China
probably ranks second globally in the magnitude of licensing fees paid for technology used within national borders”. The Section 301
report was, it seems clear, based on rumour, imagination and half-truths. The obvious question is how the Trump
administration can base a policy decision as consequential as trade tariffs – which could trigger a catastrophic trade war – on such weak
evidence. The obvious answer is that the report was intended to justify, rather than guide, the policy.

Trump’s tariffs are pissing china off already, any further investigations into Chinese IP
threat will piss China off more, turns case (solvency deficit?), increases tensions
Amanda Lee, 6-21-2018, "China angry over Trump’s latest tariff threats but gives no clues about countermeasures," POLITICO,

China’s commerce ministry on Thursday accused Washington of being “protectionist” and

“blackmailing” by threatening to impose further tariffs on Chinese products, but the ministry declined to specify how
Beijing will respond. Ministry spokesman Gao Feng said in Beijing that the United States had abused its import tariffs system and

had started trade wars in various parts of the world to “seriously undermine the world trade order and
harm the interests of its trading partners”. Washington’s allegation of China stealing its technology “is a
serious distortion of history and reality” and the U.S. was picking China as a “scapegoat” for its own
problems, he said. Gao was responding to President Donald Trump’s latest threat to hit $200 billion worth of Chinese imports with 10 percent tariffs if Beijing
retaliates against his previous announcement to target $50 billion in imports, and to target another $200 billion worth of Chinese products if Beijing

chooses to fight back. If it makes good on its threats, U.S. actions could affect as much as $450 billion
worth of Chinese imports. However, Gao didn’t give details on what specific retaliatory measures the
Chinese government will adopt against the fresh threats. He repeated what the ministry said on Tuesday, that China would
take forceful “qualitative and quantitative” countermeasures. “China has made full preparations ... to
defend the interests of the nation and the people,” Gao said. Observers speculated that Beijing could
move to restrict U.S. investment in China and tell Chinese companies not to do business with American
firms. China was likely to use “more underhanded and damaging forms of retaliation such as instructions
to Chinese companies and consumers to channel their business away from American companies, which
also includes services and goods”, said James Zimmerman, a partner in the Beijing office of law firm Perkins Coie. Beijing’s countermeasures will
be an important factor in determining future relations between the world’s two largest economies.
It doesn’t matter how much money you pour into HSI and other government agencies,
they can’t solve for Bitcoin and online anonymity, tech innovations will always put
criminals one step ahead (don’t read with the FBI CP dumbass)
Jason Bloomberg, 12-28-2017, "Using Bitcoin Or Other Cryptocurrency To Commit Crimes? Law Enforcement Is Onto You," Forbes,
you/#185259853bdc Jason Bloomberg is a leading IT industry analyst, Forbes contributor, keynote speaker, and globally recognized expert on multiple disruptive
trends in enterprise technology and digital transformation. He is founder and president of Agile Digital Transformation analyst firm Intellyx. He is ranked #5 on
Onalytica’s list of top Digital Transformation influencers for 2018 and #15 on Jax’s list of top DevOps influencers for 2017, the only person to appear on both lists.
Mr. Bloomberg is the author or coauthor of four books, including The Agile Architecture Revolution (Wiley, 2013). His next book, Agile Digital Transformation, is due
within the next year. //OM

Cryptocurrencies have actually led to a massive cat and mouse game with law enforcement, as agencies
get better at identifying criminal behavior, while criminals come up with new evasion techniques and
increasingly anonymous cybercurrencies in order to defeat the efforts of law enforcement. While much of
this innovation in the greater cybercurrency/blockchain arena aligns with the interests of criminals, there is another side to this story: the
increasing recognition that law enforcement requires its own technological innovation in order to keep up. The Challenge of Anonymity
Anonymity, of course, is one of the most important tools in the criminal’s toolbox. For money laundering in particular, the entire purpose of the
criminal activity is to separate the perpetrator’s identity from financial transactions. Anti-Money Laundering (AML) efforts, therefore, are
understandably concerned about cryptocurrency. Complicating this story for the money launderers is the fact that Bitcoin itself is not truly
anonymous. “While Bitcoin has a reputation for anonymity, the entire history of Bitcoin transactions is visible to all users,” explains Helene
Rosenberg, Director of Cash Management, Global Transaction Banking for Barclays US, in a recent white paper. “Therefore, the blockchain
technology/ledger, combined with a monitoring tool, actually allows for increased visibility into potential clients’ activity – more so than would
traditionally be available for MSBs [money service bureaus].” On the one hand, therefore, Bitcoin transaction monitoring technology is a viable
market niche for supporting law enforcement efforts. On
the other hand, criminals realize that Bitcoin isn’t sufficiently
anonymous and as a result, they’re driving increasingly anonymous cryptocurrency variants known as
‘altcoins.’ One approach to creating anonymous altcoins is ‘zero-proof technology.’ “Zero-proof
technology removes any identifying information (sender, recipient, and amount of a transaction) from a
blockchain’s ledger, essentially eliminating one of blockchain technology’s most celebrated features
when it comes to AML—the ability to trace transactions,” explains Joseph Mari, Senior Manager of Major Investigations in
the Anti-Money Laundering Financial Intelligence Unit at Bank of Montreal . “The first cryptocurrency to implement this technology is referred
to as Zcash.” Zcash, however, is but one of many altcoin efforts that seek to bring the anonymity that Bitcoin lacks. “Monero and Dash are the
names of just two of many cryptocurrencies that offer ‘anonymous transactions.’” Mari continues. “Neither utilizes zero-proof technology.”
Another approach to anonymity favored by criminals: The Onion Router (Tor), which anonymizes the IP address of the user. Tor is thus
particularly useful for contraband transactions on the Dark Web. “Anonymous Bitcoin users utilizing Tor pose one of the
biggest challenges for potential Bitcoin regulation and enforcement,” writes Kavid Singh, Assistant
Attorney General at the Texas Office of the Attorney General. “Workable anti-money-laundering laws
for Bitcoin, therefore, must either bypass or eliminate anonymity in the network.” The innovation supporting
criminal enterprise appears to have an edge on advancements in law enforcement, however. “Blockchain technology will evolve
very quickly to become untraceable,” says Albert Mavashev, CTO at Nastel Technologies. “New developments are being
implemented in Zcash, Dash and other up-and-coming Bitcoin variants such as Verge and Nav Coin, which will make digital transactions virtually
untraceable. Currently I don’t see what law enforcement can do to stop this.”
Cyber scenario
HSI not key to combatting cyber crime—the FBI is the key agency
FBI 7/26/16—(Federal Bureau of Investigations, “Countering the Cyber Threat” HRB)

Earlier this year, the

Obama Administration—in recognition of the growing cyber threat from criminals,
terrorists, and others who wish to do us harm—released its Cybersecurity National Action Plan. One aspect of this multi-
layered plan was a specific focus on improving cyber incident response. Because the victim of cyber incidents is often a private sector entity, it’s crucial that the
private sector understands how the U.S. government will respond and coordinate in the event of a cyber incident impacting their networks, operations, or business.
So today, the Administration released Presidential Policy Directive-41 on U.S. Cyber Incident Coordination Policy, which sets forth principles
that will govern the federal government’s response to cyber incidents and designates certain federal
agencies to take the lead in three different response areas—threat response, asset response, and
intelligence support. Those agencies and their roles are as follows: The Department of Justice, acting
through the FBI and the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF), will be taking the lead on
threat response activities; The Department of Homeland Security, acting through the National
Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, will be the lead agency for asset response
activities; And the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, through its Cyber Threat Intelligence
Integration Center, will be the lead agency for intelligence support and related activities. As the lead for
threat response, the FBI will play a key role in the event of a significant cyber incident, communicating with field-
level coordinators on the ground to coordinate an effective, multi-agency response to the incident. Threat response activities include conducting

appropriate law enforcement and national security investigative activity, like collecting evidence and
gathering intelligence; mitigating the immediate threat; identifying disruption activities; and facilitating
information sharing and operational coordination with asset response personnel. Additionally, according to the PPD,
the FBI will also take part in the Cyber Unified Coordination Group, an entity to be formed in the event of a significant cyber incident that will also include asset
response coordinators and, as appropriate, other federal agencies; local, state, and tribal governments; non-governmental organizations; the private sector; and
international counterparts. This mechanism will take collaboration among all responding agencies to an even higher level. The principles raised in PPD-41 that will
guide the federal government’s response to cyber incidents closely align with the FBI’s values and priorities already in place when dealing with cyber incidents. The
Bureau already believes that: Prevention and management of cyber incidents is a shared responsibility among the government, private sector, and individuals; All
incidents should be approached through a united federal government strategy that best uses the skills, authorities, and resources of each agency; The response will
be based on an assessment of the risks posed to U.S. security, safety, and prosperity, and will focus on enabling the restoration and recovery of the affected entity;
and The government will respect the privacy, civil liberties, and the business needs of victims of cyber incidents. According to FBI Assistant Director James Trainor,
Cyber Division, “PPD-41
codifies the essential role that the FBI plays in cyber incident response, recognizing its
unique expertise, resources, and capabilities. And as the Bureau continues evolving to keep pace with the cyber threat, the authorities
contained in PPD-41 will allow us to help shape the nation’s strategy for addressing nationally-significant cyber incidents.” “This new policy,” said Trainor, “will also
enhance the continuing efforts of the FBI—in conjunction with its partners—to protect the American public, businesses, organizations, and the economy and
security of our nation from the wide range of cyber actors who threaten us.”

No econ collapse from cyber crime—Equifax thumps

John McCrank and Jim Finkle 3/2/18—(John McCrank writes about finances for Reuters and The
Independent, Jim Finkle is the cybersecurity/technology editor for Reuters, “Equifax breach could be
most costly in corporate history”
could-be-most-costly-in-corporate-history-idUSKCN1GE257 HRB

Equifax Inc (EFX.N) said it expects costs related to its massive 2017 data breach to surge by $275 million this year,
suggesting the incident at the credit reporting bureau could turn out to be the most costly hack in corporate
history. The projection, which was disclosed on a Friday morning earnings conference call, is on top of $164 million in
pretax costs posted in the second half of 2017. That brings expected breach-related costs through the end of this
year to $439 million, some $125 million of which Equifax said will be covered by insurance. “It looks like this will be the most expensive
data breach in history,” said Larry Ponemon, chairman of Ponemon Institute, a research group that tracks costs of cyber attacks. Total costs
of the breach, which compromised sensitive data of more than 147 million consumers, could be “well over $600 million,” after
including costs to resolve government investigations into the incident and civil lawsuits against the firm, he said. Equifax on Thursday reported
fourth-quarter profit that topped Wall Street forecasts and disclosed that it uncovered an additional 2.4 million people whose data was stolen
in the attack. Its shares rose nearly 4 percent to $115.82 on Friday on the higher-than-expected earnings. They have lost about a quarter of
their value since Equifax disclosed the incident in early September. Equifax said in September that hackers had
stolen personally
identifiable information of U.S., UK and Canadian consumers, including names, Social Security numbers, birth
dates, addresses driver’s license and credit card numbers. That disclosure prompted outrage from
politicians and consumer advocates around the world, a string of government probes into company and the departure of
top executives. Equifax warned in regulatory filing on Thursday that further analysis could identify more consumers or additional types of data
stolen in the hack. This year’s costs include technology and security upgrades, legal fees and free identity theft services to consumers whose
data was stolen, the company said in a conference call. (This story corrects fourth paragraph to show that breach compromised data of more
than 147 million consumers, not 247 million consumers.)

The US was already solving for IP theft with China before trump took office, midterms
squo solves impacts, pence is more rational and much more likely to try and cooperate
with China
Joe Nocera, 4-10-2018, "U.S. Was Winning War Against China's Intellectual Property Theft," Bloomberg, Nocera is a
Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former
editorial director of Fortune. He is co-author of “Indentured: The Inside Story of the Rebellion Against the NCAA.” //OM

A third point many of these experts made is that for all of Trump’s rhetoric, the IP problem has slowly been getting better. The long-
standing practice of copying (stealing) Western movies and software isn’t nearly as bad as it used to be. Andy Rothman, a China expert with the investment firm
Matthews Asia, sent me a recent survey taken of
the Beijing members of the American Chamber of Commerce in China
that showed only 16 percent viewed the forced transfer of technology as a “significant” problem. “Ten years
ago,” he told me, “if you went into a Chinese drugstore to buy drugs, they were probably fakes. Now, if you buy them in a decent drugstore, they’re likely to be
real.” Partly this is the result of Western pressure, but it’s also because Chinese companies have become
sophisticated enough to have their own intellectual property they want to protect. Lawsuits between
Chinese companies over IP issues have sensitized the government and the courts to the legitimate
complaints of Western companies as well. What was most painful in listening to these experts is hearing
them talk about how close we were to making major strides in solving the remaining problem before
Trump took office. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the U.S. had negotiated with 11 other countries
and which excluded China, had strong intellectual property protections. The Obama administration was
also negotiating a similar agreement with the European Union that toughened IP protection. Kennedy told me
he believes those agreements, which gave the signatories big trade advantages, would have “left China on the outside looking in.” To

get the same favorable treatment, China would have had to strengthen its IP protections as well. But of
course one of the first things Trump did upon taking office was to pull the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership -- which has since been rebuilt without Washington. It also turns out that the Obama administration was in the
process of negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with China that it was unable to complete before
leaving office. That agreement, I’m told, had strong language about IP protections. All of these
agreements used the World Trade Organization as the ruling body if disputes arose. Which is to say, we were getting
there, slowly -- probably too slowly, but getting there. Trump’s instinct to try to speed things up was a good one. His diagnosis of Chinese intransigence was largely
correct. But the people I spoke to all seemed to be saying was this: What good is a diagnosis if the pill you take kills you?

Obsession about IP theft is dumb just like this aff (tag me)
Jake Van Der Kamp, 3-3-2018, "Should the world pay China for the right to use paper, or movable type?," South China Morning Post, Jake van der Kamp is a native of
the Netherlands, a Canadian citizen, and a longtime Hong Kong resident. He started as a South China Morning Post business reporter in 1978, soon made a career
change to investment analyst and returned to the newspaper in 1998 as a financial columnist. //OM
His list was longer, of course, of all the practices to which the US turns a blind eye or deems fair when practised by the US. But I shall restrict myself here to his
complaint about intellectual property theft and to China, as China is obviously the culprit he had in mind. First, some perspective.
The figures show that
intellectual property royalties paid by China to foreign entities currently run at about US$27.4 billion a
year, a tenfold increase over the last 15 years. The present figure comes to just under one quarter of
one per cent of gross domestic product. Strange to say, it is about the same proportion of GDP that the
US pays foreigners in intellectual property royalties. Ah yes, but the doctrine of American exclusivity
clearly states that the US is the “bestest country” in the whole wide world, which must mean that
Americans invented everything (move aside, you Scots). Thus, we should not be surprised that the US owes the rest of the world little in copyright
and patent royalties while China owes it more than China will pay. I stand rebuked. Let me change tack. It used to be that patents offered protection for 20 years
after the date of filing. Copyright protection extended for 25 years after the death of the author. These days, the term of patent rights is effectively indefinite in the
US. Just add a little toggle to the design and file once more. If you’re lucky and the patent clerk is a blockhead, you win again. The term for copyright meanwhile has
been raised to 95 years. Mickey Mouse was about to come into the public domain in 1998. Can’t have that. Hong Kong kindergartens would no longer break
American law with their window displays. The European Union went even sillier. Works for which copyright had already expired were put back into copyright when
the EU adopted longer terms for all of Europe. What should strike you here is that it was all done unilaterally. There was no consultation with other sovereign
states. Brussels ordained, Congress ruled, and the rest of the world was told to bow. Very well, let us do it that way then. I have a suggestion for China’s President Xi
Jinping. Let
China also extend its intellectual property rights to longer terms. We shall make it 2,000 years,
and now let the rest of the world pay Beijing royalties every time anyone uses paper. And if Donald
Trump wishes to say that 2,000 years is too long, we can make it 200 years, as it was about 200 years
ago that American intellectual property pirates stole the secret of industrial papermaking from France.
Next, we can look at movable type, another Chinese invention. Surely The New York Times ought to pay Beijing royalties for its use of this invention. Mr Trump does
not like that newspaper anyway. Come on, Donald. Make ‘em pay. There
is a truth about creativity and invention, which
demands for protection continually ignore; it is that no complete new idea ever springs entirely of its
own to the brain of any human being. Progress is the achievement of all of human civilisation, one small
step at a time. Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb, nor Alexander Bell the telephone. They only
completed the last step of a much longer process of our understanding of the physical world and our
ability to manipulate its atomic elements. This ship’s voyage is much longer than the instant it touches port. In my opinion, intellectual
property protection does more to inhibit creativity than to promote it. We reward people to stop other
people from making use of ideas that are really attributable to all of society. The intentions may have
been good but it has worked out to be just another way of enriching the haves and impoverishing the
have-nots. I cheer for Robin Hood when he is up against the Sheriff of Nottingham in the White House.

China’s theft of U.S. tech is hard to stop, surprise surprise, who knew? (everyone, this
is a dumb aff, next) (don’t read this card if you’re going to read the “china solving
already” cards, you’ll be the dumb hoe who double turns themselves in the 1NC ,
don’t be a dumb hoe)
Erica Pandey, 5-25-2018, "The rude, red awakening: China's theft of U.S. technology,"
ip-theft-trade-war-48c62145-e574-4674-a0ce-47b9a06f95ce.html Reporter. Yale grad, Boston native//OM

The thefts Chinese methods of IP theft are diverse and difficult to combat. Forced technology transfers:
If foreign firms refuse to hand over tech secrets, the government will often carry out police raids of their
offices under the pretext of investigating a violation of Chinese law, Wilder says. Corporate espionage:
Beijing recruits people within target companies — often appealing to ethnically-Chinese employees — to
sell secrets to China. Cyber attacks: China launches cyber attacks against companies to steal intellectual
property, though companies have reported a decline in these types of attacks after Xi and then-
President Obama agreed to crack down on cyber espionage in late 2015. It hurts American companies'
ability to turn profits. "Chinese theft of American IP currently costs between $225 billion and $600
billion annually," U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer concluded in March after a nine-month
investigation. American companies looking to fight IP theft have to take their cases to Chinese court. But
Wilder says their chances are low: "If the Chinese government wants you to lose, you're going to lose."
And it's a major threat to U.S. national security. China's advancements of its military technology have
reportedly been helped along by industrial espionage, per CNBC. Its new stealth fighter jets closely
resemble the U.S. F-22s and F-35s, says Wilder. What to watch The U.S.'s recent crackdown on Chinese
phone maker ZTE has only proven to Beijing that it's right to pour resources into developing cutting-
edge tech at home, says Abigail Grace, a National Security Council official under Obama and Trump
who's now at the Center for a New American Security. So we could see more IP theft as China rushes to
catch up to the U.S. — and then out-innovate it, says Grace. "Their instinct is to go to where the
innovation is, take it and build upon it." China won't change its tune unless there's coherent pressure
from the West, Jim Lewis, a former Commerce Department official who oversaw high-tech trade with
China and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, tells Axios. Lewis, who spoke with
officials in Beijing this week, says the Chinese are not feeling that pressure from Trump.

Hackers are using bitcoin, tor and other cryptocurrencies (that’s Lewis 18 from 1AC)
and HSI and other government agencies can’t solve
Jon Martindale, 12-19-2017, "Go ahead, pass laws. They can’t kill bitcoin, even if they try," Digital Trends, Jon Martindale has been a tech news
writer for the best part of ten years, covering everything from the latest games and hardware, to hacking scandals and privacy law. Outside of
work hours, Jon continues to wear his nerd heart on his sleeve, enjoying comics, board games and model painting. //OM

Bitcoin is a famously dececentralized cryptocurrency, a system of storing value, and a somewhat less-effective transaction medium. It allows
near-instantaneous transfers all over the world without a middle man or regulatory body giving it the go-ahead. Fans of cryptocurrency fear
government regulation could ruin it, but they shouldn’t be concerned. Any attempt control bitcoin simply won’t work. Beyond
the difficulties presented by the decentralization of bitcoin itself, governments and regulatory bodies have shown they lack understanding of
technological topics, and bitcoin is one of the most complex. As
governments struggle to ban technologies like Tor and
encryption, it seems impossible to imagine them gaining the ability to truly impact bitcoin – and its alt-
coin contemporaries – in a way that could impede its progress. Historical precedent The oversight jitters are
understandable. There have been some attempts at regulation over the years, and now that bitcoin’s value has spiked to unprecedented new
heights, there is greater discussion than ever from governments around the world. Perhaps it’s no wonder that half of those surveyed in a
recent report of bitcoin owners claimed they didn’t want any regulation of cryptocurrency in the coming years. The blockchain it’s built upon
does not require an institution to operate it. In December 2013, the Chinese government banned financial institutions from using bitcoin,
causing a downturn in the cryptocurrency’s value that would set a precedent for its worth over the coming years. Less than a year later, in April
2014, several Chinese bitcoin exchanges had their bank accounts closed. That spurred concern that government oversight limiting access to fiat
currency (traditional, ‘real world’ currency) could be lead a wave of future regulations to curtail bitcoin’s growth. Yet loopholes in the
crackdown meant many exchanges stayed in business, and bitcoin’s price rose some 25 percent in the 10 days that followed. The U.S. has made
localized attempts to regulate specific aspects of bitcoin. New York State requires a “BitLicense” for bitcoin related businesses, with specific
rules for employee vetting and identification. Just last month, the IRS won a landmark ruling to gain access to information about 14,000 historic
Coinbase accounts, in an attempt to gather back taxes from owners. While some of those instances are more concerning than others, none of it
has stopped bitcoin’s growth.That reveals the flaws of any future attempts to crack down on bitcoin’s use.
Bitcoin’s intrinsic impossible oversight There are several key components to bitcoin, and its fellow
cryptocurrencies, which make them successful as methods of transaction, and stores of value. They’re
easy to transfer, no middle-man is required, and they can’t be linked to owners who don’t want to be
identified. These are all big problems for any government wanting to have a greater say in how they
operate. Bitcoin is not linked to any territory or financial institution. There are tens of popular exchanges, and even if there weren’t, all you
need are wallets and a network connection to be able to conduct bitcoin transactions. The blockchain it’s built upon does not require any one
institution to operate it, and indeed is the complete antithesis of such an idea, operating as a public ledger rather than a private one.
Without that central location to shut down, any meaningful crackdown would have to be a global
endeavor. Even if a country was to somehow prevent bitcoin transactions from taking place within their
borders, a simple VPN or Proxy system would let users operate internationally with little issue. If
governments could effectively stop a peer to peer network, they would’ve shut down the illegal
practices of torrent websites over a decade ago. Even the success of the hydra-like torrent sites isn’t a perfect analogy for
bitcoin, though, because cryptocurreny’s legal status is far easy to debate. A fairer comparison would be the so-called dark web. Although
individual sites, servers and people involved with various activities on there may occasionally be arrested for illegal activities, it would be
ridiculous to think any government could regulate the entire network. Trying to ban bitcoin or regulate it in a manner that allows actual
oversight would be much the same. It’s impossible on a technical level. Even tracking individual people who own
specific wallets is difficult. While the public blockchain might allow governments or law enforcement to
track down certain bitcoins, tying them to a real-world person is very difficult. An owner can hide his or her
identity with a VPN, Tor, or even physically move a wallet into cold storage (offline) form, making it invisible to the world. Is there any
wonder that bitcoin is being used for money laundering, ransomware and other organized crime tactics?
Take the additional step to throw your bitcoins through a tumbler that jumbles up your bitcoins with
many others, and then spits them out into another wallet not linked with the original, and the trail
quickly goes cold.

-GOP turnout doesn’t change, Dems does

-ERO good
-go through last card on cyber crime
Terror Scenario

1. This is dumb, their card about HSI key has literally one line where it mentions
terrorism and it just says HSI HELPS the FBI with counterterrorism measures
2 No WMD or escalation
Weiss 15—Visiting scholar at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford
University, a member of the National Advisory Board of the Center for Arms Control and Non-
Proliferation in Washington, DC, and a former professor of applied mathematics and engineering at
Brown and the University of Maryland [Leonard, “On fear and nuclear terrorism,” Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, March/April, Vol. 71, No. 2, p. 75-87]
If the fear of nuclear war has thus had some positive effects, the fear of nuclear terrorism has had mainly negative effects on the lives of millions of people around
the world, including in the United States, and even affects negatively the prospects for a more peaceful world. Although
there has been much
commentary on the interest that Osama bin Laden, when he was alive, reportedly expressed in obtaining
nuclear weapons (see Mowatt-Larssen, 2010), and some terrorists no doubt desire to obtain such weapons, evidence of any

terrorist group working seriously toward the theft of nuclear weapons or the acquisition of such
weapons by other means is virtually nonexistent. This may be due to a combination of reasons. Terrorists understand
that it is not hard to terrorize a population without committing mass murder: In 2002, a single sniper in the Washington,
DC area, operating within his own automobile and with one accomplice, killed 10 people and changed the behavior of virtually the entire populace of the city over a
period of three weeks by instilling fear of being a randomly chosen shooting victim when out shopping. Terrorists who believe the commission of violence helps
their cause have access to many explosive materials and conventional weapons to ply their “trade .”
If public sympathy is important to their
cause, an apparent plan or commission of mass murder is not going to help them, and indeed will make
their enemies even more implacable, reducing the prospects of achieving their goals. The acquisition of nuclear weapons
by terrorists is not like the acquisition of conventional weapons; it requires significant time, planning,
resources, and expertise, with no guarantees that an acquired device would work. It requires putting
aside at least some aspects of a group’s more immediate activities and goals for an attempted operation
that no terrorist group has previously accomplished. While absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence (as then-Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld kept reminding us during the search for Saddam’s nonexistent nuclear weapons), it is reasonable to conclude that the fear of nuclear
terrorism has swamped realistic consideration of the threat. As Brian Jenkins, a longtime observer of terrorist groups, wrote in 2008: Nuclear terrorism … turns out
to be a world of truly worrisome particles of truth. Yet it is also a world of fantasies, nightmares, urban legends, fakes, hoaxes, scams, stings, mysterious substances,
terrorist boasts, sensational claims, description of vast conspiracies, allegations of coverups, lurid headlines, layers of misinformation and disinformation. Much is
inconclusive or contradictory. Only the terror is real. (Jenkins, 2008: 26) The three ways terrorists might get a nuke To illustrate in more detail how fear has distorted
the threat of nuclear terrorism, consider
the three possibilities for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon: steal one;
be given one created by a nuclear weapon state; manufacture one. None of these possibilities has a
high probability of occurring . Stealing nukes. Nothing is better protected in a nuclear weapon state than the
weapons themselves, which have multiple layers of safeguards that, in the United States, include intelligence
and surveillance, electronic locks (including so-called “permissive action links” that prevent detonation unless a code is entered into the lock),
gated and locked storage facilities, armed guards, and teams of elite responders if an attempt at theft
were to occur. We know that most weapon states have such protections, and there is no reason to believe
that such protections are missing in the remaining states, since no weapon state would want to put itself
at risk of an unintended nuclear detonation of its own weapons by a malevolent agent. Thus, the
likelihood of an unauthorized agent secretly planning a theft, without being discovered, and getting
access to weapons with the intent and physical ability to carry them off in the face of such layers of protection is extremely low —but it isn’t
impossible, especially in the case where the thief is an insider. The insider threat helped give credibility to the stories, circulating about 20 years ago, that there
were “loose nukes” in the USSR, based on some statements by a Soviet general who claimed the regime could not account for more than 40 “suitcase nukes” that
had been built. The Russian government denied the claim, and at this point there is no evidence that any nukes were ever loose. Now, it is unclear if any such
weapon would even work after 20 years of corrosion of both the nuclear and non-nuclear materials in the device and the radioactive decay of certain isotopes.
Because of the large number of terrorist groups operating in its geographic vicinity, Pakistan is frequently suggested as a possible
candidate for scenarios in which a terrorist group either seizes a weapon via collaboration with insiders sympathetic to its cause, or in which terrorists
“inherit” nuclear weapons by taking over the arsenal of a failed nuclear state that has devolved into chaos. Attacks by a terrorist group on a Pakistani military base,
at Kamra, which is believed to house nuclear weapons in some form, have been referenced in connection with such security concerns (Nelson and Hussain, 2012).
However, the Kamra base contained US fighter planes, including F-16s, used to bomb Taliban bases in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, so the planes, not nuclear
weapons, were the likely target of the terrorists, and in any case the mission was a failure. Moreover, Pakistan
is not about to collapse, and
the Pakistanis are known to have received major international assistance in technologies for protecting
their weapons from unauthorized use, store them in somewhat disassembled fashion at multiple
locations, and have a sophisticated nuclear security structure in place (see Gregory, 2013; Khan, 2012). However, the
weapons are assembled at times of high tension in the region, and, to keep a degree of uncertainty in
their location, they are moved from place to place, making them more vulnerable to seizure at such
times (Goldberg and Ambinder, 2011). (It should be noted that US nuclear weapons were subject to such risks during various times when the weapons traveled
US highways in disguised trucks and accompanying vehicles, but such travel and the possibility of terrorist seizure was never mentioned publicly.) Such scenarios of
seizure in Pakistan would require a major security breakdown within the army leading to a takeover of weapons by a nihilistic terrorist group with little warning,
while army loyalists along with India and other interested parties (like the United States) stand by and do not intervene. This is not a particularly realistic scenario,
but it’s also not a reason to conclude that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is of no concern. It is, not only because of an internal threat, but especially because it raises the
possibility of nuclear war with India. For this and other reasons, intelligence agencies in multiple countries spend considerable resources tracking the Pakistani
nuclear situation to reduce the likelihood of surprises. But any consideration of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal does bring home (once again) the folly of US policy in the
1980s, when stopping the Pakistani nuclear program was put on a back burner in order to prosecute the Cold War against the Soviets in Afghanistan (which
ultimately led to the establishment of Al Qaeda). Some of the loudest voices expressing concern about nuclear terrorism belong to former senior government
officials who supported US assistance to the mujahideen and the accompanying diminution of US opposition to Pakistan’s nuclear activities. Acquiring

nukes as a gift. Following the shock of 9/11, government officials and the media imagined many scenarios in which terrorists obtain nuclear weapons; one of
those scenarios involves a weapon state using a terrorist group for delivery of a nuclear weapon. There are at least two reasons why this

scenario is unlikely: First, once a weapon state loses control of a weapon, it cannot be sure the weapon will
be used by the terrorist group as intended. Second, the state cannot be sure that the transfer of the
weapon has been undetected either before or after the fact of its detonation (see Lieber and Press, 2013). The use of
the weapon by a terrorist group will ultimately result in the transferring nation becoming a nuclear target just as if it had itself detonated the device. This is a

powerful deterrent to such a transfer, making the transfer a low-probability event. Although these first two ways in
which terrorists might obtain a nuclear weapon have very small probabilities of occurring (there is no available data suggesting that terrorist groups have produced
plans for stealing a weapon, nor has there been any public information suggesting that any nuclear weapon state has seriously considered providing a nuclear
weapon to a sub-national group), the probabilities cannot be said to be zero as long as nuclear weapons exist. Manufacturing a nuclear weapon.
To accomplish this, a terrorist group would have to obtain an appropriate amount of one of the two most popular
materials for nuclear weapons, highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium separated from fuel used in a production reactor or a power reactor. Weapon-
grade plutonium is found in weapon manufacturing facilities in nuclear weapon states and is very highly protected until it is inserted in a

weapon. Reactor-grade plutonium, although still capable of being weaponized, is less protected, and in that sense is a more attractive

target for a terrorist, especially since it has been produced and stored in prodigious quantities in a number of nuclear weapon states and non-weapon states,
particularly Japan. But terrorist use of plutonium for a nuclear explosive device would require the construction

of an implosion weapon, requiring the fashioning of an appropriate explosive lens of TNT, a notoriously difficult technical
problem. And if a high nuclear yield (much greater than 1 kiloton) is desired, the use of reactor-grade plutonium would require a
still more sophisticated design. Moreover, if the plutonium is only available through chemical separation from some (presumably stolen) spent fuel
rods, additional technical complications present themselves. There is at least one study showing that a small team of people with the

appropriate technical skills and equipment could, in principle, build a plutonium-based nuclear explosive device (Mark et al., 1986). But even if one

discounts the high probability that the plan would be discovered at some stage (missing plutonium or spent fuel rods
would put the authorities and intelligence operations under high alert), translating this into a real-world situation suggests an

extremely low probability of technical success. More likely, according to one well-known weapon designer,4 would be
the death of the person or persons in the attempt to build the device. There is the possibility of an insider threat; in one
example, a team of people working at a reactor or reprocessing site could conspire to steal some material and try to hide the diversion as MUF (materials
unaccounted for) within the nuclear safeguards system. But this scenario would require intimate knowledge of the materials
accounting system on which safeguards in that state are based and adds another layer of complexity to
an operation with low probability of success. The situation is different in the case of using highly
enriched uranium, which presents fewer technical challenges. Here an implosion design is not necessary, and a “gun type” design is the more likely
approach. Fear of this scenario has sometimes been promoted in the literature via the quotation of a famous statement by nuclear physicist Luis Alvarez that
dropping a subcritical amount of HEU onto another subcritical amount from a distance of five feet could result in a nuclear yield. The probability of such a yield (and
its size) would depend on the geometry of the HEU components and the amount of material. More likely than a substantial nuclear explosion from such a scenario
would be a criticality accident that would release an intense burst of radiation, killing persons in the immediate vicinity, or (even less likely) a low-yield nuclear
“fizzle” that could be quite damaging locally (like a large TNT explosion) but also carry a psychological effect because of its nuclear dimension. In any case, since the
critical mass of a bare metal perfect sphere of pure U-235 is approximately 56 kilograms, stealing
that much highly enriched material (and
getting away without detection, an armed fight, or a criticality accident) is a major problem for any thief and one significantly

greater than the stealing of small amounts of HEU and lower-enriched material that has been reported
from time to time over the past two decades, mostly from former Soviet sites that have since had their security greatly strengthened.
Moreover, fashioning the material into a form more useful or convenient for explosive purposes could likely mean a

need for still more material than suggested above, plus a means for machining it, as would be the case
for HEU fuel assemblies from a research reactor. In a recent paper, physics professor B. C. Reed discusses the feasibility of terrorists
building a low-yield, gun-type fission weapon, but admittedly avoids the issue of whether the terrorists would likely have the technical ability to carry feasibility to
realization and whether the terrorists are likely to be successful in stealing the needed material and hiding their project as it proceeds (Reed, 2014). But this is the
crux of the nuclear terrorism issue. There is no argument about feasibility, which has been accepted for decades, even for plutonium-based weapons, ever since Ted
Taylor first raised it in the early 1970s5 and a Senate subcommittee held hearings in the late 1970s on a weapon design created by a Harvard dropout from
information he obtained from the public section of the Los Alamos National Laboratory library (Fialka, 1978). Likewise, no one can deny the terrible consequences of
a nuclear explosion. The question is the level of risk, and what steps are acceptable in a democracy for reducing it. Although the attention in the literature given to
nuclear terrorism scenarios involving HEU would suggest major attempts to obtain such material by terrorist groups, there is only one known case
of a major theft of HEU. It involves a US government contractor processing HEU for the US Navy in Apollo, Pennsylvania in the 1970s at a time when
security and materials accounting were extremely lax. The theft was almost surely carried out by agents of the Israeli government with the probable involvement of
a person or persons working for the contractor, not a sub-national terrorist group intent on making its own weapons (Gilinsky and Mattson, 2010). The

circumstances under which this theft occurred were unique, and there was significant information about
the contractor’s relationship to Israel that should have rung alarm bells and would do so today. Although it
involved a government and not a sub-national group, the theft underscores the importance of security and accounting of nuclear materials, especially because the
technical requirements for making an HEU weapon are less daunting than for a plutonium weapon, and the probability of success by a terrorist group, though low, is

certainly greater than zero. Over the past two decades, there
has been a significant effort to increase protection of such
materials, particularly in recent years through the efforts of nongovernmental organizations like the International Panel on Fissile
Materials6 and advocates like Matthew Bunn working within the Obama administration (Bunn and Newman, 2008), though the administration has
apparently not seen the need to make the materials as secure as the weapons themselves. Are terrorists even interested in making their own nuclear weapons? A
recent paper (Friedman and Lewis, 2014) postulates a scenario by which terrorists might seize nuclear materials in Pakistan for fashioning a weapon. While jihadist

sympathizers are known to have worked within the Pakistani nuclear establishment, there is little to no evidence that terrorist groups
in or outside the region are seriously trying to obtain a nuclear capability. And Pakistan has been operating a uranium
enrichment plant for its weapons program for nearly 30 years with no credible reports of diversion of HEU from the plant. T here is one stark example

of a terrorist organization that actually started a nuclear effort: the Aum Shinrikyo group. At its peak, this
religious cult had a membership estimated in the tens of thousands spread over a variety of countries, including Japan; its members had scientific expertise in many
areas; and the group was well funded. Aum Shinrikyo obtained access to natural uranium supplies, but the nuclear weapon effort stalled and
was abandoned. The group was also interested in chemical weapons and did produce sarin nerve gas with which they attacked the Tokyo subway system,
killing 13 persons. Aum Shinrikyo is now a small organization under continuing close surveillance. What about

highly organized groups, designated appropriately as terrorist, that have acquired enough territory to enable them to operate in a quasi-governmental
fashion, like the Islamic State (IS)? Such organizations are certainly dangerous, but how would nuclear terrorism fit in with a

program for building and sustaining a new caliphate that would restore past glories of Islamic society,
especially since, like any organized government, the Islamic State would itself be vulnerable to nuclear
attack? Building a new Islamic state out of radioactive ashes is an unlikely ambition for such groups.
However, now that it has become notorious, apocalyptic pronouncements in Western media may begin at any time, warning of the possible acquisition and use of

nuclear weapons by IS. Even if a terror group were to achieve technical nuclear proficiency, the time, money,
and infrastructure needed to build nuclear weapons creates significant risks of discovery that would
put the group at risk of attack. Given the ease of obtaining conventional explosives and the ability to
deploy them, a terrorist group is unlikely to exchange a big part of its operational program to engage in
a risky nuclear development effort with such doubtful prospects. And, of course, 9/11 has heightened
sensitivity to the need for protection, lowering further the probability of a successful effort.
Offense/solvency take outs
HSI bad
No solvency—HSI is so filled with corruption that is incredibly damaging to national
Ron Nixon 12/28/2016—(Ron Nixon is The New York Times’s homeland security correspondent. He is
based in the Washington bureau, where he covers border and aviation security, immigration, cybercrime
and cyber security, transnational crime, and violent extremism, “The Enemy Within: Bribes Bore a Hole
in the U.S. Border”

In 2012, Joohoon David Lee, a federal Homeland Security agent in Los Angeles, was assigned to
investigate the case of a Korean businessman accused of sex trafficking. Instead of carrying out a thorough inquiry,
Lee solicited and received about $13,000 in bribes and other gifts from the businessman and his relatives in return for
making the “immigration issue go away,” court records show. Lee, an agent with Homeland Security
Investigations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a report saying: “Subject was suspected
of human trafficking. No evidence found and victim statement contradicts. Case closed. No further
action required.” But after another agent alerted internal investigators about Lee’s interference in a different case, his record was
examined and he was charged with bribery. He pleaded guilty in July and was sentenced to 10 months in prison. It was not an isolated

case . A review by The New York Times of thousands of court records and internal agency documents showed that over the last 10
years almost 200 employees and contract workers of the Department of Homeland Security have taken nearly
$15 million in bribes while being paid to protect the nation’s borders and enforce immigration laws. These employees have looked
the other way as tons of drugs and thousands of unauthorized immigrants were smuggled into the
United States, the records show. They have illegally sold green cards and other immigration documents, have entered law-enforcement
databases and given sensitive information to drug cartels. In one case, the information was used to arrange the attempted murder of an
informant. The Times’ findings most likely undercount the amount of bribes because in many cases court records do not give a tally. The
findings also do not include gifts, trips or money stolen by Homeland Security employees. Throughout his campaign, President-elect Donald
Trump said border security would be one of his highest priorities. As he prepares to take office, he will find many of the problems seem to come
from within. “It does absolutely no good to talk about the building of walls or tougher enforcement if you can’t secure the integrity of the
immigration system, when you have fraud and corruption with your own employees,” said an internal-affairs official at the Department of
Homeland Security who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Although Homeland Security employees who have been caught taking bribes
represent less than 1 percent of the more than 250,000 people who work at the department, investigators say the
bribes and small
numbers of people arrested and charged with bribery obscure the impact corruption can have on border
security and immigration enforcement. “Any amount is bad, and one person alone can do a lot of damage,” said
John Roth, the inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security. Law-enforcement experts say the bribing of border and immigration
agents is not surprising. As security along the border has tightened with the addition of fences, drones and sensors, drug cartels and human
smugglers have found it more difficult to operate. Homeland Security officials, acknowledging that internal corruption is a problem, have hired
more internal affairs investigators, provided ethics training and started to administer polygraph tests to new applicants, along with
countersurveillance training to employees so they can recognize when they are being targeted by criminal organizations. Customs and Border
Protection, which has had dozens of its officers arrested and charged with bribery, said it had made additional changes to combat corruption.
Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, in 2014 gave authority to the agency’s internal-affairs office to conduct criminal investigations
for the first time. And Mark Morgan, a former FBI agent who had investigated corruption on the border, was put in charge of the Border Patrol.
“Polygraphs have made it so we don’t hire people with significant problems,” said R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of the customs agency.
“The bigger problem is what happens to people who are already on board. These changes address that.” Records show the bribing of Homeland
Security employees persists. In 2016, 15 have been arrested on, convicted of or sentenced on charges of bribery. In February, Johnny Acosta, a
Customs and Border Protection officer in Douglas, Ariz., was sentenced to eight years in prison for bribery and drug smuggling. Acosta, who was
arrested as he tried to flee to Mexico, took more than $70,000 in bribes and helped smuggle more than a ton of marijuana into the United
States. Last month, Eduardo Bazan, a Border Patrol agent in McAllen, Texas, was arrested and accused of helping a drug-trafficking organization
smuggle cocaine. According to court records, Bazan admitted to receiving $8,000 for his help. José Cruz-López, a Transportation Security
Administration screener at Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico, was arrested around the same time and accused of
taking $215,000 in bribes to help smuggle drugs. Corruption investigators said the case of former Border Patrol agent Ivhan Herrera-Chiang
illustrates the damage a single compromised agent can cause. In 2013, he was sentenced to 15 years for providing sensitive law-enforcement
information to drug cartels. Herrera-Chiang, who was assigned to a special undercover unit targeting the cartels in Yuma, Ariz., provided maps
of hidden underground sensors, lock combinations to gates along the U.S.-Mexico border and the locations of Border Patrol traffic checkpoints
to an individual who provided them to the cartels. The cartels used the information to bypass Border Patrol agents and transport
methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana into the U.S., according to court records. Herrera-Chiang also entered law-enforcement databases
on his work computer to run drug-seizure checks and even provided information on confidential informants in Mexico. That information
included one informant whom federal law- enforcement officers were able to locate before he could be killed, court records said. Herrera-
Chiang admitted to receiving about $4,500 in bribes for his efforts, but his co-conspirator put the amount between $60,000 and $70,000.
“Corrupt C.B.P. law enforcement personnel pose a national security threat,” a Department of Homeland Security report released in May
concluded. The report also revealed numerous problems with efforts to root out corruption among Border Patrol and customs agents. The
report said the “true levels of corruption within C.B.P. are not known.” Convicted former border and immigration agents give different reasons
for taking bribes, from financial troubles to drug use. But for many, it was simple greed. Records show Border Patrol officers and customs
agents, who protect more than 7,000 miles of the border and deal most directly with drug cartels and smugglers, have taken the most in bribes,
about $11 million. But the issue of bribery extends well beyond front-line agents at the border. Department of Homeland Security employees
who enforce immigration and customs laws and provide citizenship benefits and aviation security have also been arrested or indicted on and
convicted of charges of taking bribes. Last month, Daniel Espejo Amos, a former immigration service officer at the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services in Los Angeles, pleaded guilty to taking $53,000 in bribes from immigration lawyers on behalf of 60 immigrants who were
not eligible to become naturalized citizens of the U.S. Amos certified the immigrants met the requirements for citizenship, even though one
person’s English-language skills were so poor that copies of test answers were given to him so he could memorize them for a naturalization
interview. Transportationsecurity officers and screeners with access to secure areas of airports that could
be used to smuggle weapons and even carry bombs onto planes have taken hundreds of thousands of
dollars in bribes as well, records show.
The USFG should increase FBI counterterrorism and cybercrimes measures

FBI solves- they work internationally, deal with cybercrime and terrorism, and are a
well established agency with tons of funding
FBI "International Operations," Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Our legal attaché program is managed by the

International Operations Division at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This office
keeps in close contact with other federal agencies, Interpol, foreign police and security officers in
Washington, and national and international law enforcement associations. International liaison and
information sharing are conducted in accordance with executive orders, laws, treaties, Attorney General
Guidelines, FBI policies, and interagency agreements. Overview The foundation of the FBI’s international program is the International
Operations Division and the legal attaché, or “legat,” each of whom is the Director’s personal representative in the foreign country in which he/she resides or for
which he/she has regional responsibilities .
FBI personnel abroad serve under the authority of the Department of State,
chief of mission at United States embassies, at the pleasure of ambassadors and host country
governments. Their core mission is to establish and maintain liaison with principal law enforcement and
security services in designated foreign countries. This liaison enables the FBI to effectively and expeditiously
conduct its responsibilities in combating international terrorism, organized crime, cyber crime, and
general criminal matters. In particular, legat liaison activities are essential to the successful fulfillment overseas of the FBI’s lead federal law
enforcement mission to prevent terrorist attacks against citizens and interests of the United States. Liaison is carried out in accordance with executive orders,
statutes, treaties, Attorney General Guidelines, FBI policies, and interagency agreements. The legal attaché program provides for a prompt and continuous exchange
of information with foreign law enforcement and security agencies and coordination with U.S. federal law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over the
matters under investigation.Our foreign-based personnel also assist foreign agencies with requests for
investigative assistance in the U.S. to encourage reciprocal assistance in counterterrorism, criminal, and
other investigative matters. In addition to the Legat program, the FBI’s international law enforcement activities focus on one other key element—
international training. Through international training, the FBI provides foreign law enforcement officers with

skills in both basic and advanced investigative techniques and principles that promote cooperation and
aid in the collection of evidence. Training allows the FBI to demonstrate major crime scene,
counterterrorism, and other investigative techniques, while establishing better working relationships,
thus strengthening cooperation among law enforcement personnel worldwide. Funded by the Department of State or
Department of Defense, significant training programs include the International Law Enforcement Academies in Budapest, Hungary; Bangkok, Thailand; and
Gaborone, Botswana; and San Salvador, El Salvador, as well as bilateral training programs targeting anti-terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist
financing. The FBI also participates in Bilateral Working Groups and several additional counterterrorism training programs in the Middle East. The FBI’s legal attaché
program was developed to pursue international aspects of the FBI’s investigative mandates through established liaison with principal law enforcement and security
services in foreign countries and to provide a prompt and continuous exchange of information with these partners. The
FBI currently has 60 fully
operational legat offices and 15 sub-offices, with more than 250 agents and support personnel stationed
around the world. The growth of transnational crime caused by the explosion in computer and
telecommunications technology, the liberalization of immigration policies, and the increased ease of
international travel has made it necessary for the U.S. to cooperate with countries around the world
concerning security issues. The FBI’s role in international investigations has expanded due to the
authority granted by the Congressional application of extraterritorial jurisdiction. As the FBI’s domestic
investigative responsibilities become increasingly intertwined with international criminal and terrorist
elements in other countries, the FBI must continually enhance its ability to conduct complex
investigations and acquire evidence from abroad for criminal prosecutions in the United States. To do so
requires close coordination with international partners and security services. Some of the FBI’s most important and
visible investigations are multi-national in scope, placing greater demands on the FBI, especially in the field, as more case agents are faced with challenges in
obtaining admissible evidence for domestic prosecutions.
FBI solves Cybercrimes
Steven R. Chabinsky, November 17, 2009, " Preventing Terrorist Attacks and Protecting Privacy Rights in Cyberspace," FBI, Steven R. Chabinsky
Deputy Assistant Director, Cyber Division Federal Bureau of Investigation//OM

FBI Leadership, Collaboration, and Information Sharing Based on the significance of the problem, protecting the United
States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes is one of the FBI’s highest priorities and,
in fact, is the FBI's highest criminal priority. It was with these factors in mind that, in 2002, the FBI
created its current Cyber Division to handle all categories of cyber crime and cyber national security
matters. Today's FBI is comprised of the largest cadre of cyber trained law enforcement officers in the
United States, with over 2,000 special agents having received specialized cyber training as part of the
core curriculum at Quantico. To combat the most sophisticated and urgent matters, the FBI has built a
national resource of over 1,000 advanced cyber-trained FBI special agents, intelligence analysts, and
digital forensic examiners. In short, some of the best and brightest minds in the country have joined the
FBI, which is uniquely positioned to combine counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal
domestic investigative authorities to address the cyber threat. Still, the cyber threat will not be eliminated through the efforts of
any one government agency acting alone. It is for this reason that we have made collaboration and information sharing a key

component of the FBI cyber strategy. The FBI has established a leadership role across the federal
government, with industry, with state and local partners, with consumers, and internationally. At the
federal level, the FBI established and leads the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, a
presidentially mandated focal point for all government agencies to coordinate, integrate, and share
pertinent information related to all domestic cyber threat investigations. Serving by example, the FBI
also leads all law enforcement agencies in cyber information sharing. In fiscal year 2009, the FBI disseminated over 1,800
cyber intelligence reports and cyber analytic products, providing members of the intelligence community, military, law enforcement, and Department of Homeland
Security with the information they need to maximize their and our nation's success. At
the industry, state, and local level, the FBI
established and leads InfraGard, currently consisting of more than 33,000 members spanning 87 cities
nationwide and including representatives from federal, state, and local government; industry; and
academia. InfraGard is the nation's largest government/private sector partnership focused on reducing
physical and cyber threats against our critical infrastructure. Although InfraGard is an FBI program, established in 1996, it also
benefits from the active support and participation of the Department of Homeland Security and each of its Protective Security Advisors throughout the country. The
FBI also established a lead role in the development of the National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance, a group committed to combining the resources of
academia, law enforcement, and industry to identify major global cyber threats. At the consumer level, the FBI established and leads the Internet Crime Complaint
Center (IC3) in partnership with the National White Collar Crime Center. The IC3 website ( is the leading cyber crime incident reporting portal, having
received 275,284 complaint submissions in 2008 alone. From these submissions, IC3 analyzed, aggregated, and then referred 72,940 complaints of crime to federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies around the country for further consideration. Internationally, the FBI operates 75 legal attaché offices and sub-offices
around the world to assist in international investigations, including cyber investigations, providing coverage for more than 200 countries, territories, and islands.
The FBI's international efforts have led to the arrest of hundreds of cyber criminals throughout the world, resulting in the dismantlement of major transnational
organized crime rings that once preyed on Americans. The FBI also plays a leading role in the National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Center which, together with
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, coordinates the government’s domestic and international law enforcement
efforts against IPR violations. FBI Investigative, Collaborative, and Information Sharing Successes Although an unclassified forum is not suitable for discussing the
FBI's counterterrorism and counterintelligence cyber efforts, our investigative success on the criminal side provides a glimpse into our capabilities and strategic
partnerships that can be used against any adversary. These
cases also serve as a warning to would-be cyber thieves: the FBI
can and will investigate high-technology crimes, we have partners throughout the world who are equally
capable and vigilant, and we will ensure that cyber criminals are brought to justice. Take for example
last year's RBS Worldpay case in which a transnational crime organization used sophisticated hacking
techniques to withdraw, in less than 12 hours, over $9 million from 2,100 ATMs in 280 cities around the
world, including the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Italy, Hong Kong, Japan, and Canada. The
FBI led the investigation, and its work with international law enforcement led to multiple arrests
throughout the world and last week's indictment by a federal grand jury in Atlanta. The FBI investigation
also included United States Secret Service participation, providing them with information that was
relevant to their investigation of intrusions into Heartland Payment Systems and TJX Companies, for
which there was a separate indictment in August of 2008. Each of these cases also included strong law
enforcement assistance from the victims, which proved invaluable. Simply put, working together works.
The FBI's Operation Phish Phry is another recent example of the successful relationships between the FBI, the private sector, and international partners. Phish Phry
resulted from ongoing coordination efforts between the FBI and United States financial institutions. Through the course of a two-year investigation, the
investigation uncovered thousands of victims and identified an international sophisticated computer intrusion, identity theft, and money laundering scheme
comprised of hundreds of subjects in the United States and Egypt. The FBI investigation yielded a 51-count federal indictment charging 53 U.S. citizens, while
Egyptian law enforcement identified 47 Egyptian suspects directly involved in the criminal conspiracy. Of the identified U.S. targets, 10 possessed violent criminal
histories requiring FBI SWAT teams to execute the high risk arrests. Cybercrime is serious business, and the people involved in it are no longer 15-year-olds in their
parents' homes. Cybercrime is increasingly being adopted as a profitable component of violent, organized, sophisticated, and well-financed crime rings. Another
case example of note is the FBI's infiltration and dismantlement of Darkmarket, an online virtual transnational criminal organization. Working with our international
partners in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Turkey, the FBI conducted a two-year undercover operation to penetrate the organization and bring it to its knees.
At its peak, the Darkmarket forum had over 2,500 members—spanning countries throughout the world—who were involved in buying and selling stolen financial
information, including credit card data, login credentials (user names, passwords), and equipment used to carry out certain financial crimes. Using undercover
techniques, the FBI penetrated the highest levels of this group and identified and located its leading members. Multi-agency and multi-national coordination with
our law enforcement partners led to over 60 arrests worldwide, as well as the prevention of $70 million in economic loss that otherwise would have occurred from
compromised victim accounts. In order to better protect banks and consumers against the rising costs of online fraud, the FBI has ramped up its collaboration to
address matters impacting the financial services industry. In December of 2008, the FBI—working with the Internet Crime Complaint Center—issued a press release
titled “Web Site Attack Preventative Measures” identifying a considerable spike in cyber attacks against the financial services and the online retail industry and
detailing a number of actions a firm can take in order to prevent or thwart the specific attacks and techniques used by the intruders we were monitoring. This year,
the FBI and the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center (FS-ISAC) developed a new model for intelligence-driven collaboration between law
enforcement and the private sector. Specifically, during the course of our investigations, the FBI recognized threat trends, tactics, and techniques involving
Automated Clearing House (ACH) transactions. Not only did we share that information while our investigations were pending, we invited FS-ISAC representatives
into FBI space to get a full briefing on our case information. We then asked the FS-ISAC whether the threat information the FBI was seeing was relevant and timely
for businesses and consumers to use to better protect themselves, reduce their vulnerabilities, and mitigate the consequences of these types of fraud. Industry
representatives not only agreed that the information was pertinent, but that a written product would be useful for its members. In an entirely new collaboration
model, we created a joint product in which the FBI wrote the first two sections involving the nature of the threat and how to recognize it, and the FS-ISAC (working
with the National Automated Clearing House Association) wrote the second two sections involving industry impact and security recommendations for preventing
further fraud. Each of the above examples demonstrate that the FBI has not only adopted a robust information sharing model, we have moved past it. Our
experience shows that collaboration is the answer, with information sharing being only one component of the equation. Taking advantage of each partner's skills
and knowledge, and leveraging our nation's combined strengths in common cause provides significant advantages that are leading to increased and repeatable
successes. Which brings me to the FBI's way ahead.

FBI is already working to solve China IP theft

David Choi, 3-21-2018, "FBI director calls China out on one of the biggest threats to the US," Business Insider, David is a news reporter who covers foreign affairs. He is a graduate
of UCLA. Before joining Business Insider, he was a Public Affairs Specialist for the US Army and California Army National Guard. //OM

China has been increasingly active in foreign espionage, so much so that FBI director Chris Wray said
"there's no country that's even close" when it came to compromising vital assets. Tackling the issue has proven to be a challenge, and the US
has significantly underestimated the threat of China's activities, Wray said during an interview with NBC News. When the FBI investigates economic

espionage, "time and time again, they keep leading back to China," Wray said. China has long been accused of taking steps to
target intellectual property and trade secrets from small startups to major companies. "The reality is that the Chinese have turned more

and more to more creative avenues using non-traditional collectors," Wray said during a Senate hearing in February. In 2017,
the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property published a report saying China violated intellectual property rights more than any other country,
and that it was at least partially responsible for a $600 billion hit to the US economy. One method China employed in the past was to acquire US-based companies .
In 2016, one of the lead suppliers of military aircraft for China, Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), scooped up a small and unprofitable aerospace
company based in California. "What China is doing with AVIC is making sure they have access to technologies that they wouldn't have otherwise," Tang Energy CEO
Patrick Jenevein said in Forbes . That practice is fairly common in business, but China's involvement earns additional scrutiny. China's activities do not appear to be
limited to economic espionage. China has somehow acquired defense industry designs , such as a type of thermonuclear warhead engineered for submarine
FBI solves terrorism
Zachary Laub, 6-21-2017, "What Is the FBI’s Role in National Security?," Council on Foreign Relations,
security Online Writer/Editor, Company NameCouncil on Foreign Relations Dates EmployedJun 2013 – Present Employment Duration5 yrs 2 mos
LocationNew York, NY • Serve as’s primary writer on developments related to the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; pitch, research, report, and
update backgrounders; conduct interviews on breaking news; commission and edit analyses from in-house and external experts • Publications syndicated by PBS
Newshour and Atlantic Media’s Defense One • Write the daily news brief, an early-morning roundup of breaking news and analysis from English-language outlets
around the world delivered to more than 30,000 subscribers • Assist with web production and publishing, including copyediting, multimedia work, and editing the
home page//OM

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the U.S. government’s main law-enforcement and domestic intelligence agency. Its
writ has steadily expanded in recent decades, particularly its role as a counterterrorism force after the September 11,
2001, attacks. The Justice Department’s top strategic goal is to “prevent terrorism,” which is reflected in
how the FBI allocates resources among its nearly thirty-five thousand employees; in 2015 the agency
had more than twelve thousand employees [PDF] working on counterterrorism and counterintelligence,
as well as nearly seven thousand working on intelligence. But the agency still covers a wide range of national security
matters, as well as organized crime, white-collar crime, public corruption, and civil-rights violations. Without a legislative charter, the FBI’s
mandate has grown over the past century as has federal law. Its priorities and policies are shaped by piecemeal legislation, executive branch
directives, and the prerogatives of its own leadership, which have led to charges of overstepping its bounds.

FBI has international Jurisdiction

Michael Sliwinski, 11-30-2015, "What Does the FBI Do Abroad?," Law Street,
Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of
the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly
basketball. Contact Michael at //OM

Caught up in the whirlwind of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris was an interesting little footnote: American FBI agents headed to France to assist in the
investigation. The FBI going to Paris or anywhere else outside the United States may, on its face, seem like the agency is overstepping its jurisdiction. When
comes to matters outside the borders of the country most assume that the Central Intelligence Agency
would be the organization involved, not the FBI, whose mandate is more domestically focused.
However, as this recent example and others have shown, the FBI does, in fact, operate abroad. Read on to see
what the FBI does around the globe, how its role has changed over the years, and how all this activity is perceived internationally. THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION ABROAD The beginning of the FBI’s work abroad can be traced back to World War II. In 1940, as the war intensified and the prospect of the United
States joining in the fight grew, President Roosevelt assigned the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to handle intelligence
responsibilities for the Western Hemisphere. In an era before internationally-focused agencies like the
CIA existed, the FBI was given the task. This initial step centered on finding and exposing Nazi spies who
were attempting to sneak into the United States from South America. The FBI realized early on that in
order to maximize its effectiveness it needed to coordinate with local authorities in other countries.
Starting in Bogata, Columbia, the FBI began assigning special agents to positions that would eventually
be known as Legal Attachés or “Legats.” When WWII ended, the CIA took over much of the foreign intelligence work and the FBI shifted
its international focus to training and developing working relationships abroad. Since then the program has continued
to expand. According to the FBI’s Legal Attaché website: Today, we have Legal Attaché offices—commonly known as Legats—and smaller sub-offices in 75 key cities
around the globe, providing coverage for more than 200 countries, territories, and islands. Each office is established through mutual agreement with the host
country and is situated in the U.S. embassy or consulate in that nation. In addition to Legat offices in foreign countries, the FBI coordinates with similar organizations
overseas like Europol. The following video looks at what the FBI does abroad with a focus, in this case, on investigation: WHAT THE FBI DOES So what does the FBI
do with all these agents and other personnel stationed abroad? A major focus of the FBI’s effort abroad is training. Among other things, the FBI’s training focuses on
providing information on kidnapping, fingerprinting, and corruption. As part of this exchange, the FBI also welcomes a growing number of foreign nationals to its
training facility in Quantico, Virginia. In addition to training, the
FBI assists with investigations in other countries. In the most
recent example, the terrorist attacks in Paris, the FBI sent agents with particular expertise. According to
the New York Times, the agents sent by the FBI have skills that focus on recovering data from electronic
devices. The agents will help assist French police recover intelligence about the attackers and provide
any information about U.S. security interests back to the United States. The FBI conducted a similar
operation in Uganda in 2010. In that investigation, a large contingent of FBI agents were sent to the
African nation to investigate the terrorist attacks and aid in identifying potential suspects. In order to
understand the FBI’s role abroad, it is important to look at how the bureau changed in the wake of the
September 11 attacks in 2001. After the attacks, the FBI moved away from its traditional role of
investigating domestic crime to a new focus on counterterrorism and intelligence gathering. This transition has
been widely documented and is openly accepted by the bureau itself. According to an FBI report on its counterterrorism program after 9/11, Since the horrific
attacks of September 11, 2001, the men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have implemented a comprehensive plan that fundamentally
transforms the organization to enhance our ability to predict and prevent terrorism. We
overhauled our counterterrorism operations,
expanded our intelligence capabilities, modernized our business practices and technology, and improved
coordination with our partners. A major driver behind the FBI’s international cooperation is enabling
other countries to handle terrorism within their own borders so the FBI does not have to bring a suspect
back to the United States to faces charges.
Reorganize CP
Counterplan text: the United States federal government should reorganize
Immigration and Customs Enforcement into two separate agencies: Enforcement and
Removal and the Homeland Security Investigations.

Recutting their solvency evidence: reorganizing ICE solves for competition for funding
and perception
1AC Shaw et al. 18—(David; Angel Melendez; P.J. Lechleitner; A. Scott Brown; Ryan Spradlin; Mark
Selby; Nick Annan; Shane Folden; Brad Bench; Mark Dawson; Marlon Miller; James Spero; Joseph
Macias; Jere Miles; James Gibbons; Steve Cagen; Katrina Berger; Keven Kelly; Steve Francis. All of these
people are ICE agents throughout the U.S. – Letter to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, June 2018 –

We, the Homeland Security Investigations, Special Agents in Charge write this letter to propose a more efficient and effective
alignment of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) law enforcement assets. This proposal would better position DHS to
support the requirements set forth in Executive Order 13773, “Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to
Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking.” The mission of the department is to secure the United States
against nefarious actions perpetrated by terrorists and transnational criminal organizations, while creating an atmosphere of resiliency in
response to other hazards. As vital as the DHS missions are, executing these missions can be controversial and confusing, and limited by finite
operational budgets and resources. As responsible DHS executives, we know we must remain vigilant for opportunities to improve
organizational and process efficiencies to make the most of those limited resources. It is in this spirit that we communicate the following
observations, analysis, and recommendations. We are communicating directly to you because these recommendations have impacts and
opportunities for which are best understood, and eventually implemented, at the Department level. In 2003, Congress and the 9/1 1
Commission determined that it was necessary to address inefficiencies in the national security systems of the U.S. Government that might have
contributed to the 9/1 1 terror attacks. The result, in part, was the creation of DHS and subsequently U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) from components of the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. During its early stages, ICE
was created as the investigative arm of DHS. The ICE Office of Investigations had oversight of programs that supported lCE’s investigative and
enforcement priorities including the Air and Marine Operations Branch, the Federal Protective Service, the Federal Air Marshals and
Deportation and Removal Operations (DRO). As better efficiencies were sought and ICE continued to evolve during its initial years, many of
these former components of ICE were realigned under other agencies. For over a decade, ICE has provided an umbrella, under which the
immigration enforcement systems could be redesigned and strengthened by two remaining components, now independent from each other --
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), formerly DRO and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). ERO reorganized civil immigration
enforcement priorities, developed detention and removal efficiencies, and improved relationships with humanitarian groups and associations.
HSI developed a platform that would support the full homeland security enterprise and operations to counter the exploitation of international
trade, travel, and finance by terrorists and international criminals. Thus, as ICE continued to evolve, while achieving a reengineered immigration
enforcement program, two very effective but disparate sub-agencies emerged. ERO has
become very effective and efficient at
detaining and removing illegal aliens. HSI, now the second largest federal investigative agency, has become the US Govermnent's
‘Transnational Investigative’ agency, plugging the gap between more domestically-focused federal law enforcement and the international
sources and methods of crime that significantly impact the US. The two ICE sub-agencies have become so specialized and independent that
mission can no longer be described as a singular synergistic mission; it can only be described as a combination of the two distinct missions
Enforcement/Removal and Transnational Investigations’). Considering E.O. 13773 and the fact that we believe that ICE has reached a point of
final maturation in its continued evolution, we propose to restructure ICE into the two separate, independent entities of HSI and ERO. While
separating HSI and ERO will have some administrative challenges, the establishment of two separate
and independent agencies, will improve transparency, efficiency and effectiveness. HSI arrests more criminal
violators than any other federal investigative agency and is significantly resourced at strategic locations inside the U.S., as well as
internationally; thus, positioning itself as a key agency under DHS in the implementation of E0. 13773. For example, HSI focuses on the TCO’s
that import high levels of narcotics, including the extraordinary amounts of opioids flooding into the utilizes its authorities to combat trade
fraud; tracks and arrests those that seek to exploit children; identifies and seizes the illicit funds of traffickers; and detects and arrests those
who exploit other humans via trafficking and/or smuggling. Given that true border security starts outside of the U.S., extraordinary global
reach, with offices in 65 locations overseas, positions HSI to push the borders out and enhance the national security of the US. In addition, with
its vast authorities and footprint, HSI is recognized by international partners as the leaders in combatting transnational crime in the US. HSI
continues to strategically utilize its civil immigration authority and border search authorities to enhance its transnational investigations, while
also working with ERO and US. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) respectively. Thus, HSI is primed to be your transnational criminal
investigative agency and aggressively attack as directed by ED. 13773, while also supporting terrorism investigations. There
numerous reasons the establishment of two separate agencies will improve both agencies. Both
agencies have suffered low approval ratings in recent DHS Federal Viewpoint surveys. The establishment of two
separate agencies will allow employees to develop a strong agency pride. The current structure does not allow for
each agency’s distinctive missions to develop; rather, it results in each agency lacking the ability to find a direction and seemingly competing for
budget, resources and an identity. Regarding identity, there are both internal and external aspects. ICE has two organizational missions of equal
significance Detention and Removal and Transnational Investigations. Every other Federal law enforcement agency is organized with just one
primary mission to improve focus and effectiveness. CBP, as one enforcement agency example, focuses only on As for investigative examples,
the FBI, ATF, DEA, and, in DHS, all are singular agencies focused on their individual investigative portfolio. No US. Department of Justice law
enforcement agency is paired with another disparate entity, the FBI is not paired with the Bureau of Prisons or DEA. The issues with agency
identity are manifested as federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as communities, try to build working relationships with
ICE, but are unable to find a single point of contact. Instead, they have built two points of contact, one with ERO and one with HSI because
functionally the two are recognized externally as separate. ERO
partners more closely with state, local and municipal law
enforcement agencies, as well as correctional facilities across the U.S., specifically on immigration enforcement for detention and
remOval purposes. ERO works closely with CBP when aliens are encountered at the ports of entry or between the ports of entry. In the U.S., HSI
partners with all federal and state, local and municipal law enforcement agencies, as well as the Intelligence Community pertaining to public
safety and national security efforts that fall within broad investigative portfolio; additionally, HSI partners with foreign law enforcement
agencies across the globe, where it has established Transnational Criminal Investigative Units in 14 countries. HSI is the second largest federal
agency contributor to Joint Terrorism Task Forces across the country and participates on numerous other task forces led by other federal and
state agencies. HSI leads numerous task forces in the US. focused on dismantling and disrupting transnational criminal organizations, the Border
Enforcement Security Task Forces (BEST), Document Benefit Fraud Task Forces Human Trafficking Task Forces, Public Safety/Gang Task Forces,
Financial Crimes Task Forces, and Trade Enforcement Coordination Centers. HSI leads the US. efforts against intellectual property crimes at the
Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center and export enforcement of controlled commodities at the Export Enforcement Coordination
Center, both located in national capital region. The differences are not just seen in the type of work, but also the workforce. The workforces
that comprise ERO and HSI are distinct by the nature of their work and by the management policies associated with that work. As a result, ICE
has considerable challenges creating singular policies, programs, training plans, staffing templates or budget prospectus that meet both H81
and ERO needs. For instance, ERO law enforcement and support personnel (non-management) are a bargaining workforce operating on
Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime and shift work. All of HSI is a non-bargaining workforce, and its special agents receive Law
Enforcement Availability Pay and are subject to callouts at any hour. This difference in bargaining status, the policies that govern union and
nonunion-based operations, and the occupational specialization and training, make it difficult for ERO and HSI staff to supplement each other if
needed. In terms of budget, although Congress, OMB, and DHS apportion initial budgets to ERO and HSI functions, those budgets transform as
immigration priorities change. In this environment, ERO and HSI cannot build sustainable and long-term structures and processes. ERO cannot
continue to develop detention and removal efficiencies while having to share resources with HSI. Similarly, fluctuating budget hinders its
primary mission of conducting a high volume of complex, large-scale transnational investigations. For example, the ebbs and flows of ERO
detention priorities have directly impacted HSI operations and infrastructure, including the reprogramming of H81 funds to ERO (specifically in
FY11, in FY13, and in FY16), the hiring and resourcing of H81 personnel, unplanned reductions in operational finds, and an inability to invest in
tactical communications, purchase of information/evidence, travel, training, Title funding, and procurement of technical equipment, all of
which are crucial to effectively conduct complex transnational criminal investigations. The disparate functions performed by ERO and HSI often
cause confusion among the public, the press, other law enforcement agencies and lawmakers because the two missions are not well
understood and are erroneously combined. administrative actions have been mistaken for illegal investigations and warrantless searches. HSl’s
investigations have been perceived as targeting undocumented aliens, instead of the transnational criminal organizations that facilitate cross
border crimes impacting our communities and national security. Furthermore, the perception of investigative independence is unnecessarily
impacted by the political nature of civil immigration enforcement. Many jurisdictions continue to refuse to work with HSI because of a
perceived linkage to the politics of civil immigration. Other jurisdictions agree to partner with I-ISI as long as the name is excluded from any
public facing information. HSI is constantly expending resources to explain the organizational differences to state and local partners, as well as
to Congressional staff, and even within our own department--DHS. The development of two new effective agencies is a positive step for the
Department, as part of the progression that ICE has experienced since its inception fifteen years ago. As modern government organizations
succeed through dynamic, not static, missions and organizational structures, so should ERO and HSI continue to succeed by unlocking each
agency’s potential.
ERO is responsible for arresting violent criminals such as members of MS-13
ICE 11/2/17—(U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “ICE ERO immigration arrests climb nearly
40%” HRB)

In the 100 days since President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Orders (EOs) regarding immigration
enforcement priorities, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested more than 41,000
individuals who are either known or suspected of being in the country illegally. This reflects an increase
of 37.6 percent over the same period in 2016. Between Jan. 22 and April 29, 2017, ICE Enforcement and
Removal Operations (ERO) deportation officers administratively arrested 41,318 individuals on civil
immigration charges. Between Jan. 24 and April 30, 2016, ERO arrested 30,028. “These statistics reflect
President Trump’s commitment to enforce our immigration laws fairly and across the board. ICE agents
and officers have been given clear direction to focus on threats to public safety and national security,
which has resulted in a substantial increase in the arrest of convicted criminal aliens. However, when we
encounter others who are in the country unlawfully, we will execute our sworn duty and enforce the
law. As the data demonstrates, ICE continues to execute our mission professionally and in accordance
with the law, and our communities will be much safer for it,” said ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan.
Nearly 75 percent of those arrested during this period in 2017 are convicted criminals, with offenses
ranging from homicide and assault to sexual abuse and drug-related charges. The arrest of aliens at-
large in the community increased by more than 50 percent, from 8,381 last year to 12,766 arrests this
year during the same period. The arrest of convicted criminal aliens climbed nearly 20 percent, from
25,786 last year to 30,473 this year. Violent crimes such as homicide, rape, kidnapping and assault
accounted for more than 2,700 convictions. In total, since the President signed the EOs, ICE’s
immigration enforcement activity has resulted in more than 400 arrests per day, including the capture of
egregious and violent offenders, such as: The Feb. 16 arrest in New York City of an MS-13 gang member,
Estivan Rafael Marques Velasquez, a Salvadoran national with a criminal history in the U.S. which
includes reckless endangerment in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth
degree, and disorderly conduct. The March 9 arrest in DeKalb, Georgia, of Jose Mercedes Meza-Ignacio,
52, a citizen of Mexico residing in Atlanta, wanted on criminal charges for child molestation. The April 10
arrest in Dallas, Texas, of Juan Antonio Melchor Molina by the agency’s Dallas Fugitive Operations Team.
Molina is the subject of a 2011 murder warrant issued by the Prosecutor General’s Office in San Luis
Potosi, Mexico. Mexican authorities allege that Molina shot and killed Jorge Alejandro De La Rosa at a
wedding in 2008. The April 13 arrest in Denver, Colorado, of Jose Victor Bonilla-Melendez, one of ICE’s
“Most Wanted Fugitives,” in Denver, Colorado, following a public tip. Bonilla-Melendez is also known as
Anthony Garcia-Melendez, a citizen of Honduras whose criminal history includes felony convictions for
assault causing serious bodily injury, sexual assault and unlawful re-entry after deportation. The April 26
arrest in Houston, Texas, of William Magana-Contreras, a Salvadoran MS-13 gang member wanted for
aggravated homicide in his home country. While these data clearly reflect the fact that convicted
criminals are an immigration enforcement priority, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly has made
it clear that ICE will no longer exempt any class of individuals from removal proceedings if they are
found to be in the country illegally. This is evident by the rise in non-criminal arrests over the same
period, which increased from approximately 4,200 in 2016 to more than 10,800 in 2017. “All of those
arrested will receive the due process afforded to them under the law. ICE will take action to remove
individuals subject to a final order by a federal immigration judge. We are a nation of laws, and ignoring
orders issued by federal judges undermines our constitutional government,” said Homan. This
announcement follows a significant gang announcement made by ICE’s Homeland Security
Investigations last week in which 1,095 confirmed gang members and associates were arrested.
Solvency extension
All of their internal links and solvency cards are about the negative perception HSI
receives because of it’s association with the ERO, and the counterplan ends that. Even
if there is some residual bad press after the agencies, that should be a solvency deficit
to the aff as well, because people will be equally aware of the association in the world
of the aff
A2 perm
Perm is severance. The plan says dissolve ERO, but the CP keeps it around. Severance
is a voter for fairness because the aff shifts out of our offense unfairly half way
through the debate.
Perm links to the net benefit. Since democrats are rallying around “abolish ICE” as
their midterms slogan, they will seize on any chance to declare a victory on the policy
before midterms, but abolishing ICE is actually very unpopular, so it loses them votes.
A2 links to Midterms
Abolishing ICE is very unpopular for voters in the midterms, but reorganizing it would
solve the case without making the issue a loser for Dems at the midterms.
Non-enforcement CP
CP text: The United States federal government should:
- Halt US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Enforcement and Removals
Office’s deportations of illegal aliens
- Jail rather than deport gang related illegal aliens
- And increase funding to Homeland Security Investigations
Recutting their ev: Counterplan solves the case—ERO’s enforcement of trump’s
controversial policies is preventing HSI from doing their job
Miroff 18 (Nick is a national security correspondent for the Washington Post and recipient of the
Maria Moors Cabot Prize, Overseas Press Club award, and Nancy Dickerson Whitehead Award –
“Seeking a split from ICE, some agents say Trump’s immigration crackdown hurts investigations and
morale,” June 28, 2018 -

The political backlash

against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has turned so intense that leaders
of the agency’s criminal investigative division sent a letter last week to Homeland Security Secretary
Kirstjen Nielsen urging an organizational split. The letter, signed by the majority of special agents in charge of ICE’s Homeland
Security Investigative Division (HSI), offered a window into growing internal tension at the agency as an “Abolish ICE” protest movement has
targeted its offices and won support from left-wing Democrats. Though ICE is primarily known for immigration
enforcement, the agency has two distinct divisions: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), a
branch that carries out immigration arrests and deportations, and HSI, the transnational investigative
branch with a broad focus on counterterrorism, narcotics enforcement, human trafficking and other
crimes. The letter signed by 19 special agents in charge urges Nielsen to split HSI from ICE, because anger at ERO immigration
practices is harming the entire agency’s reputation and undermining other law enforcement agencies’
willingness to cooperate, the agents told Nielsen. Since President Trump’s inauguration, the state of California and several of the
country’s largest cities have barred their law enforcement agents from cooperating with ICE by declaring themselves “sanctuary”
jurisdictions. That has made it increasingly difficult for HSI agents to fight drug cartels and conduct major
criminal investigations in the country’s largest urban areas, the letter said. “The perception of HSI’s investigative independence is
unnecessarily impacted by the political nature of ERO’s civil immigration enforcement,” the agents wrote. Trump took office
promising to quickly deport “2 or 3 million” foreigners, and following his inauguration, ICE interior
arrests jumped nearly 40 percent. In recent months, the agency resumed carrying out large-scale workplace raids, winning
glowing praise from the president, who said Wednesday at a rally in North Dakota that ICE agents are “mean but have heart,” and
that they are “liberating” U.S. communities from the MS-13 gang. Trump officials say they fear the transnational gang, whose members the
president calls “animals,” could take advantage of lax enforcement at the border. In their letter to Nielsen, the agency’s top
investigators painted a starkly different picture — telling her their crime-fighting capability is being stifled by politics. “Many
jurisdictions continue to refuse to work with HSI because of a perceived linkage to the politics of civil immigration,” the investigators wrote.
“Other jurisdictions agree to partner with HSI as long as the ‘ICE’ name is excluded from any public facing information.” In one indication of
eroding morale, the special agents told Nielsen that making HSI its own independent agency “will allow employees to develop a strong agency
pride.” The letter, marked “Law Enforcement Sensitive,” was first reported by the Texas Observer, which posted a copy. ICE’s acting director,
Thomas D. Homan, has been a vocal Trump supporter and an enthusiast of the president’s immigration agenda. But he has announced his
retirement and is stepping down this month. A nominee to replace him has yet to be named. Nielsen has not publicly responded to the letter.
A senior ICE official in Washington said the HSI agents’ letter was “not well received” at the agency’s
headquarters, calling it “ill conceived and poorly timed” at a moment when so many staffers feel besieged by the backlash. The proposal to
reorganize ICE is not a new one, the official said, but it “has never been taken seriously” and would “require congressional action.” The senior
official spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss reaction to the letter within ICE’s top ranks. The official conceded that the
special agents’ arguments have “some merits.” adding, “the concerns they raise in the letter are certainly operational
obstacles and worthy of discussion.” But the official called the notion of breaking up ICE “a non-starter” and said it was
inappropriate for the agents to go outside established internal channels to take their gripes directly to Nielsen in a letter that quickly leaked to
reporters. “Our employees are being protested, threatened and unfairly attacked,” the senior official said. The
Abolish ICE movement has gained new momentum in recent weeks amid public outcry over the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance”
crackdown that separated more than 2,500 migrant children from their parents along the Mexico border. A federal judge this week ordered the
government to reunite them with their parents — many of whom are currently held in ICE custody — within 30 days. In New York City this
week, Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won an upset primary victory Tuesday after taking up the Abolish ICE
cause as one of her campaign promises , while in Portland, Ore., protesters have set up a sprawling tent camp outside ICE’s local office.

Abolishing ERO still results in border enforcement and family separations, only
stopping enforcement of the policies solve
Miriam Valverde 7/3/18—(Miriam Valverde is a staff writer for PolitiFact. Previously, she reported
for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Bradenton Herald, the Boston Globe and a Boston Spanish-
language publication, El Planeta. Miriam graduated from Emerson College with a major in journalism
and minor in business studies, “'Abolish ICE' movement is growing. Is the agency's disbanding likely?”
disbanding/ HRB)

Calls to "abolish ICE" have grown louder as the Trump administration deals with fall-out from its "zero-tolerance" immigration
policy, which led to the separation of more than 2,000 children from their parents. The movement to get rid of the immigration
enforcement agency gained attention after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ Democratic primary win over Rep. Joe Crowley
in the race to represent New York’s 14th congressional district. Ocasio-Cortez said it was "time to abolish" U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations unit arrests, detains and deports
immigrants living in the country illegally. The agency’s Homeland Security Investigations unit probes human smuggling and
trafficking; financial crimes and money laundering; transnational gang activity, and other crimes. As the calls to abolish ICE persist, PolitiFact
decided to take a closer look at the agency’s role, what Democrats have said, whether they want "open borders" as President Donald Trump
claims, and the likelihood that ICE will be abolished. Does ICE separate families at the border? No. While demands to "abolish ICE" grew after
reports of family separations at the border, ICE is not tasked with border enforcement. That responsibility lies with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, another DHS agency. Immigrant advocates over the years, not just under the Trump administration, have spoken out against ICE for
arresting and detaining parents living in the United States illegally, even though they did not have criminal records. Those family separations are
different from the separations caused by Trump’s "zero-tolerance" immigration policy. What
have Democrats said about
abolishing ICE? Do they want "open borders"? Congressional Democratic leaders have called for a
restructuring of the agency, but not an end to immigration enforcement. A few Democrats seem to want the
agency shuttered, but others talk of restructuring or a new focus. "Look, ICE does some functions that are very
much needed. Reform ICE? Yes. That’s what I think we should do. It needs reform," said Senate Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer at a June 27 press conference. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi wants "an immediate and fundamental
overhaul" of the agency said her spokesman, Drew Hammill. We found six additional Democrats in the House and Senate who have said they
want to "abolish," "dismantle," "re-image" or replace ICE.

Current US immigration law prevents victims of MS-13 from escaping violence, and
deporting gang members fuels cycles of violence and poverty in El Salvador
Molly O’Toole 3/4/18—(Molly O’Toole is a freelance journalist. She is a Foreign Policy Interrupted
fellow based in South Asia and covering global migration and security, “El Salvador's Gangs Are Targeting
Young Girls”
ms-13-trump-violence/554804/ HRB)
At dusk on a dusty soccer field in San Salvador last April, three girls sat together on a bench. Dani, 12, and Sofia, 16, regularly played soccer with
the boys; Diana, Sofia’s 14-year-old cousin, came to watch. What else do you do for fun?, I asked them. They scuffed their shoes in the dirt,
uncertain how to respond. So I told them what I did at their age: Played in my suburban neighborhood, or drove around town. Sofia’s eyes grew
wide. “At night? Without your parents?” Dani asked. “So cool!” Diana exclaimed. When I told them that American teenagers often took buses
or subways to get around town, Dani declared: “You have all the freedom in the world.” To them, such freedom was unfathomable. Their
parents only allowed them to leave the house for soccer or school. “Here it’s dangerous because of the gangs,” Dani explained. “You can’t go
out now.” Even at school, they felt insecure, Diana added. “Anybody can come in.” In
El Salvador, a small country of some 6.5
million, the defense ministry has estimated that more than 500,000 Salvadorans are involved with gangs. (This number
includes gang members’ relatives and children who have been coerced into crimes.) Turf wars between MS-13, the country’s largest gang, and
its chief rivals, two factions of Barrio 18, have exacerbated what is the world’s highest homicide rate for people under the age of 19. In
540 Salvadoran minors were murdered—an average of 1.5 every day. While a majority of El Salvador’s
homicide victims are young men from poor urban areas, the gangs’ practice of explicitly targeting girls
for sexual violence or coerced relationships is well known. Since 2000, the homicide rate for young women
in El Salvador has also increased sharply, according to the latest data from the World Health Organization. To refuse the
gangs’ demands can mean death for girls and their families. These conditions leave them with few
options but to flee their country. In fiscal year 2016, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended a record 17,512 unaccompanied
Salvadoran minors. One-third of the children traveling alone to the U.S. border that year were girls, up 10 percent from just four years prior. In
fiscal year 2017, which marked a 50-year low for illegal immigration, roughly a third of unaccompanied minors, again, were girls. Yet in listening
to President Donald Trump, one might assume that all of these Central-American youth are blood-thirsty male gang members. “MS-13 gang
members are being removed by our Great ICE and Border Patrol Agents by the thousands, but these killers come back in from El Salvador, and
through Mexico, like water,” Trump tweeted on February 23. “El Salvador just takes our money.” Last spring in San Salvador, I spoke to more
than 20 young women, aged 12 to 30, whose everyday realities suggest a story largely absent from Trump’s narrative. Rather than posing a
threat to America, Salvadoran girls are under threat—and U.S. policy seems certain to exacerbate it. To help justify its immigration crackdown,
the Trump administration has pointed to a spate of murders in the United States tied to MS-13, arguing that immigration has dramatically
expanded the gang’s American membership. Trump officials tend to omit that the street gang was formed in the 1980s in Los Angeles by
refugees from El Salvador’s civil war—a war fueled in part by Washington—and that the gang was effectively exported to El
Salvador through deportations from the United States. Yet the federal government’s current estimate of around 10,000
MS-13 members across 40 U.S. states hasn’t changed in more than a decade, and only a fraction of unaccompanied minors apprehended since
2011 have confirmed gang ties. The Trump administration has endorsed San Salvador’s militarized approach to fighting the gangs, which
designates anyone collaborating with gang members as terrorists, too. Human rights officials have excoriated Salvadoran authorities’ use of
excessive force and extrajudicial killings, including against teenagers. The White House, meanwhile, has recommended slashing aid to El
Salvador, prioritizing combatting the gangs instead. Such policies
do little to help El Salvador’s young women. The gangs’
targeting of girls dovetails with a wider rise in femicide, or killing motivated by gender, in El Salvador.
The rate of violent death for women is the third-highest in the world. In 2016, 524 women in El
Salvador—one in every 5,000—were killed, with most of them under the age of 30. From the beginning
of 2017 through October, there were nearly 2,000 sexual assaults, with about 80 percent of victims 17
or younger, according to the Salvadoran Women’s Organization for Peace. Through November, there were were 429
femicides, according to the Institute of Legal Medicine. In the first two months of 2018, 72 women were murdered, a
more than 50 percent increase from the same period last year, Salvadoran police reported on March 2.
But few of the perpetrators ever face justice. Between 2013 and November 2016, the Salvadoran government opened 662
femicide cases, but only 5 percent reached a conviction. With pervasive gender inequality and widespread
impunity, part of the reason for the epidemic of violence against women may simply be that assailants
believe that they can get away with it. Yolanda Blanco, a government lawyer who co-founded the soccer club at the dusty San
Salvador field where Dani and Sofia play, explained that gang members take revenge on rivals through the murder and rape of their sisters and
daughters. “Girls are the objects of vengeance for the gangs,” she told me. “They are in the eye of the hurricane.” A few days after visiting the
soccer field, I met Ingrid, a 23-year-old woman from a northern suburb of San Salvador, at a hotel. Ingrid, along with her 3-year-old daughter
and her family, had gone into hiding, and needed a safe location to meet. When in the eighth grade, she got a boyfriend and soon dropped out
of school. Two years later, he became a member of a faction of Barrio 18, after the gang threatened to go after his sister if he refused to join.
“Before joining the gang, he was very loving, taking care of me,” she said. “Almost overnight, he changed.” Ingrid’s boyfriend soon began to lock
her inside their house. He would get drunk, beat her, rape her, and forbid her from using contraceptives, she told me. After one beating, she
was hospitalized, and learned she was pregnant. The doctors told her she might lose her child because of her injuries. Yet when Ingrid later
gave birth to her daughter, her boyfriend promised to stop the abuse, and pushed her to get married. Shortly after, the beatings started anew,
and she ultimately left her then-husband. Still, he eventually found them. When I spoke to Ingrid, she told me she had considered applying for a
visa to travel to the United States. She had even mulled the possibility of traveling north with her baby, either to claim asylum at the border, or
enter America illegally. “My plan is to give her all the love and care I can,” Ingrid said, “and get as far away as I can.” Magdalena Arce, the
president of a network of women’s shelters in the foothills of San Salvador, argued that the violence against women comes down to machismo.
As academics have argued, the sexism that devalues Salvadoran girls is so ingrained—in El Salvador’s politics, culture, even its religion—that
many young women “don’t even know they have rights,” Arce said. That includes the right to safely leave abusive partners and report sexual
and domestic violence, or even the right to higher education or economic opportunity. Celina de Sola, who runs a community-development
NGO called Glasswing International, emphasized that girls are not inherently vulnerable. Instead, she said, the violence in El Salvador is
exacerbating existing external factors—like high rates of school dropouts and teen pregnancies—to further imperil young Salvadoran women.
While one-third of
Salvadorans live in poverty, the unemployment rate for 16-to-24-year-olds is double
the national average; 300,000 in that age group neither work nor study. Many girls face these long odds
with young children: A quarter of young women between the ages 15 and 19 have already become
pregnant, the highest rate in Latin America. Amid all this, the Trump administration has cut annual refugee acceptances for
people from the Caribbean and Latin America from 5,000 to 1,500. It also ended two programs for Central-American minors, which enabled
those with family in the United States to apply in their home countries for refugee status or humanitarian parole. The abrupt termination of
these programs stranded thousands of children in imminent danger. Most of the 13,000 applicants came from El Salvador. With
chance of obtaining refugee status diminished, more Central-American women and girls may risk the
journey north—and the sexual violence that often comes with it—to claim asylum at the border. U.S.
law affords them protection if they can prove they have been persecuted on account of race, religion,
nationality, political beliefs, or membership in a particular social group. Though victims of rape, sexual
assault, and domestic violence may qualify for special visas, these criteria, derived from the 1951
Refugee Convention, have effectively become outdated for young Salvadoran women caught in the
current wave of gang violence. In its first year, the Trump administration, which vowed to crack down on
asylum “abuse,” lowered approval rates for asylum. According to several lawsuits, the administration
has also illegally turned away asylum seekers at the border. Per the 1980 Refugee Act, U.S. authorities can legally return
immigrants to a country where they are in danger only if they have been convicted of a serious crime or officials “reasonably” determine they
threaten national security. Yet under Trump, hundreds of thousands of the 2.1 million Salvadorans already in the United States, the
overwhelming majority of whom are not criminals and pose no threat, now stand to lose protections that allowed them to stay in the country
without fear of deportation. The Salvadoran government has argued that it cannot absorb these imminent returnees, on top of the 40,000
forcibly deported the past two years alone. Once these people arrive in El Salvador, gangs target many of them for attacks and extortion,
believing that returnees have more money and fewer connections to the community. Young people, often alienated from a country they barely
know, can be vulnerable to the gangs’ aggressive efforts to recruit minors. For young women who fled El Salvador for the United States and
now face deportation back to their home country, the situation is even more dire, Salvador Carrillo, president of the National Network of
Returned Entrepreneurs of El Salvador, told me. “When they come back, they can experience retaliation [ranging from] from rape to
assassination,” he said. In April, Ingrid told me she knew Trump didn’t like Latinos, but argued that those coming to the United States were not
all “bad hombres,” as the president suggested. “We deserve a chance, because we [leave] out of necessity,” she said of Salvadorans. “We have
to get out of this country.” Today, she is still in El Salvador, raising her daughter while on the run. Trump’s moves to block desperate
Salvadorans from escaping their country while also removing them from the United States are likely to feed the gangs more young recruits and
victims—turning them into an even greater danger to Salvadoran women and girls. In other words, Trump may well wind up undermining his
own stated goals of curbing immigration and bringing down gangs like MS-13. Today, El Salvador is holding municipal and legislative elections.
These elections will serve as something of a response to Trump’s policies, and as a referendum on the government’s mano duro, or iron fist,
approach to combating the gangs, which depends on U.S. support. The first time I went to the dusty soccer field, I met Sofia’s grandmother,
Maria Lucia Paz de Artiga. The 78-year-old woman’s gold teeth glinted when she laughed, and the words I love grandmother were written in
English on a white cast on her arm. During El Salvador’s 12-year civil war, which took 75,000 lives, she and her
children fled the countryside for San Salvador. She’s grateful her children are grown-ups now, because it’s difficult to raise kids
today, especially girls, she said. “Gangs are starving for them.” El Salvador today is worse than during the war, Lucia told me.
“During the war, at least we could roam freely,” she said. “Nowadays, you have to get permission. If you enter gang territory and nobody knows
you—te vas pa el norte,” she said, laughing at her own double meaning. Typically, when Salvadorans say el norte, or “ the north,” they’re
referring to the United States. Instead, to explain her meaning, Lucia pointed to the blue sky overhead. She preferred to use the slang for
homicide, my fixer said. Te vas pa el norte—they’ll send you up.
MS-13 Impact/NB
MS-13 is a brutal street gang that kills a lot of people they are very bad
Caleb Howe 5/17/18—(Opinion contributor at USA Today, “Donald Trump is right. MS-13 members
are 'animals.'”
violence-animals-immigrants-media-column/621537002/ HRB)

“Street gang MS-13, infamous for vicious machete killings, is first to be declared an international criminal
group.” That’s a headline from the Daily Mail in 2012. “The gratuitous acts of violence these now-convicted gang members committed were
intended to spread fear.” That’s a description from acting U.S. Attorney John Horn about a 2015 murder conviction in Georgia. “Video of
the mutilated bodies was sent to a girlfriend of one of the victims.” “She was walking home one evening
with Nisa, a basketball teammate one day shy of her 16th birthday, when MS-13 members spotted them
and attacked with a machete and baseball bats.” “A large butcher knife, a bloodstained baseball hat and
three 9mm handguns were also found in the car.” Those are all different incidents. All MS-13. On
Wednesday, President Trump was speaking as part of his roundtable discussion on California’s sanctuary laws and was asked about MS-13. His
response set off a firestorm. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims brought up the gang and her department’s ability to combat them: “There
could be an MS-13 member that I know about” and yet can’t report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Trump replied, saying in part,
“These aren't people. These are animals." The controversy blew up when people and news organizations used the quote or clip without the
context of Mims’ question. Trump wasn’t calling all illegal immigrants animals. One widely favored and retweeted response referred to Trump’s
remark as the “language of ethnic cleansing.” Quickly, though, people on the right (and some journalists) corrected the record. That it was
about MS-13 was reported more widely. Even so, many on the left, including notably House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, simply
recalibrated to defend the humanity of the gang itself. “Does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?”
Pelosi asked. Likewise, CNBC’s John Harwood said, “However repugnant their actions, MS-13 gang members are human beings IMHO.”
Madness. The question is whether it was fair or wise of Trump to call MS-13 animals, and whether it’s a morally objectionable statement
overall. The American Heritage Dictionary third definition of “animal” is “a person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner.” By that
definition, “animal” isn’t nearly strong enough. Today's news spat over MS-13 is part of a longer-running drama. Since Trump took office, there
has been an effort to downplay the gang’s significance even as Trump has rhetorically raised its profile. He's not the only president to do so. In
2012 — you know, under President Obama — MS-13 was formally designated a transnational criminal organization by the Treasury
Department. At the time, this was characterized approvingly as a “crackdown” by the Obama administration. MS-13 (or Mara Salvatrucha), a
primarily El Salvador-based gang that started in Los Angeles, was believed to have about 10,000 members across the
country at that time and Central America. They were known for hacking enemies to death, executing people in broad daylight in view of
witnesses, and fatally beating people with bats. That brutality has continued: ►In 2013, two gang members beat and hacked
a 16-year-old Houston teen to death using bats and machetes. They also almost decapitated him, the
Houston Chronicle reported. The gang suspected he had shared information with El Salvadoran police. Both killers were sentenced 35 years in
prison. Both were from El Salvador, here illegally. One had been picked up previously on an immigration charge, a common thread for the gang.
That’s why it comes up in the context of sanctuary city roundtables. ►In 2017, as many as 10 MS-13 members stabbed a man
more than 100 times in Maryland. They decapitated him and cut out his heart. The first suspect charged, who allegedly
stabbed first, was Miguel Angel Lopez-Abrego, of El Salvador, who was here illegally. ►Also last year, MS-13 members shot an
unidentified girl who was thought to be 15 in the head and chest, leaving her body in the middle of a
busy street in Houston’s Chinatown. The murderer said he killed her to appease Satan. “The beast did not want a material offering, but
wanted a soul,” he said. He was from El Salvador originally, and here illegally. Way back in 2003, Brenda Paz was famously murdered by MS-13
after cooperating with police as an informant. CBS News’ Dan Rather reported on the slaying. Rather reported that MS-13 conducted
"investigations” and held meetings where they went over things like recruitment, drug sales and murder. A “greenlight” was unanimously
agreed upon to assassinate Paz at such a meeting. Paz was lured to a fishing trip with her boyfriend, who along with his fellow gang member
stabbed her to death in front of a witness. The list goes on: ►In 2017, four
gang members were arrested for a spree of 10
murders in Las Vegas. ►In 2014, MS-13 “enforcers” were deployed by a cartel to kidnap and torture
teenagers in St. Paul. ►In 2012, Dennis Gil-Bernardez, a Honduran native and a leader in the gang, was sentenced to 80 years for,
among many other crimes, stabbing a man to death on a street in Washington, D.C. ►Four men were hacked to
death on Long Island, N.Y. ►A 15-year-old girl was tortured, had a tattoo cut off, and then was stabbed
to death. The documentation of the gang’s brutality is long and horrifying. Murder, torture, rape,
dismemberment, mutilation. These are heinous acts, and we’re meant to know it. They are committed for that reason,
to shock and terrorize, silence and warn. MS-13 means for you to be repelled and horrified. Calling the
people who commit these acts "animals" doesn't dehumanize them. Their actions dehumanize them. Just because the president
has said bad things about immigrants in the past is no reason to condemn him today. Whatever you think about the president, it’s not
responsible or reasonable to object when the president tells the truth about a brutal street gang.
Dems will win midterms
Easley 7/6
Jason Easley, reporter on politics, 7-6-2018, "Energized Democrats Surge Toward Midterms As Trump Is Losing On Immigration and Trade,"

Trump is trying to shape the midterm around two issues, and he is losing on both Trump wants to
campaign on immigration and trade. He thinks that he can get Republicans out to vote by playing on fears of immigration and
looking tough on trade. The problem is that the American people disagree with him on both issues. If Trump
continues to try to run on immigration and trade, Republicans in House and Senate races could lose
their seats. Republican incumbents are already facing backlash due to their unpopular attacks on
Obamacare and passage of tax cuts for the rich. Ripping kids away from their parents and launching
trade wars could cause even more seats to flip from red to blue. Nothing suggests that the Blue Wave
has diminished Sometimes we can get a little too hung up on the generic ballot, but the generic ballot is
just that. It’s generic. It doesn’t factor in the candidates in each race and national developments. It is all
things being equal would you rather have a Democratic or Republican controlled Congress, which is on par with asking all things being equal
would you rather have ice cream or apple pie? One day you may want ice cream, but the next time you are asked you may want pie. The
better question is enthusiasm. Enthusiastic voters show up to vote, and Democrats have been
consistently more excited about November than Republicans. Enthusiasm is why Trump is whipping up
the fear on immigration, because they know that their voters, right now, aren’t going to show up to vote
in big enough numbers in November. Democrats keep doing great on primary election days and setting
turnout records. Democrats continue to flip red seats at the state level and overperform in special
elections. The blue wave is heading straight for Donald Trump in November.

Right now, Dems are ahead on immigration, but “Abolish ICE” divides the party and
unites Republicans
Mara Liasson 7/3/18—(Mara Liasson is the national political correspondent for NPR, “4 Questions
About The Call To Abolish ICE”
call-to-abolish-ice HRB)

A new liberal rallying cry — "Abolish

ICE!" — calls for an end to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that
enforces President Trump's immigration policies. Many protesters held signs with the slogan at marches across the country
over the weekend, and several leading Democrats echoed the grass-roots catchphrase. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the insurgent Democratic
Socialist who won a stunning primary upset in New York last week, ran on this issue. And Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten
Gillibrand — both considered possible 2020 presidential contenders — also took up the call. The new slogan, though, raises more political
questions than it answers. What does "Abolish ICE" as a motto mean, anyway? "Abolish ICE" sounds simple and straightforward. It's short
enough to fit on a bumper sticker — as does "Build the Wall," or "Abolish the IRS." It symbolizes Democrats' opposition to Trump's immigration
policies, particularly the separation of children and parents at the border. It's a shorthand way to remind lawmakers and the public that
Democrats don't like how the president has demonized immigrants — whether they entered the U.S. legally or not. It also expresses the fear
and outrage among immigrant communities who feel that ICE is terrorizing their neighborhoods. If it's a useful slogan for
Democrats, why are Republicans thrilled? Democrats who use the phrase say it doesn't mean they want no enforcement at the
border at all. But Republicans are making a big push to convince voters that's exactly what Democrats do
mean when they call for abolishing ICE. Over the weekend and into this week, Trump tweeted about it repeatedly, saying
Democrats want to get rid of ICE so they can have open borders and more crime. He tweeted Tuesday, "When we have an "infestation" of MS-
13 GANGS in certain parts of our country, who do we send to get them out? ICE! They are tougher and smarter than these rough criminal
elelments [sic] that bad immigration laws allow into our country. Dems do not appreciate the great job they do! Nov." This
is the
president's No. 1 message for the midterms: Republicans are tough on the border and strong on crime,
and Democrats are weak and will let hordes of immigrants come in illegally and "infest" our country. In an
interview with Fox News that aired Sunday, Trump said he was thrilled that some Democrats were adopting this new
rallying cry and signaled he would use it against them as often as possible. "I think they'll never win another election
so I'm actually quite happy with it," he said. Why are Democrats divided about abolishing ICE? Until this past weekend,

immigration was largely a political problem for Republicans . The GOP was badly divided over Trump's policy to end
deportation protection for DREAMers — immigrants in the country illegally who were brought to the U.S. when they were children — and his
now-reversed practice of separating children from their parents at the border. Themajority of the country sides with
Democrats on immigration in general. A Pew Research Center poll from June showed that Democrats had a 14-point
advantage in handling immigration — and that was before the family separation issue exploded. A recent Gallup poll showed that
75 percent of Americans thought immigration was a good thing for the country. A majority of voters have
consistently supported giving DREAMers a path to citizenship. Many Democrats think that turning the debate away from Trump's
immigration policies and back to a fight over which party is stronger on border security is a loser for Democrats. It's why so
many Democratic lawmakers refuse to jump on the "Abolish ICE" bandwagon. Even Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders dodged the question, saying only that he wanted to "create policies that deal with immigration in a rational way." Illinois
Sen. Tammy Duckworth said abolishing ICE wouldn't accomplish anything, since even without the agency,
Trump would still be setting immigration policy. Although Warren and Gillibrand sided with the "Abolish ICE" push, California
Sen. Kamala Harris, another possible 2020 contender, did not. Harris said she wanted to "critically re-examine ICE and its role." Many
Democratic strategists were asking why — just when the Democrats were winning the immigration debate — they should adopt a slogan that
could backfire on them going into the midterm elections. Is the debate over ICE's existence worth having? Yes. ICE is a massive law enforcement
agency, created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It employs more than 20,000 people. It's responsible for homeland security
investigations and the deportation of undocumented immigrants. Last week The Texas Observer reported that 19 special agents in charge at
ICE's Homeland Security Investigations unit wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen calling for the agency to be
reorganized. The agents reportedly said that ICE is supposed to track down drug cartel leaders, child pornographers and human traffickers, but
instead, the letter said, agents are spending time and resources going after undocumented immigrants, and the agency is becoming a "political
pawn." The letter calls for splitting the agency in two — one part for homeland security, the other for deportations. It's hard to imagine such a
proposal would go anywhere, however, in a political atmosphere in which immigration issues get oversimplified and weaponized.

Democratic Control of Congress stops Trump from destroying democracy

Wollman 18
(Neil Wollman, 6/18/18, Senior Fellow with the Bentley Alliance for Ethics and Social
Responsibility at Bentley University, “ Democrats and Voters Must Halt Trump’s threat to our
democracy”, The Hill,

Republicans and President Trump are promoting the idea that the GOP must hold onto its
majority in Congress to save the president’s agenda and prevent his potential impeachment.
Democrats need something just as powerful to motivate voters — something in addition to bread-and-butter issues that have resonated in
recent elections such as good jobs, heath care, education and support for the middle class. Is there a commanding message that can motivate
Democrats to overcome the party divisions on how to deal with Trump? Currently, we hear all sorts of calls — ignore him; confront him;
impeach him; focus on local issues; move to the left, or to the center. Each strategy has pitfalls for the Democratic Party and its candidates. But
there is one important point on which Democrats, many independents and even some
Republicans can agree: President Trump is a threat to our democracy. More important than
simply combating him is ensuring the survival of our democracy as we know it — and this can be
preserved only by electing Democrats. Luckily for Democrats, a recent poll revealed a strong preference of voters to
elect candidates who would be a check on the president. What are the threats that Trump poses to our
democratic system of governance and to a strong civil society that Democrats can highlight? He views a free, unbiased news
media as an enemy to be derided and tamed. He displays a disdain for facts, a predilection for
lies, and a disregard for scientific expertise and knowledge. He has acted contrary to the
separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution; for example, he has tried to influence criminal investigations. He
undermines government institutions such as law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Moreover, he has alienated
and confused America’s allies, while showing affinity for enemies personified in Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong
Un. He wants churches to become partisan organizations, threatening the separation of church
and state. His colleagues, even if not Trump himself, have been involved in nefarious foreign ventures tied to the Russia investigation and
attacks on our democracy. With his immigration crackdown and other policies, the president has fostered a climate of
fear among the populace, sowing division rather than unity. He has failed to address either the appearance or the
reality of economic conflicts of interest for himself or those around him. He has not drained the swamp, as he promised during his campaign,
but instead flooded it with incompetent or corrupt, scandal-ridden cabinet or other administration members. His
lawyers, in a
recently made public memo, suggested the possibility of an imperial presidency — that Trump
can pardon himself, should the need arise, and is incapable of obstructing justice . Decision-making too
often is based on loyalty, rather than on competence or doing what is right. In his defense, even his abettors on the House
Intelligence Committee have undermined democratic practices. By defeating Republican
candidates in the coming midterms, voters can help save our threatened democracy and civil
life. Democrats in Congress could then counter the Trump administration’s threat by promoting
legislation that upholds our democratic principles and blocking that which does not . They could
investigate corruption and illegal practices, and display more oversight over the
administration’s actions. And from positions of leadership, they could speak out publicly against the
subversion of our democracy and let their Republican colleagues know that if they do not do so as well, they might be targeted in
the next election.

Unchecked, Trump will lead to extinction – Environment, structural violence and war
Chomsky ’17 – (Noam, “Noam Chomsky: With Trump Election, We Are Now Facing Threats to the
Survival of the Human Species”,

It was captured pretty eloquently in the—on the front cover of the major German weekly, Der Spiegel. It depicted a caricature of Donald
Trump presented as a meteor hurtling towards Earth, mouth open, ready to swallow it up. And the top
headline read "Das Ende Der Welt!" "The End of the World." Small letters below, "as we have known it." And at this point, the
two major threats to survival begin to converge. One is environmental catastrophe. The other is nuclear
war, another threat that is increasing right before our eyes. India and Pakistan are nuclear states, nuclear—states with nuclear weapons. They
were already almost at war. Any kind of real war would immediately turn into a nuclear war. That might happen
very easily over water—over struggles over diminishing water supplies. A nuclear war would not only devastate the region, but
might actually be terminal for the species, if indeed it leads to nuclear winter and global famine, as many
scientists predict. So, the threats of survival—to survival converge right there, and we’re going to see
much more like it. Meanwhile, the United States is leading the way to disaster, while the world looks to China for
leadership. It’s an incredible, astounding picture, and indeed only one piece of a much larger picture. The U.S. isolation at Marrakech is
symptomatic of broader developments that we should think about pretty carefully. They’re of considerable significance. U.S.
isolation in
the world is increasing in remarkable ways. Maybe the most striking is right in this hemisphere, what used to be called "our little region
over here"—Henry Stimson, secretary of war under Roosevelt, "our little region over here," where nobody bothers us. If anybody gets out of
line, we punish them harshly; otherwise, they do what we say. That’s very far from true. During this century, Latin America, for the first time in
500 years, has freed itself from Western imperialism. Last century, that’s the United States. The International Monetary Fund, which is basically
an agency of the U.S. Treasury, has been kicked out of the—of South America entirely. There are no U.S. military bases left. The
international organizations, the—the hemispheric organizations are beginning to exclude the United States and
Canada. In 2015, there was a summit coming up, and the United States might have been excluded completely from the hemisphere over the
issue of Cuba. That was the crucial issue that the hemisphere—on which the hemisphere opposed U.S. policy, as does the world. That’s surely
the reason why Obama made the gestures towards normalization, that were at least some step forward—and could be reversed under
Trump. We don’t know. On a much more far-reaching scale, something similar is happening in Asia. As you know, one of Obama’s major
policies was the so-called pivot to Asia, which was actually a measure to confront China, transparently. One component of the pivot to Asia was
the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which excluded China, tried to bring in other Asia-Pacific countries. Well, that seems to be on its way to
collapse, for pretty good reasons, I think. But at the same time, there’s another international trade agreement that is expanding and growing,
namely, China’s—what they call the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which is now drawing in U.S. allies, from Peru to Australia
to Japan. The U.S. will probably choose to stay out of it, just as the United States, virtually alone, has stayed away from China’s Asian
Infrastructure Development Bank, a kind of counterpart to the World Bank, that the U.S. has opposed for many years, but has now been joined
by practically all U.S. allies, Britain and others. That’s—at the same time, China is expanding to the West with the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, the China-based Silk Roads. The whole system is an integrated system of energy resource sharing and so on. It includes Siberia,
with its rich resources. It includes India and Pakistan. Iran will soon join, it appears, and probably Turkey. This will extend all the way from China
to Europe. The United States has asked for observer status, and it’s been rejected, not permitted. And one of the major commitments of the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the whole of the Central Asian states, is that there can be no U.S. military bases in this entire region.
Another step toward isolation may soon take place if the president-elect carries through his promise to
terminate the nuclear weapons—the nuclear deal with Iran. Other countries who are parties to the deal might well continue. They
might even—Europe, mainly. That means ignoring U.S. sanctions. That will extend U.S. isolation, even from Europe. And in fact
Europe might move, under these circumstances, towards backing off from the confrontation with Russia. Actually, Brexit may assist with this,
because Britain was the voice of the United States in NATO, the harshest voice. Now it’s out, gives Europe some opportunities. There were
choices in 1990, ’91, time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Mikhail Gorbachev had a—what he called a vision of a common European home,
an integrated, cooperative system of security, commerce, interchange, no military alliances from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The U.S. insisted on
a different vision—namely, Soviet Union collapses, and NATO remains and, indeed, expands, right up to the borders of Russia now, where very
serious threats are evident daily. Well, all of this, these are significant developments. They’re related to the widely discussed matter of decline
of American power. There are some conventional measures which, however, are misleading in quite interesting ways. I’ll just say a word about
it, because there’s no time, but it’s something to seriously think about. By conventional measures, in 1945, the United States had reached the
peak of global dominance—nothing like it in history. It had perhaps 50 percent of total world’s wealth. Other industrial countries were
devastated or destroyed by the war, severely damaged. The U.S. economy had gained enormously from the war, and it was in—and the U.S., in
general, had a position of dominance with no historical parallel. Well, that, of course, couldn’t last. Other industrial countries reconstructed. By
around 1970, the world was described as tripolar: three major economic centers—a German-based Europe, a U.S.-based North America and the
Northeast Asian area, at that time Japan-based, now China had moved in as a partner, conflict then partner. By now—by that time, U.S. share in
global wealth was about 25 percent. And today it’s not far below that. Well, all of this is highly misleading, because it fails to take into account a
crucial factor, which is almost never discussed, though there’s some interesting work on it. That’s the question of ownership of the world
economy. If you take a look at the corporate—the multinational corporations around the world, what do they own? Well, that turns out to be a
pretty interesting matter. In virtually every—this increasingly during the period of neoliberal globalization of the last generation, corporate
wealth is becoming a more realistic measure of global power than national wealth. Corporate wealth, of course, is nationally based, supported
by taxpayers like us, but the ownership has nothing to do with us. Corporate ownership, if you look at that, it turns out that in virtually every
economic sector—manufacturing, finance, services, retail and others—U.S. corporations are well in the lead in ownership of the global
economy. And overall, their ownership is close to 50 percent of the total. That’s roughly the proportion of U.S. national wealth in 1945, which
tells you something about the nature of the world in which we live. Of course, that’s not for the benefit of American citizens, but of those who
own and manage these private—publicly supported and private, quasi-totalitarian systems. If you look at the military dimension, of course, the
U.S. is supreme. Nobody is even close. No point talking about it. But it is possible that Europe might take a more independent role. It might
move towards something like Gorbachev’s vision. That might lead to a relaxation of the rising and very dangerous tensions at the Russian
border, which would be a very welcome development. Well, there’s a lot more to say about the fears and hopes and prospects. The threats
and dangers are very real. There are plenty of opportunities. And as we face them, again, particularly the younger people among you,
we should never overlook the fact that the threats that we now face are the most severe that have ever arisen in human history. They are
literal threats to survival: nuclear war, environmental catastrophe. These are very urgent concerns. They
cannot be delayed. They became more urgent on November 8th, for the reasons you know and that I mentioned.
They have to be faced directly, and soon, if the human experiment is not to prove to be a disastrous
Midterms block extensions

Trump’s current immigration policies cause Republicans to lose midterms-the aff could
reverse that
Caldwell 6/16
Leigh Ann Caldwell, reporter for NBC, 6-16-2018, "GOP fears midterms backlash from breaking up families at the border," NBC News,

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's policy of taking immigrant children from their parents at the
southern border may have been designed to push Democrats to the negotiating table in Congress — but
it could end up costing Republican lawmakers. "Democrats can fix their forced family breakup at the Border by working with
Republicans on new legislation, for a change!" Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday. "This is why we need more Republicans elected in November."
But the policy, which has separated some 2,000 children from their parents in just six weeks, could have
the opposite effect as anxious Republican lawmakers fear voters may see their party as heartless on
immigration and punish them for it in November. And Democrats are driving home that message in emails to supporters
and by organizing trips to detention centers. The issue will "absolutely" be a factor in the midterm elections this fall,
said a GOP operative working to elect Republicans to Congress, adding that "the images are
devastating" for the GOP.

Last Sunday, as America celebrated Father’s Day, moms and dads across the nation saw little
immigrant children ordered into cages by the president of the United States as they cried out for their
own mothers and fathers.
Abolish ICE helps Republicans in the midterms
Tumulty 7/4
Karen Tumulty, The Washington Post national political correspondent, 7-4-2018, "‘Abolish ICE’ is a gift to Republicans," Washington Post,
4d0f9f0351f1_story.html?utm_term=.a42e8891dece, SS

Democrats “are drifting into a trap,” Trump ally Newt Gingrich told me, acknowledging that he knows
what it is like to fall into this one. When the GOP took control of the House under then-Speaker Gingrich in 1995, its right wing
vowed to eliminate no fewer than four federal departments: Education, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development. Republicans
saw those departments as symbols of everything that had gone awry in a sprawling, increasingly intrusive federal government. “We learned
that every one of those agencies have interest groups that desperately want them to survive,” Gingrich said. “We just weren’t clever about it.”
Still, the proposal remains alive in conservative circles and is put forward again like clockwork during GOP presidential primary season. In 2011,
Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s White House hopes effectively came to an end when he announced during a debate: “It is three agencies of government
when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education and the . . . what’s the third one there?” The department he forgot is the one he now
heads as President Trump’s energy secretary. Oops. The reason ideas like this never get anywhere is that most Americans see these agencies as
having vital missions to perform. GOP plans to get rid of the Education Department, for example, were seen as an attack on teachers and
children. Similarly, calls
to eliminate ICE are likely to be perceived as undermining the security of the nation’s
borders — and the integrity of the government employees who carry out its mandate, many of whom
risk their lives to do so. That is why wiser Democratic leaders have tried to temper the anti-ICE rhetoric
coming from their base. It is true that ICE — like much of government — might benefit from some fresh
thinking about how it is structured and how it operates. The agency was created in 2003 as part of the major government
reorganization that took place in the wake of 9/11. Part of its role in the massive new Department of Homeland Security was to run
enforcement of immigration law in the interior, combining some of the functions of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S.
Customs Service. There
are fair criticisms that ICE has become unwieldy and that its reputation sometimes
interferes with its ability to do its job. Detention and deportation, which grew sharply under President
Barack Obama, have also become more common since ICE’s creation. But ICE is not responsible for what
we’ve seen at the border in the past few months, particularly the heinous practice of separating parents
from their children. To blame a faceless agency is to give a pass to Trump’s “zero-tolerance” policies and
to the hateful rhetoric that has helped create a political environment in which some Americans find this
acceptable. What’s more, Democrats are making it all too easy for Trump and his allies to falsely portray
a call to abolish ICE as another way of clamoring for open borders. “How can the Democrats, who are
weak on the Border and weak on Crime, do well in November,” the president tweeted Tuesday. “The
people of our Country want and demand Safety and Security, while the Democrats are more interested
in ripping apart and demeaning (and not properly funding) our great Law Enforcement!” This is the fight
that Trump wants to have, over security and law enforcement, rather than massive detention centers
and frantic parents who cannot find their children. It is one he can win — and Democrats calling to
eliminate ICE will have given him a potent weapon with which to do it.
Internal link
Democratic House is key to stop Trump’s legislative agenda
Faris 04-02-18 (David Faris, associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University and the
author of It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics,
“What will happen if Democrats retake the House?”,
happen-democrats-retake-house, DA: 7/10/18, EK)

From the time that Republicans assumed control of the House in January 2011 to the day that he politely handed
control of the world's most powerful office to a doddering, Fox News-mainlining proto-authoritarian, President Obama was not able to

realize a single meaningful piece of his domestic policy agenda. For years, Republicans simply stonewalled
him, even when he was willing to compromise on long-held conservative policy goals. They refused to help fix flaws
in ObamaCare that were hurting real people, ending the tradition of Congress being willing to address pressing problems even when the presidency was in the
hands of the other party. GOP elites gambled that making the president look weak and feckless would ultimately lead the public to turn power back to them one
piece at a time, and they were proven depressingly correct. The
U.S. constitutional system grants enormous power to anyone
in control of a branch of Congress or the presidency, and having Democrats running the House would
be no exception . While they can't pass their agenda over the opposition of the Senate and the president, holding Congress will halt
President Trump's policy plan in its tracks and give Democrats a better negotiating position for the
budget. Any further moves to tinker with the tax code, gut financial regulations, or make America's
immigration system more punitive would be dead on arrival unless Democrats make the catastrophic mistake of cooperating
with the president on big-ticket legislative items. And really, the loss of the party's policy agenda probably isn't that big of a deal for the GOP, since that agenda is
virtually non-existent anyway. That's why House leadership recently floated the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, something that not
only has no chance of passing either chamber of Congress by the required two-thirds majorities, but is also a laughable repudiation of everything Republicans have
done with their power since President Trump took office. The point is that Republicans know they are basically out of ideas that wouldn't cause a national riot if
implemented, and they are mostly content to run out the clock, hoping that the fruits of their gerrymandering labors will protect them from the public's wrath in
November. In other words, voters will hardly notice the policy difference between unified Republican control in D.C. and a government divided between
Republicans and Democrats.
DA turns case/dems solve
Dems want to abolish ICE, but need a big progressive wave at midterms. A small win
won’t do it
William Cummings 7/12/18—(William is a Digital Editor for USA TODAY, “House Democrats introduce bill
to abolish ICE, create 'humane' immigration system”
bill/780906002/ HRB)

A group of progressive House Democrats introduced a bill Thursday that would abolish the Immigration
and Customs Enforcement agency within one year, although the legislation has little to no chance of
becoming law. Reps. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Adriano Espaillat of New York put forth the
Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act, which would eliminate ICE and set up a commission to come up with a "human
immigration system that upholds the dignity of all individuals." There has been a growing call from immigration rights
activists and some Democratic lawmakers to abolish the agency since the White House began its "zero
tolerance" policy on immigration, which aims to detain and prosecute anyone who enters the U.S.
illegally. But that approach led to the separation of migrant families crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and images of small children taken from
their parents sparked outrage and energized critics of the Trump administration. Under pressure, Trump ended the separation policy and the
administration is working to reunite the families but the anger against ICE among many progressives continues to rage. Despite the grassroots
movement against ICE, the legislation introduced Thursday has almost no chance of becoming law with
Republicans in charge of all three branches of government. Even if the Democrats were able to take
control of the House after the midterm election, centrist members of the party would be unlikely to
back the move. Pocan, Jayapa and Espaillat said ICE was established after 9/11 with the core mission of preventing another terrorist
attack on the U.S. "However, since then, ICE has become synonymous with immigration raids, home invasions,
family separation, abusive detention practices, and chronic noncompliance with the law," they wrote. "The
agency is now failing to perform its core mission and that the best path forward would be to end it and start fresh." The representatives blamed
President Donald Trump for much of the current problems they see with ICE. "President Trump’s blanket directive to round up and target all
undocumented immigrants underscores the unchecked power which ICE has used to terrorize our communities," Pocan said. "The President is
using ICE as a mass-deportation force to rip apart the moral fabric of our nation." House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., called Democrats' push to
abolish ICE "the craziest position I have ever seen" and said it showed that "they are out of the mainstream of America." "This is the agency that
gets gangs out of our communities, that helps prevent drugs from flowing into our schools, that rescues people from human trafficking," Ryan
said. Last week, Vice President Mike Pence called the movement to shut down ICE "outrageous" and "irresponsible." "We are with you 100
percent," Pence said during a July 6 visit to ICE headquarters. "Under President Trump, we will never abolish ICE." The bill would establish a 17-
member commission that would include eight members of Congress and nine representatives from immigrants' rights organizations. The
commission would be tasked with making sure that federal agencies are all enforcing immigration laws humanely and constitutionally,
documenting any ICE abuses and making a report of its recommendations to Congress. The bill says that "any essential functions carried out by
ICE that do not violate fundamental due process and human rights" will be transferred to other government agencies.
Democracy impact extension
Trump is destroying democracy
Klinger 18
(Donald Klinger, 3/9/18, “The Trump Effect: “Lights Out” on the Age of Englightenment”, Public
Integrity Journal, Professor at University of Colorado Springs,

President Trump’s one major 2017 policy victory was a tax cut for the 1%. His Republican Congress cagily balanced it against projected
revenue increases that future leaders will be forced to generate by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other safety-net programs
for the 99%. His administration attacks public lands, poisons our air and water, and ignores global
warming. It has eroded the Western consensus on democracy, free trade and mutual self-
defense that had characterized international relations since World War II by threatening the
U.S.’s successful NAFTA trade agreement with two of its top three trading partners (Canada and
Mexico), the UN, the NATO alliance, the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris climate accord .
He has stoked a schoolyard stand-off with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un over the relative size of
their nuclear buttons. He dismisses African and Caribbean nations as “shithole countries.”
Global confidence in U.S. leadership has plummeted everywhere except in Israel and Russia.
Trump also spent his first year in office weakening U.S. democratic values and institutions. He
ignored the rule of law by pardoning convicted felon Joe Arpaio. He tried to suppress voting
rights via a spurious “voter fraud” panel. He scorns Hispanics by avoiding the federal
government’s responsibility for hurricane relief and rebuilding in Puerto Rico, and by cynically tying
meaningful DACA reform proposals to xenophobic dog whistles like his border wall. He nominates unqualified racists,
misogynists and homophobes for federal jobs, defends white supremacists in Charlottesville,
and supports throwback Republicans like Roy Moore.

Empirical studies prove: liberal democracies are key to peace and economic growth,
turns all their impacts
John R. Oneal Bruce Russett, and Michael L. Berbaum, 9/1/2003—(John R. Oneal is a
Professor Emeritus for political science at University of Alabama, Bruce Russett is the Dean Acheson
Research Professor of International Relations and Political Science at Yale, Michael L. Berbaum is the
Senior Biostatistician and IHRP Adjunct Associate Professor of Biostatistics at the University of Illinois at
Chicago, “Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992”
International Studies Quarterly, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 September 2003, Pages 371–393, Accessed 7/14/18 HRB)
Column 1 shows the results for the analysis of fatal disputes. Notably, the sums of the coefficients of each of the Kantian variables—DEML,
DEPENDL, and IGO—are negative, indicating that higher levels of democracy, interdependence, and involvement in
international organizations reduce the likelihood of interstate conflict. Joint memberships in
intergovernmental organizations are more closely associated with peace here than in previous research.
Moreover, this greater statistical significance is reflected in a much larger substantive effect, as will be seen. All the variables in the model—
liberal and realist—are statistically significant at the .001 level except for the trade-to-GDP ratio (p<.02) and the indicator of an alliance.
Surprisingly, allies are not less likely to fight than non-allies (p<.59); indeed, the sum of the coefficients is positive. A preponderance of power,
indicated by a large capability ratio, lowers the incidence of conflict. As expected, a history of disputes increases the likelihood of a fatal conflict
in the current year. States that do not share a border or are distant from one another are more peaceful, as are minor powers. These results are
robust with regard to the number of lags included in the estimation.8 The results in the second column of Table 1 for the onset of all disputes
(not just those with fatalities) are very similar, at least for liberal theory. Six lagged values were sufficient to account for the influence of past
disputes on the current likelihood of conflict. The coefficients of most of the theoretical terms are smaller, but all except the capability ratio
(p<.04) are significant at the .001 level. The surprising result here is that allied states again have a greater incidence of disputes than do non-
allied states, and now this result is very significant statistically (p<.001). Alliances evidently produce not just bonds of security, but grounds for
disagreement about institutions, decision-making procedures, burden-sharing, and strategy. They constrain the use of force in many cases but
also create “salience and/or the ease of interaction” (Siverson and Starr, 1991:93; see also Bueno de Mesquita, 1982; Kinsella and Russett,
2002). An alliance with a major power is especially dangerous (Oneal and Russett, 1997, 1999a). Great Powers may use force against smaller
allies to enforce their spheres of influence. The pacifying effect of being allied also varies over time. It was stronger during the Cold War than in
the years before World War II; its effect was particularly uncertain in the inter-war years, 1920–1939 (Russett and Oneal, 2001). Bennett and
Stam (2000) also report substantial variation in the consequences of an alliance. Allies are significantly less likely to fight in only two of their
twelve tests for nondirected dyads. We can make our results more concrete by estimating the effect each theoretical variable has on the
likelihood that a militarized dispute will begin. First, we calculated a baseline probability against which to make comparisons. We assumed that
the dyad had not had a dispute in the period represented in the lagged terms (seven years for fatal disputes, six years in the analysis of all
disputes), and we set all the lags of each of the continuous variables at the same relatively low level, the value taken by a dyad at the tenth
percentile among the contiguous pairs of states. We postulated that the members of the dyad shared a border, were not allied, and were not
major powers. The distance between their capitals was set at the mean for the contiguous pairs. We estimated the annual probability of the
onset of a fatal militarized dispute for this dyad using the coefficients in Table 1. To show the substantive effects of the theoretically interesting
variables, we increased each set of lagged terms, one set at a time, to the value taken by a dyad at the ninetieth percentile among the
contiguous dyads, or we made the states allies. We report the probabilities of a dispute under each of these conditions and the reduction in risk
relative to the baseline in Table 2. As seen in the first column of Table 2,
the baseline probability for the onset of a fatal
dispute is .0086. Increasing the lower democracy score reduces this enormously—by 86 percent. Raising
the bilateral trade-to-GDP ratio, while holding all other variables at their baseline values, lowers the
probability of a dispute to .0058, a reduction of 32 percent. An increase in the dyad's involvement in IGOs from the tenth
to the ninetieth percentile causes the likelihood of conflict to drop by 43 percent. Making the states allied has little effect—an increase of 1
percent. Increasing the preponderance of the more powerful state lowers the risk of a fatal dispute by 71 percent, but this must be interpreted
with caution. To go from the tenth to the ninetieth percentile means increasing the superiority of the more powerful state from 1.3:1 to 50.7:1.
Such an increase is clearly beyond the capacity of most states even in the long term, especially because the capability ratio is calculated using
the population and industry of states as well as military measures. Just as the significance levels for the onset of all disputes are not much
different from those for fatal disputes, the changes in probabilities in column 2 are similar to those in column 1. The effect of a predominance
of power is notably reduced, but still important. The impacts of democracy and interdependence are also lower but continue to be substantial.
The effect of sharing common memberships in international organizations is equal to that of trade. Several authors (Fearon, 1994; Smith, 1998;
Gartzke, Li, and Boehmer, 2001; Schultz, 2002) propose that the ability to signal their intentions accounts for the separate peace among liberal
states. Democracies and interdependent states may benefit from being able to communicate their preferences by sending costly signals.
Transparency, when coupled with support for a show of strength from the domestic opposition, allows these states to persuade adversaries of
their resolve and thus to prevail without actually having to fight. Similarly, Boehmer, Gartzke, and Nordstrom (2000) argue that states joined in
well-institutionalized IGOs can use those organizations to exchange information and credibly communicate resolve. Our empirical results fit
such signaling hypotheses to a degree: democracies, interdependent states, and states in a dense network of IGOs are even less likely to have a
fatal dispute than a less violent one. But since these states experience low-level MIDS less frequently than do other states, their signaling must
take place primarily in political and diplomatic communications without the threat of military force.9 Our results are also consistent with other
theories of the liberal peace that emphasize the roles played by material interests and norms in allowing interdependent democracies joined in
many international organizations to avoid conflict. This
discussion of the independent effects of democracy,
interdependence, and IGOs understates the benefits of Kant's prescription for peace because these
elements of the liberals' political and economic program are integrally related . The leaders of
democratic states are constrained from resorting to force against other democracies; but democracy,
by encouraging individual liberty and responsibility, fosters entrepreneurship and the expansion of
commerce beyond a nation's boundaries. As the economic activities of citizens make countries
interdependent, international law and organizations are needed to regulate and facilitate commerce.
Thus, there is a logical sequence that links the freedom of citizens in democratic states to expanding
commerce over a widening geographical area and the growth of international institutions. It is
appropriate, therefore, to estimate the effect of increasing all three Kantian factors simultaneously. Then, the incidence of fatal disputes falls by
95 percent, from .0086 per annum to .0004. The
substantive importance of the Kantian variables can also be
illustrated by considering contemporary relations between the United States and China. At a time when
many are concerned about the growing power of the Chinese, our results indicate that the probability of
war has declined dramatically in recent decades. To illustrate this, we estimated the probability of a fatal militarized dispute
in 2002 assuming that the political character of the Chinese government had remained unchanged since the start of the Chinese cultural
revolution, when it was at its most autocratic, and relations between the two countries had not improved. In the mid-1960s, there was virtually
no bilateral trade between the two countries and only limited contact in international organizations. In 2001, U.S.–China trade actually made up
1.20 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, nearly the 90th percentile in our data. As a result of this growth in commerce, the probability
of a fatal militarized dispute was 27 percent lower in 2002 than it would have been if the dyad's commercial relations had not improved. With
greater contact between the two countries in IGOs, we estimate a reduction in risk of 28 percent.10 Even
the slight moderation in
the authoritarian character of the Chinese government, from −9 to −7 on our democracy scale, lowers the
likelihood of conflict 17 percent below what it would have been if there had been no change since the mid-1960s. The combined
effect of the three Kantian influences is dramatic: a 58 percent reduction in risk. According to our
analysis, increased trade, greater contact in international organizations, and some moderation in the
authoritarian character of the Chinese government reduced the probability of a fatal militarized dispute
between these major powers from 1.9 percent to 0.8 percent.
A2 institutions check
This argument makes no sense—The impact is the destruction of liberal democracy.
1NC Wollman isolated several warrants on how Trump destroys those institutional
checks—he undermines government institutions, alienates other countries in foreign
policy, and creates an “imperial presidency” if he isn’t removed from office.

Extend Oneal, Russett, and Berbaum 03, Liberal democracy is the key factor to contain
Trump lashout
Base DA
1nc – base da
Base is strong now on the back of Trump’s restrictive immigration policies – reversal
causes massive drop
Olson 7/23, Henry Olsen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and an editor at He is the author of The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue-
Collar Conservatism. ["What liberals (still) get wrong about Trump's support," Guardian, 7-23-2018,]//ARK1

That doesn’t mean Trump backers are blind . Polls show an unusually high share of Republicans do not
say they “strongly” approve of his performance; they are well aware of his many foibles and flaws. But in
our bipartisan system, opposition to Trump means supporting the Democrats. Absent any indication that Democrats are open to Republicans’
views, these voters, sometimes reluctantly, remain in Trump’s camp.

Intense opposition to liberal views clearly impacted the 2016 election. Ekins found that each faction within Trump’s
coalition strongly disapproved of Hillary Clinton. For some this was not mere partisanship: many former Democrats who voted for Trump had
reported favorable opinions of Clinton in 2012. For others their dislike of Clinton was the single largest factor behind their vote for Trump. More
than half of the Free Marketeers, for example, said their vote was more against Clinton than for Trump, the only Trump faction that said this.
Animus towards Democrats and their nominee was a very strong predictor of Trump support even among those who also strongly disliked

My own work confirms this. The 2016 exit poll showed that Trump won because he decisively beat
Clinton among the 18% of Americans who did not like either candidate. These voters tended to be suburban, college-
educated, Republican-leaning men. These “reluctant Trump voters” were undecided until the very end of the race, but ultimately decided that
the devil whose policies they liked was better than the devil whose policies they didn’t.

Democrats have done nothing since Trump’s election to reduce these feelings. On issue after issue the Democratic
party has moved to the left, catering to a progressive base outraged at Trump’s election and seething at how the Democratic establishment
foisted a fatally flawed candidate upon them. The
latest progressive cause célèbre is for eliminating America’s border
enforcement agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice). One can be outraged at how Trump is
enforcing America’s immigration laws without thinking that eliminating all border enforcement is a good idea. An idea like
this keeps Republicans united in their support for Trump as it clearly shows how unacceptable the
alternative is.
The news media’s behavior also keeps Republicans in line. It is impossible to overstate the degree of daily vituperation visited upon the
president in the media. Comics and actors use their non-political programs to attack him, often to the implicit applause of the press. Virtually all
coverage outside the conservative Fox News and isolated conservative outlets is negative, often couched in highly hostile terms. Virtually all of
the columnists at the New York Times and the Washington Post, America’s two most respected dailies, despise Trump – and that includes
nearly all of the conservative, libertarian and Republican columnists too. Trump supporters who follow news at all cannot escape the daily blast
of negativity.

This has, predictably, hardened the attitudes of many Trump supporters . As minor issues are blown up
into major catastrophes, it’s not surprising that potentially major issues like Trump’s embarrassing and
obsequious behavior towards Russian president Vladimir Putin in Helsinki get overlooked . It’s “boy who
cried wolf” syndrome writ large; when the media cries “wolf” at every passing shadow, many Trump
backers simply don’t believe them when they say that a wolf might actually be coming.

None of this is to say that Trump’s support is fixed . His job approval went as low as 37% in 2017 over
his failures to repeal Obamacare or address trade imbalances. Trump’s current 43% approval rating
rests upon a strong economy and continued work for his backers’ priorities . Should the economy slow down or he
goes back on something his fans value, his support could easily drop .

Base supports Trump due to his defense of ICE – eliminating it generates backlash
Devereaux 7/23, Ryan Devereaux is an award-winning investigative journalist covering immigration
enforcement, the drug war, and national security. Prior to The Intercept he worked at Guardian US
reporting on policing and criminal justice. His work has also been published by Rolling Stone, The Nation
and the Village Voice. ["ICE Has Conducted Hundreds of Raids in New York Since Trump Came to Power.
Here’s What Those Operations Look Like.," Intercept, 7-23-2018,]//ARK1

The designers of ICEwatch are unambiguous on the abolition question, describing it as a tool “in support
of advocacy for defunding and abolishing this agency and ending deportation.” Whether demands for the
abolition of ICE will result in action remains to be seen. Coming to power on a blatantly anti-immigrant platform,

Trump has doubled down in his defense of the agency in recent weeks. Similarly, the nativist core of
the administration is unlikely to abandon the vows made to Trump’s far-right base , as well as the rank-and-
file immigration enforcement agents who threw their support behind the president on the campaign trail without a fight.

Loss of core support causes Trump lashout – goes nuclear and causes extinction
Street 16, Tim Street is Senior Programme Officer on the Sustainable Security programme at ORG and
has worked for many years on the politics of nuclear disarmament and the arms trade. ["President
Trump: Successor to the Nuclear Throne," Oxford Research Group, November 2016,

Donald Trump’s arrival in the White House as US President has deeply unnerved people from across the
political spectrum, both inside the US and around the world. The fact that many regard Trump as an
indecent individual and his government as potentially the number one threat to their dignity, liberty and
life means that the civil strife already raging in the US is unlikely to fade away soon. The wide-ranging implications of Trump’s
election to the most powerful office on Earth—for the peace and stability of both that nation and the world—cannot be emphasised enough. In this regard, of the many uncertainties

and worries brought on by a Trump presidency , the two existential questions of climate change and nuclear war stand
With the former, Trump’s recent comment that he now has an ‘open mind’ about the importance of the Paris climate agreement—having previously said climate change is a ‘hoax’—is unlikely to assuage fears that he will seek to
dramatically expand the US’s extraction and reliance on fossil fuels. With the latter, strong doubts have been raised over whether the new President is capable of responsibly handling the incredible power that will be at his

a Trump administration will pursue policies that will aggravate and

fingertips. Moreover, several commentators are already raising concerns that

disappoint his supporters, a situation that could increase the possibility of the US engaging in a
‘diversionary’ war .
In order to consider what we can expect from a Trump presidency, as well as noting whom Trump empowers as members of his cabinet and those whom he is aptly summarised by Daniel Deudney, who describes nuclear weapons

Deudney identifies three related reasons for this

as ‘intrinsically despotic’ so that they have created ‘nuclear monarchies’ in all nuclear-armed states.

development: ‘the speed of nuclear use decisions; the concentration of nuclear use decision into the
hands of one individual; and the lack of accountability stemming from the inability of affected groups
to have their interests represented at the moment of nuclear use’.

how the possession of nuclear weapons

Similarly, Elaine Scarry has explained in stark terms in her 2014 book Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing between Democracy and Doom,

has converted the US government into ‘a monarchic form of rule that places all defense in the executive
branch of government’ leaving the population ‘incapacitated’. In response to this situation, Scarry argues that the American people must use the
Constitution as a tool to dismantle the US nuclear weapons system, thereby revitalising democratic participation and control over decision-making. Scarry also outlines the incredible might the president wields, with each of the
US’s fourteen nuclear-armed submarines alone carrying ‘enough power to destroy the people of an entire continent’, equivalent to ‘eight times the full-blast power expended by Allied and Axis countries in World War II’. Nuclear

specialist Hans Kristensen has described how the US’s strategic nuclear war plan ‘if unleashed in its full capacity’ could ‘kill
hundreds of millions of people, devastate entire nations, and cause climatic effects on a global scale’ .
This war plan consists of a ‘family of plans’ that is aimed at ‘six potential adversaries’ whose identities are kept secret.
Kristensen understands that they include ‘potentially hostile countries with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (WMD)’, meaning China, North Korea, Iran, Russia

and Syria as well as a terrorist group backed by a state that has conducted a catastrophic WMD attack. The
‘dominant mission’ for US nuclear weapons within these plans is termed counterforce, meaning strikes on ‘military, mostly nuclear, targets and the enemy’s leadership’.

Despite these plans, the US’s nuclear arsenal is often described by mainstream commentators as being solely intended to ensure mutual assured destruction (MAD), i.e. as part of the ‘balance of terror’ with Russia, in order to prevent armed conflict between the two nations and to ensure a response in kind to a surprise nuclear attack. However, as Joseph Gerson and John Feffer explain, rather than deterrence just being about enough nuclear forces surviving a surprise first strike attack to ensure MAD, US military planners have also understood it to mean ‘preventing other
nations from taking “courses of action” that are inimical to US interests’.

David McDonough thus describes the ‘long-standing goal of American nuclear warplanners’ as being the achievement of the ability to launch a disarming first-strike against an opponent- otherwise known as nuclear superiority. This has been magnified in recent years as the US seeks to ‘prevent’ or ‘rollback’ the ability of weaker states—both nuclear and non-nuclear powers—to establish or maintain a deterrence relationship. Taking all this into account, the new commander-in-chief’s apparently volatile temperament thus raises deep concerns since his finger will be on the
nuclear trigger as soon as he assumes office on 20th January 2017. Given his past experience, Bruce Blair’s statement that he is ‘scared to death’ by the idea of a Trump presidency is but one further reason why urgent discussion and action, both in the US and globally, on lessening nuclear dangers—and reviving disarmament—is vital. A recent report by the Ploughshares Fund on how the US can reduce its nuclear spending, reform its nuclear posture and restrain its nuclear war plans should thus be required reading in Washington.

However, as the Economist has rightly noted, ‘It is not Mr Trump’s fault that the system, in which the vulnerable land-based missile force is kept on hair-trigger alert, is widely held to be inherently dangerous’ since, as they point out, ‘no former president, including Barack Obama, has done anything to change it.’ Over sixty years after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclearism thus remains very much embedded in the nation’s strategic thinking. Yet the election of Obama, and the rhetoric of his 2009 Prague speech, in which he stated ‘America's
commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons’ led many to think that a real change was on the cards.

Obama’s visit to Hiroshima earlier this year to commemorate the bombings was thus a painful reminder of how wide the gap is between the rearmament programmes that the US and other nuclear weapon states are engaged in and the disarmament action that they are legally obliged to pursue under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Obama himself said in Japan that, ‘technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.’ For this
statement to be meaningful it is necessary to identify who is responsible for the existing, highly dangerous state of affairs. In short, the US government’s recent record supports Scarry’s suggestion that a democratic revolution is what, in reality, is most needed if the US is to make substantial progress on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Short-term reforms towards the democratic control and ultimate dismantlement of the US’s nuclear arsenal have been outlined by Kennette Benedict, who writes that the next administration should: place our nuclear weapons
on a much lower level of launch readiness, release to the public more information about the nuclear weapons in our own arsenals, include legislators and outside experts in its nuclear posture review and recognize Congress’ authority to declare war as a prerequisite to any use of nuclear weapons.

Assessing Obama’s nuclear legacy

In order to properly appreciate what a Trump presidency may bring, we need to revisit the range and types of powers bequeathed to the commander-in-chief by previous administrations. Despite the military advances made by China and Russia in recent years, it is important to recognise that the US remains far and away the biggest global spender on conventional and nuclear weapons and plans to consolidate this position by maintaining significant technological superiority over its adversaries, which will, as is well appreciated, push Beijing, Moscow—and thus other
regional powers—to respond. Yet spending on nuclear weapons alone is set to pose significant budgeting difficulties for future US governments.

According to a 2014 report by the James Martin Center, the Departments of Defense and Energy plan to spend approximately $1 trillion over the next 30 years ‘to maintain its current nuclear arsenal and procure a new generation of nuclear-armed or nuclear capable bombers and submarines’ as well as new submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Arms Control Today has found that total Defense Department nuclear spending ‘is projected to average more than $40 billion in constant fiscal year 2016 dollars between
2025 and 2035, when modernization costs are expected to peak’. Including costs for the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration’s projected weapons-related spending during this period ‘would push average spending during this period to more than $50 billion per year’. If anywhere near these sums are spent, then the modest reductions to the US’s nuclear stockpile achieved during the Obama presidency will be entirely overshadowed. Moreover, as analyst Andrew Lichterman notes, the US’s continued modernisation of its nuclear forces is
‘inherently incompatible’ with the ‘unequivocal undertaking’ given at the 2000 NPT Review Conference to eliminate its nuclear arsenal and apply the ‘principle of irreversibility’ to this and related actions.

For Lichterman, the huge outlays committed to the nuclear weapons complex were part of a political ‘bargain’ made by the Obama administration with Republicans. This ensured that the New START nuclear arms control treaty would pass in the Senate whilst also not disturbing the development of missile defense and other advanced conventional weapons programmes. New START is a bilateral agreement between Russia and the US, which Steven Pifer describes as ‘one of the few bright spots’ that exists in these nations’ relationship. Under the treaty Moscow and
Washington must, by 2018, reduce their stockpile of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550. Furthermore, both must keep to a limit of 700 deployed strategic launchers (missiles) and heavy bombers, and to a combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers and heavy bombers.

Despite New START ‘proceeding smoothly’ according to Pifer, Hans Kristensen recently produced a report comparing Obama’s record with that of the previous presidents holding office during the nuclear age, which found that, hitherto, Obama has cut fewer warheads—in terms of numbers rather than percentages—than ‘any administration ever’ and that ‘the biggest nuclear disarmers’ in recent decades have been Republicans, not Democrats. Kristensen thus drily observes of this situation that, a conservative Congress does not complain when Republican presidents
reduce the stockpile, only when Democratic president try to do so. As a result of the opposition, the United States is now stuck with a larger and more expensive nuclear arsenal than had Congress agreed to significant reductions.

As his presidency draws to a close, presumably as a means of securing some sort of meaningful legacy in this area, it has been reported that Obama considered adopting a no first use (NFU) policy for nuclear weapons, something which, whilst reversible, could act as a restraint on future presidents. Yet this was apparently abandoned, according to the New York Times, after ‘top national security advisers argued that it could undermine allies and embolden Russia and China’. Furthermore, according to Josh Rogin of the Washington Post, the governments of Japan, South
Korea, France and Britain all privately communicated their concerns about Washington adopting NFU. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is also said to have argued that such a move would be unwise because ‘if North Korea used biological weapons against the South the United States might need the option of threatening a nuclear response’.

However, as Daryll Kimball explains, the US’s ‘overwhelming’ conventional military advantage means that ‘there is no plausible circumstance that could justify—legally, morally, or militarily—the use of nuclear weapons to deal with a non-nuclear threat’. Such resistance to NFU is thus deeply disappointing given that, as Kimball goes on to note, this move would go some way to reassuring China and Russia about the US’s strategic intentions. It would also be an important confidence-building measure for the wider community of non-nuclear weapon states, showing that the
US is willing to act in 'good faith' towards its disarmament obligations under the NPT.

Thinking about the causes of proliferation more widely requires us to understand what drives weaker states to seek deterrents, if their reliance on them is to be reduced. For example, as Dr Alan J. Kuperman observes, NATO’s bombing and overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 ‘greatly complicated the task of persuading other states such as Iran and North Korea ‘to halt or reverse their nuclear programs’. The lesson Tehran and Pyongyang took is thus that because Gaddafi had voluntarily ended his nuclear and chemical weapons programmes, the West
now felt free to pursue regime change. When assessing the importance of the Iran nuclear deal, which is often hailed as one of Obama’s landmark achievements, and which the next President must not be allowed to derail, it is thus important also to consider carefully what behaviour by the most powerful states will enable existing or potential nuclear possessors to embrace disarmament and reduce their interest in seeking non-conventional deterrents. The inability of Washington to make substantial progress towards reducing the salience of nuclear weapons at home and
abroad is all the more noteworthy when one considers the state of US and Russian public opinion on nuclear arms control and disarmament. As John Steinbrunner and Nancy Gallagher observe, ‘responses to detailed questions reveal a striking disparity between what U.S. and Russian leaders are doing and what their publics desire’. For example, their polling found that:

At the most fundamental level, the vast majority of Americans and Russians think that nuclear weapons have a very limited role in current security circumstances and believe that their only legitimate purpose is to deter nuclear attack. It is highly consistent, then, that the publics in both countries would favor eliminating all nuclear weapons if this action could be taken under effective international verification.

Another important measure which the US has failed to hitherto ratify is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This is despite President Obama stating in 2009 that he intended to pursue Senate ratification of the treaty ‘immediately and aggressively’. Once more, there is notably strong public support–82% according to a 2010 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs—for the US joining the CTBT but, again, the Republican-controlled Senate has blocked the treaty at every opportunity. Overall, the gap between the public’s will and the government’s inaction on
nuclear issues is alarming and redolent of the wider democratic deficit in the US. On a more positive note, the fact that the citizenry supports such measures suggests that groups advocating arms control and disarmament initiatives should continue to engage with and understand the public’s positions in order to effectively harness their support.

Stepping back from the brink

In terms of priorities for the incoming administration in the US, stepping back from military confrontation with Russia and pushing the threat of nuclear war to the margins must be at the top of the list. Whilst much has been made of a potential rapprochement between Trump and Putin, the two have, reportedly, only just spoken for the first time on the phone and still need to actually meet in person to discuss strategic issues and deal with inevitable international events and crises, including in relation to Ukraine and Syria. As of now, whilst the mood music from both
sides might suggest a warming of relations, as has been seen with previous administrations, unless cooperation is rooted in a real willingness to resolve problems (which for Russia includes US ballistic missile defense deployments in Eastern Europe and NATO expansion) then tensions can quickly re- emerge. Another related question concerns how Trump will conduct himself during any potential crisis or conflict with Russia or another major power, given the stakes and risks involved, as highlighted above.

Whilst we must wait to find out precisely what the new administration’s approach to international affairs will be, in the past week, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told the BBC that he had been personally informed by Donald Trump, following the election, that the US remains ‘strongly committed to NATO, and that the security guarantees to Europe stand’. Trump had previously shaken sections of the defence and foreign policy establishment by suggesting that NATO was ‘obsolete’ and that countries such as Japan (and by extension others such as South Korea
and Saudi Arabia) ‘have to pay us or we have to let them protect themselves’, which could include them acquiring the bomb. One reason why some in Washington have, in the past, not wanted their regional allies to develop their own nuclear weapons is because the US might then become dragged into an escalating conflict. Moreover, if an ally in one region seeks the bomb, this may cause others elsewhere to pursue their own capabilities- an act of strategic independence that might make these states harder to influence and control. The US’s key relationships in East Asia
and the Middle East illustrate why, if a future US President wishes to take meaningful moves towards a world free of nuclear weapons, then developing alternative regional political agreements, including strategic cooperation with China and Russia, will be necessary. As Nancy Gallagher rightly notes, the ‘weaknesses of existing international organizations’ thus requires ‘more inclusive, cooperative security institutions’ to be constructed regionally ‘to complement and someday, perhaps, to replace exclusive military alliances’, alongside progressive demilitarisation. Such
confidence-building measures would also support efforts to halt missile and nuclear tests by states such as North Korea, which may soon be capable of striking the US mainland.

Imagining the next enemy

As well as mapping out the US’s current nuclear weapons policies and its regional relationships, it is important to reflect upon how domestic political dynamics under a Trump presidency might drive Washington’s behaviour internationally, particularly given the nuclear shadow that always hangs over conflicts involving the US.

For example, in the near-term, Trump’s economic plan and the great expectations amongst the American working class that have been generated, may have particularly dangerous consequences
if, as seems likely, the primary beneficiaries are the very wealthy. Reviewing Trump’s economic plans, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times concludes that ‘the longer-term consequences
are likely to be grim, not least for his angry, but fooled, supporters. Next time, they might be even
angrier. Where that might lead is terrifying’ . Gillian Tett has also highlighted the ‘real risks’ that Trump’s policies could
‘spark US social unrest or geopolitical uncertainty’. Elsewhere, George Monbiot in the Guardian, makes the stark assertion that the inability of the US and other
governments to respond effectively to public anger means he now believes that ‘we will see war between the major powers within my lifetime’.

If these warnings weren’t troubling enough, no less a figure than Henry Kissinger argued on BBC’s Newsnight that ‘the more likely reaction’ to a Trump presidency from terror groups ‘will be to do something that evokes a reaction’
from Washington in order to ‘widen the split’ between it and Europe and damage the US’s image around the world. Given that Trump has already vowed to ‘bomb the shit out of ISIS’ and refused to rule out the use of nuclear
weapons against the group, it goes without saying that such a scenario could have the gravest consequences and must be avoided so that the US does not play into the terrorists’ hands.

Looking more widely, President-elect Trump’s existing and potential cabinet appointments, which Glenn Greenwald has summarised as ‘empowering…by and large…the traditional, hard, hawkish right-wing members of the
Republican Party’ also point to the US engaging in future overseas conflicts, rather than the isolationism which many in the foreign policy establishment criticised Trump for proposing during the presidential campaign. William

Hartung and Todd Harrison have drawn attention to the fact that defence spending under Trump could be almost $1trillion (spread over ten years) more than Obama’s most recent budget request.

projections, alongside Trump’s election rhetoric, suggest that the new nuclear monarch will try to push
wide open the door to more spending on nuclear weapons and missile defense, a situation made possible, as we have seen, by
Obama’s inability to implement progressive change in this area at a time of persistent Republican obstruction.

The problem now, for the US and the world, is that if Trump does make good on his campaign
promises then this will have several damaging consequences for international peace and security and
that if Trump does not sufficiently satisfy his supporters then this will likely pour fuel on the flames at
home, which may then quickly spread abroad . The people of the US and the world thus now have a huge responsibility to act as a restraining influence and ensure that the
US retains an accountable, transparent and democratic government. This responsibility will only grow if crises or shocks take place in or

outside the US which ambitious and extremist figures take advantage of, framing them as threats to
national security in order to protect their interests and power. If such scenarios emerge the next administration and its untried and untested
President will find themselves with a range of extremely powerful tools and institutional experience at
their disposal, including nuclear weapons, which may prove too tempting to resist when figuring out
how to respond to widespread anger, confusion and unrest, both at home and abroad.
2nc – base strong
Base is rallying around Trump’s conservative immigration policies – polls prove
Cassidy 7/24, John Cassidy has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1995. He also writes a
column about politics, economics, and more for the New Yorker online. ["Trump’s Post-Helsinki Poll
Ratings Portend a Nasty and Divisive Election Season," New Yorker, 7-24-2018,

There may also be something of a statistical illusion at work. In many polls, the proportion of self-identified
Republicans has declined significantly since Trump was elected, suggesting that some anti-Trump G.O.P.
supporters may have left the Party, leaving him to garner a bigger share of support among a smaller
base. In this case, as FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver argued on Monday, the headline poll figures may be misleading. But Charles Franklin, the
founder of, pointed out that the number of self-identified Democrats has also declined, and he suggested that the over-all
impact of these shifts is likely to be pretty small. In a close election, however, they could still prove significant.

Regardless of the underlying reasons for them, the new poll figures will surely only encourage Trump
to believe that his incendiary tactics of attacking the media and fanning resentments about
immigration , race, and unfair foreign competition are working . As we get closer to Election Day, he seems certain to
escalate this strategy.
Perhaps foreshadowing what is to come, Steve Bannon, Trump’s former campaign manager and political strategist, told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria
last month that the midterms would be a “base-plus” contest. Bannon argued that Trump should seek to
“nationalize the election” around his signature theme of immigration . Although the White House subsequently
modified its inhumane policy of separating migrant families at the southern border, the President , in his public appearances and on his
continues to emphasize “strong borders,” his proposed wall, and the threat represented by
Twitter feed,
the MS-13 gang.

The scaremongering seems to be working . In a Gallup survey published last week, thirty-five per cent of
Republicans named immigration as the top problem facing the country, the highest proportion in more
than a decade. “The 35% of Republicans who say immigration is the country’s top problem is over twice
as high as the 15% who mention government,” Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor-in-chief, noted.

The base supports Trump now due to his anti-immigration agenda – political studies
Edsall 6/28, Thomas B. Edsall has been teaching political journalism at Columbia University since
2006. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Thursday. He
has been a weekly contributor to The Times online Opinion Pages since 2011. He covered politics for The
Washington Post from 1981 to 2006, and before that for The Baltimore Sun and The Providence Journal.
He has written five books: “The Age of Austerity”, “Building Red America,” “Chain Reaction: The Impact
of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics,” “Power and Money: Writing About Politics” and “The
New Politics of Inequality. ["Don’t Feed the Troll in the Oval Office," New York Times, 6-28-2018,]//ARK1
Trump and his allies are capitalizing on a decades-long fight over immigration policy that they believe
will galvanize more voters on the right than on the left, generating sufficient enthusiasm among
Trump’s supporters to counter an energized Democratic electorate. The unpleasant reality is that a
number of recent analyses based on psychological, sociological and political research provide a logical
basis for the incendiary Trump-Miller-Bannon strategy.
While Trump told reporters in January, “I am the least racist person you have ever interviewed,” he and his loyalists believe that they will thrive on repeated charges
from the left that he and those who vote for him are racist. Those
charges — perhaps paradoxically — serve to intensify the
resentment of conservatives and Republicans toward liberals.

Trump’s rhetoric — migrants “infest” and “invade our country” — is intended not only to intensify the
anti-immigrant views of his supporters, but also to encourage liberals and Democrats to accuse him and his supporters of bigotry. Trump’s
tactics are based on the conviction of many of his voters that opposition to immigration is not a form of racism. They deeply resent being called racist for anti-
immigrant views they consider patriotic and, indeed, principled.

Most Democrats and liberals, as the accompanying chart shows, do believe that opposition to immigration is racist. The chart is based on responses to a question in
a December 2017 survey conducted by Eric Kaufmann, a professor of political science at the University of London. Kaufmann is the author of the forthcoming book,
“Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities” and a related 2017 paper, “ ‘Racial Self-Interest’ is not Racism.”

The question Kaufmann posed in a YouGov survey of 2,600 Americans went as follows:

A white American who identifies with her group and its history supports a proposal to reduce immigration. Her motivation is to maintain her group’s share of
America’s population. Is this person: 1) just acting in her racial self-interest, which is not racist; 2) being racist; 3) don’t know.

Among white voters who backed Hillary Clinton, 73.2 percent said it was racist to support immigration reduction in order to maintain the white share of America’s
population. This rose to 91.3 percent among white Clinton supporters with postgraduate degrees.

Among whites casting ballots for Trump, 11.2 percent said support for immigration reduction was racist,
a number that fell to 5.5 percent among white Trump voters without college degrees.
The gap between the most well-educated Clinton supporters and the least well-educated Trump supporters is stark — 91.3 percent to 5.5 percent. In other words,
the very definition of racism is deeply contested.

Ashley Jardina, a political scientist at Duke, argues in her 2017 paper “The White Backlash to ‘Crying Racism’: How Whites Respond to Calling Racial Preferences
Racist” that

Allegations of racism no longer work to reduce support for the target of the accusation. Instead, such accusations are now tantamount to ‘crying wolf’ and have the
opposite of their intended effect — whites are subsequently more likely to express racially conservative policy preferences or to condone the target of the

According to Jardina, the vast majority of white Americans who feel threatened by the country’s rising levels of racial and ethnic diversity are not members of the
K.K.K. or neo-Nazis. They are much greater in number, and far more mainstream, than the white supremacists who protested in Virginia.

In response to a request to elaborate on her argument, Jardina emailed back:

I think it’s absolutely reasonable that many whites don’t think they hold racially prejudiced beliefs, even though by some social science measures, we think they do.
Thus, when they’re accused of being “racist,” some whites either see the accusation as disingenuous, or they see it as a personal, unfounded attack, and they
become defensive.

As a result, Jardina writes in her original paper, Trump “does potentially benefit from accusing his opponents of playing the race card.” The danger “of this new era,
in which the new political strategy is to accuse elites of falsely making charges of racism,” Jardina argues, is that it may be increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to
effectively condemn politicians when they do in fact attempt to race bait, or when they express views that are racist or support policies that detrimental to racial
and ethnic minorities.

Jeremy Peters captured this dynamic in his article in The Times last week, “As Critics Assail Trump, His Supporters Dig In Deeper.” Kaufmann, of the University of
London, expanded upon Jardina’s work in his controversial paper, “ ‘Racial Self-Interest’ Is Not Racism,” writing that his survey data shows that a majority of
American and British people of all races believe that when the white majority seeks lower immigration to help maintain their population share, this is racially self-
interested rather than racist behavior. This distinction is important because racism is a taboo, whereas ethnic self-interest, like individual self-interest, is viewed as

These white conservatives whose immigration stance is influenced by a desire to slow decline in their group’s share of the population rather than due to an
irrational fear of outgroups, feel accused of racism. This breeds resentment.

Kaufmann contends that the racism charge has been a crucial factor in driving a rise in right-wing populism, in the United States and abroad:
Antiracist overreach on the immigration question arguably underlies the populist western backlash against elites. Cultural conservatives care deeply about the
effects of immigration and resent being told their thoughts and voting behavior are racist. They hold elites responsible for enforcing antiracist norms — in the
workplace, government and mainstream media — beyond the bounds of what they consider appropriate.

Kaufmann expanded on his views is an email:

I think liberal norm policing on immigration is a major contributing factor to right wing populism. Not directly, but indirectly. That is, by removing questions of
immigration levels and cultural impact from the political conversation, it blocks the adjustment of political supply to political demand. A bit like prohibition of
alcohol, the unmet demand opens a market opportunity for entrepreneurs.

Kaufmann cautioned, however, that this is not to say mainstream parties should always supply market demand (i.e., segregation in the Deep South), but not doing
so opens space for populism (i.e., George Wallace). So ultimately the question turns on whether the immigration taboo is morally justified.

Kaufmann and Jardina’s work raises a crucial question: has traditional polling failed to capture the actual views of the public on immigration? A number of
experiments suggest that many people feel social pressure to conform to “social desirability” expectations and to mask their opposition to immigration.

Alexander Janus, a sociologist at the University of Edinburgh, told me that his own and other studies “suggest that polls substantially underestimate the true extent
of opposition to immigration due to social desirability bias.” Janus specifically pointed to Gallup surveys that appear to illustrate a steady liberal trend in views
toward immigration.

According to Gallup, the share of voters who say immigration levels should be reduced fell from 65 percent in 1995 to 35 percent in 2017. The share saying
immigration should be increased rose from 7 to 24 percent, and the share who think immigration levels should remain unchanged rose from 27 to 38 percent over
the same period. Of course, this could just reflect increased public support for immigration.

But scholars have attempted to test the reliability of poll results like these. In a 2010 paper, “The Influence of Social Desirability Pressures on Expressed Immigration
Attitudes,” Janus described a survey experiment designed to elicit anti-immigrant views without forcing participants to explicitly state their opinions. (The design of
the experiment is complex, and readers should open the link to examine the details.)

Seven hundred non-Hispanic white respondents were read a list of statements and asked “how many of them do you oppose. I don’t want to know which ones, just
how many.”

One half of the sample was given three items to choose from: “The federal government increasing assistance to the poor;” “Professional athletes making millions of
dollars per year;” and “Large corporations polluting the environment.”

The other half was presented with the same three items and one addition: “Cutting off immigration to the United States.”

The experiment provided “an unobtrusive estimate of the percentage of respondents” who support “cutting off immigration to the United States,” Janus wrote.

He found that support for restricting immigration rose from 42 percent, when participants were asked to openly state their views,
to 61 percent when the answer was veiled by asking how many of the statements they objected to.
The biggest differences were among college graduates: (from 29 to 71 percent), among liberals (from 26 to 71 percent) and among Democrats (from 33 to 63

A more recent study, “From Extreme to Mainstream: How Social Norms Unravel,” by Leonardo Bursztyn, Georgy Egorov and Stefano Fiorin, economists at the
University of Chicago, Northwestern University and the University of California, San Diego, found a similar masking of anti-immigrant views in deep red states.

They sampled 458 voters before and after the 2016 election in eight states: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Mississippi, West Virginia and
Wyoming. Before the election, the authors found that 54 percent of those surveyed were willing to contribute to an explicitly anti-immigration organization if they
were assured anonymity.

When told that they might be contacted later for further research — in other words, that their anonymity would be threatened — the percentage willing to make
donations dropped to 34 percent.

After Trump was elected president — legitimizing anti-immigrant views in the eyes of many — the willingness to contribute to the anti-immigration group with no
guarantee of anonymity rose from 34 to 48 percent.

Elections “can update positively people’s perceptions about the share of people who support an opinion previously believed to be stigmatized,” the authors write.
“This may in turn change people’s perceptions about the negative judgment they will face for expressing their opinion.”

Lisa Legault, Jennifer N. Gutsell and Michael Inzlicht, professors of psychology at Clarkson University, Brandeis University and the University of Toronto, elaborate on
the complexities of racism in their 2011 study “Ironic Effects of Anti-prejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can Reduce (but Also Increase) Prejudice.”
Long before Trump’s rise, they found that: “motivating people to reduce prejudice by emphasizing external control” resulted in worsening rather than lessening
“explicit and implicit prejudice.”

Legault told an interviewer from the Association for Psychological Science:

Controlling prejudice reduction practices are tempting because they are quick and easy to implement. They tell people how they should think and behave and stress
the negative consequences of failing to think and behave in desirable ways.

The problem is that such an approach to prejudice reduction can backfire, according to Legault:
People need to feel that they are freely choosing to be non-prejudiced, rather than having it forced upon them.

The authors conducted an experiment in which one group read what the authors called a “controlling brochure” on race that instructed participants on how “to
combat prejudice and to comply with social norms of non-prejudice.”

Another group read what the authors called an “autonomy brochure” that assumed participants’ “inner motivation for prejudice reduction was encouraged by
emphasizing choice” and explained “why prejudice reduction is important and worthwhile.”

The authors found that “participants in the autonomy-brochure condition displayed significantly less prejudice” after they read the brochure than those “who read
the controlling brochure.”

Their conclusion? “This investigation exposed the adverse effects of pressuring people to be non-prejudiced.” Legault and her colleagues found that “strategies
urging people to comply with anti-prejudice standards are worse than doing nothing at all” because they prompt “a reflexive, reactive effect that increased

This “rebellion” against being told what to think, they write, represents a direct counter-response (i.e., defiance) to threatened autonomy. Interventions that
eliminate people’s freedom to choose egalitarian goals or to value diversity on their own terms may incite hostility toward the perceived source of the pressure (i.e.,
the stigmatized group), or a desire to rebel against prejudice reduction itself.

I asked Emily Ekins, director of polling at the libertarian Cato Institute, about the political consequences of Trump’s now renounced policy of separating children of
illegal immigrants from their parents at the border. Ekins emailed back:

The child-parent separation issue most likely will not diminish Trump's core base of support — but it
will likely damage support among a group of pivotal moderate voters crucial to his 2016 victory. The
strongest empirical studies of the 2016 election are fairly conclusive that immigration concerns most
likely drove his base. They likely see this policy as an unpleasant but necessary deterrent to reduce
the rate of border crossings.

Trump’s energizing the base with his restrictionist immigration policies

Malone 6/28, Jim Malone has served as VOA’s National correspondent covering U.S. elections and
politics since 1995. Prior to that he was a VOA congressional correspondent and served as VOA’s East
Africa Correspondent from 1986 to 1990. ["Trump Pushes Immigration as Midterm Issue Despite
Controversy," VOA, 6-28-2018,

Energizing the base

Some analysts see Trump’s quick pivot from backing down on family separations to focusing once
again on border security aimed at firing up his political base for the midterms.
“They are really not interested in the views of Democrats or independents or others in the American electorate,” said University of Virginia
expert Larry Sabato, via Skype. “ They are only concerned about their base, and the base that they have is
strongly anti-immigration .”

Recent polls show Trump remains overwhelmingly popular among Republican voters, something that
should help Republicans as they fight to keep their congressional majorities in November.
Political risks

But Gallup pollster Frank Newport said that

laser focus on Trump’s base also limits his ability to broaden support
some Independents and even Democrats.
“Democrats are locked in to not approving of Trump. Republicans, regardless of what he does, are pretty much locked into approving. So if
those two groups kind of lock in on either end, it is very hard for a president like Trump's ratings to get much, much

Base support is high now – polls prove – immigration is the key issue
Mudde 6/29, Cas Mudde is a Guardian US columnist. ["Why is Trump still so popular? He gives his
base what they want," Guardian, 6-29-2018,]//ARK1

But all of this does not explain why Trump is actually quite popular – and probably more popular than he was when
he got elected. Today, Trump’s approval ratings are at 42%, which is a mere 3% lower than when he
started. But more importantly, he is extremely popular among his core electorate , ie Republicans. A recent Gallup
poll showed that, at the 500 days mark, Trump was the second most popular US president among his own
constituency (87% support ), only topped by President George W Bush (96% support), who was at that time profiting from the rally
around the flag response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks!

But how is this possible, I hear you think? Has Trump not said that there were “very fine people” among the extreme-right demonstrators at the
deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia? Has he not consistently undermined the independent judiciary and media by attacking
“so-called judges” and “the ‘Fakers’ at CNN, NBC, ABC & CBS”? Has he
not systematically dehumanized immigrants and
minorities, introduced nativist policies such as a (slightly watered-down) “Muslim ban”, and made the
immigration services into an inhuman authoritarian apparatus that separates crying and screaming
children from their parents?
Yes, he has. But he has also give a significant tax cut which disproportionately benefits above-average-income Americans, the true core of the
Republican, and therefore Trump, electorate. And for many Republicans, if they get a tax break, you can do little to no wrong. Moreover, he is
rapidly dismantling the state, by deregulating industries and defunding regulation agencies, which satisfies most of the usual Republican mega-
donors – including former anti-Trumpists like the Koch brothers.

For the Christian right, he has appointed the staunchly anti-abortion Neil Gorsuch to the supreme court and moved the US embassy in Israel
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This more than compensates for all his scandals with porn stars and bragging about pussy-grabbing. And given that
he will undoubtedly please them with another supreme court judge soon (to replace Anthony Kennedy), and another supreme court position is
expected to open up after 2020 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85), the Christian right will come out again en masse in the next presidential elections,
to take solidify the conservative hold off the supreme court and ensure the overthrow, or irrelevance, of Roe v Wade.

Finally, the hardcore Trump base, the stereotypical white working-class male nativist, has been more
than satisfied . Expecting little to nothing from politicians, Democratic or Republican, they see a president who tirelessly
tries to ban non-white people (notably Central Americans and Muslims) from entering the country, introduces tariffs to
allegedly protect US industries, and “owns the libs” at any occasions with “politically incorrect” and “taboo-breaking” speeches and tweets.

Polls prove Trump’s popularity is high but limited – supporters look to key issues like
Peters 6/23, Jeremy W. Peters is a reporter in the Washington bureau of The New York Times who
covers politics. ["As Critics Assail Trump, His Supporters Dig In Deeper," New York Times, 6-23-2018,]//ARK1

In interviews across the country over the last few days, dozens
of Trump voters, as well as pollsters and strategists, described
something like a bonding experience with the president that happens each time Republicans have to answer a now-
familiar question: “How can you possibly still support this man?” Their resilience suggests a level of unity among
Republicans that could help mitigate Mr. Trump’s low overall approval ratings and aid his party’s chances of
keeping control of the House of Representatives in November.

“He’s not a perfect guy; he does some stupid stuff,” said Tony Schrantz, 50, of Lino Lakes, Minn., the owner of a water
systems leak detection business. “But when they’re hounding him all the time it just gets old. Give the guy a little.”

Republican voters repeatedly described an instinctive, protective response to the president, and their
support has grown in recent months : Mr. Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is now about 90
percent . And while polling has yet to capture the effect of the last week’s immigration controversy, the only modern Republican president
more popular with his party than Mr. Trump at this point in his first term, according to Gallup, was George W. Bush after the country united in
the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Trumphas also retained support across a range of demographics other than the working-class voters
who are most identified with him. This includes portions of the wealthy college-educated people in swing counties, like Virginia’s
Loudoun, in the country’s most politically competitive states.

Many of these voters say their lives and the country are improving under his presidency, and the endless stream of tough cable news coverage
and bad headlines about Mr. Trump only galvanizes them further — even though some displayed discomfort on their faces when asked about
the child separation policy, and expressed misgivings about the president’s character.

“It bothers me that he doesn’t tell the truth, but I guess I kind of expect that, and I expect that from the media, too — not to always tell the
truth or to slant it one way,” said Julie Knight, 63, a retired personal injury case manager from Algona, Wash.

The increasingly tribalized politics on the left and right have helped insulate Mr. Trump from the
paroxysms that have jolted his party and eroded longstanding expectations of restraint, humility and
honesty in American presidents. This era of tumult has left Democrats energized and determined to win back Congress and act as a
check on Mr. Trump, and their intensity has been reflected by strong turnouts in the primaries so far. But still, in just the last year and a half,
Mr. Trump has bounced back from crises that at the time seemed as if they might be too severe for him to recover politically.

He tried to unilaterally bar visitors from several Muslim countries from the United States, angering U.S. allies and provoking clashes with
Congress and the courts over the limits of executive power. He praised some “very fine people” at a deadly white supremacist rally in
Charlottesville, Va., in remarks that shook some members of his cabinet so deeply that they considered resigning. He defended Roy S. Moore, a
Senate candidate in Alabama who was accused of fondling teenage girls, by suggesting that the allegations were old and possibly made-up.

And so as another immigration crisis of his own making smoldered this past week, critics inside and outside Mr. Trump’s party predicted
another devastating, irremediable low point in his presidency. Yet many Trump voters said that they no longer had the patience or interest to
listen to what they see as another hysterical outburst by Democrats, Republican “Never Trumpers” and the media.

“It’s kind of like when you experience a sensation over and over and over again,” said Daniel Arnold, 32, a warehouse manager from Leesburg,
Va., about an hour outside Washington. “A sensation is no longer a sensation. It’s just, ‘Oh, here we are again.’”

For many Republicans, the audio of children sobbing at a migrant detention center barely registered, because these voters don’t pay attention
to the left-leaning and mainstream media that have covered the family separation crisis far more than their preferred channel, Fox News.

“I think it’s terrible about the kids getting split up from their parents. But the parents shouldn’t have been here,” said Lynn Dittbenner, 65, of
Elk River, Minn., who took the day off from relaxing with her family at their lake cabin to hear the president speak at a rally in Duluth on

Others said they saw a ploy by the president’s enemies to obscure news that was more favorable to him, like the internal Justice Department
investigation that recently uncovered evidence of F.B.I. officials speaking disparagingly of Mr. Trump.

“It’s just incredible what the nation is trying to do to disrupt this president and his agenda,” said Jeff Butts, 58, an unemployed sales manager
from Leesburg. “We don’t get to hear about that. We only get to hear about the crying babies on the border.”

Sometimes they seized on made-up or erroneous story lines that were mostly absent from the mainstream media.

“Those cages and those families — that was actually filmed during the Obama administration, not the Trump administration,” said Clayton
Smith, 57, a commercial lending underwriter from Cary, Ill., a Chicago suburb.
Mr. Smith was correct about one image. He was referring to a story that was covered widely in the conservative media over the last few weeks
about one of President Obama’s former speechwriters who tweeted a picture of immigrant children sleeping in a chain-link pen. “This is
happening right now,” the tweet said, despite the fact that the picture was from 2014 when Mr. Obama was president. (He later deleted it and
acknowledged the error.)

As isolated as those examples are, they are validating for people who believe their political beliefs are constantly held under a microscope and

“I don’t have friends anymore because I’ve switched parties,” said Judy Brana, 66, a retired music and art teacher from St. Cloud, Minn., who
left home at 10:30 on Wednesday morning to make the two-and-a-half-hour drive up to Duluth for the president’s rally.

“Friends I’ve had for 40 years,” she added. “It’s insane, that’s what I’ll tell you.”

Another factor that seems to be driving up support is a sense that no one is acknowledging Mr. Trump’s
successes, which they see as manifold, historic and irrefutable.
“Let’s see,” said John Westling, 70, of Princeton, Minn., reciting a list of the president’s accomplishments that he said no one in the media
wants to talk about. “Economy booming, check. Unemployment down, check. Border security being addressed, check . Possible
end to the Korean War that started when I was 3 years old, 68 years ago, check.”

“I suspect that if Trump walked across Lake Mille Lacs,” Mr. Westling added, “the media would announce, ‘Trump can’t swim!’”

As measured by the Gallup daily presidential approval tracking poll, Mr. Trump has averaged 87 percent
job approval from fellow Republicans in his second year in office, up from 83 percent in his first year.
And during the past two weeks, his approval rating hit 90 percent with Republicans.

Yet some say their patience with Mr. Trump’s divisive style is not limitless . Gary Winthorpe, a 17-year-old high school
student who was on his way to see the president speak in Minnesota on Wednesday, said he hopes that the first vote he casts for president in
2020 is for Mr. Trump. But he acknowledged being wary at times , aware of protests against the president.

“ I’mnot blindly for Donald Trump ,” he said. “I have a fair bit of skepticism toward him. But I feel like he is
trying his best.”
2nc – immigration key/at: thumpers
Immigration is the only line Trump can’t cross – overwhelms all thumpers
Healey 17, Jon Healey is the deputy editorial page editor. He writes most often about healthcare
policy, intellectual property, technology and the economy. Previously, he’s written about tech,
government and music for several news outlets, most of which still exist. ["President Trump finally finds
a way to alienate his base, by flirting with Democrats on DACA," L.A. Times, 9-14-2017,]//ARK1

Who knew that deciding the fate of "Dreamers" would be trickier and more explosively controversial for
a Republican president than agreeing to raise the debt ceiling?
President Trump won plaudits for crossing up GOP leaders to summarily cut a deal with top congressional Democrats on three key fiscal issues:
raising the debt ceiling, keeping the government running past Sept. 30 and borrowing a metric megaload of dollars to help out storm victims.
Hey, Trump got something done! He broke through the gridlock!

But when he seemed to close in on another bipartisan agreement — this time, to allow a group of
immigrants brought into the country as children to stay even though they're here illegally — all hell
broke loose, at least among the anti-illegal-immigration zealots who'd been a key part of his base .
Part of the anger stemmed from reports that Trump wouldn't demand money for his big, beautiful
border wall in exchange for protecting Dreamers from deportation. But another part was simply his
willingness to let the Dreamers stay.
To pick just one example, check out what Ann Coulter, whose fervent support for Trump now appears to be about as reliable as Trump's
support for anyone else, tweeted Thursday:

Trump may still be able to shoot someone while standing in the middle of 5th Avenue without losing a
single supporter, but he has found one line his base won't let him cross . Or rather, a loud and possibly
large portion of his base won't let him cross it. Another segment, including those who are more conventionally Republican,
actually like the idea of cutting Dreamers a break. After all, America is the only country most of these folks have ever known, and our tax dollars
have already been invested in their education and well-being.

Should Trump have seen this blowback coming? Maybe – he certainly played up the points during his
campaign that President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was reprehensible and that that a new border
wall was nonnegotiable .
But as both a candidate and as president, Trump has spun like a top on so many issues it's hard to think
of one where he's been resolute. And his core supporters haven't flinched. So why are they flipping out
at the newest chapter in the Art of the Deal?

Some observers will argue that immigration-related issues lie at the heart of the economic
nationalism that defines Trumpism and that carried Trump into the Oval Office . In that sense, Trump couldn't
afford to concede anything on the Dreamers without obtaining something major from Democrats in return – to wit, money for the wall.

That's part of it, no doubt. But

another part is the view that's spread over the past few decades that
compromise itself is a sign of weakness. Trump's deal on the debt ceiling was acceptable to his base because he didn't give up
anything meaningful. The debt ceiling increase, the temporary spending bill, the emergency appropriations for storm victims – those were all
going to happen anyway. But the
outlines of a DACA deal that emerged Wednesday night seemed like a real
compromise, one where both sides gave up something to get something.
It's worth remembering that Trump took a bit of flak for the debt-ceiling bill from conservatives who thought he caved too quickly to
Democrats' demands. The DACA talks drew a much louder version of that same complaint, this time from Trump's base.

After the debt-ceiling deal, some Trump supporters crowed that the president had finally sprung himself from the chains imposed by the
congressional GOP, and particularly the ball-and-chain tandem of House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.). But Trump's not in a position to triangulate freely, playing congressional Republicans off
of congressional Democrats. Having spent the first months of his tenure playing religiously to his
base, alienating much of the rest of the country, he now finds that the support of his base isn't as
unconditional as it seemed.

Trump uses immigration policy to whip us his base

Glasser 6/22, Susan B. Glasser is a staff writer at The New Yorker, where she writes a weekly column
on life in Trump’s Washington. ["Trump’s Cynical Immigration Strategy Might Work for Him—Again,"
New Yorker, 6-22-2018,

There are, nonetheless, some uncomfortable facts that Democrats who see the issue as an unmitigated win need to face. For
hours before he pulled the plug on his Administration’s policy, and after weeks of other controversies,
Trump hit his highest approval ratings since his Inauguration. According to Gallup, forty-five per cent of
Americans approved of the job he was doing, which is still a low figure by historical standards, but is arguably strikingly
high for such a divisive figure. The President’s endless bashing of undocumented immigrants and his vow
to toughen “Boarder security,” as he spelled it in a recent tweet, is a key reason .

Trump’s ability to gin up fears about illegal immigration , more than perhaps any other issue, won him the White
House . Headed into a midterm election that will be won by the political party that can better rally its base , Trump has
remained determined to talk about immigration , even when others in his party have resisted. Indeed, Republican leaders
on Capitol Hill were furious with Trump as the immigration controversy spiralled out of control this week—a time they had planned to spend
celebrating the G.O.P. tax cut, along with the general strength of the economy, which they hope to make the centerpiece of their fall campaign.
at: uq o/w
The base is strong now, but malleable – it’s on the edge
Bouie 7/22, Jamelle Bouie is Slate’s chief political correspondent. “The Republican Base Might Not Be
As Scary As It Looks," Slate Magazine, 7-22-2018,

Most coverage of Republican voters paints them as a unified, unmovable bloc in support of the
president. “Huge GOP majority backs Trump’s Putin performance,” reports Axios, summarizing results from a new poll. In it, 79 percent of
Republicans endorse the president’s handling of the Helsinki press conference, similar to the 68 percent who supported Trump in a CBS News
survey and the 66 percent who backed him in a poll from ABC News and the Washington Post. General
approval polls—which give
Trump upward of 90 percent support from Republicans—reinforce the perception that, among GOP
voters, the president is untouchable.

But that perception misses important context. Presidents always have partisans, and it’s rare that they break ranks.
On the eve of his resignation in 1974, half of Republicans still supported Richard Nixon, and 59 percent said he shouldn’t be forced from office.
Likewise, around 80 percent of Republicans backed Ronald Reagan at the height of the Iran-Contra scandal. For
Trump, the key
question is less “how many Republicans still support his administration?” and more “how many voters
are still Republicans?”

Voters have to identify themselves with a political party, and that identification isn’t stable; it ebbs
and flows with events and circumstances . Trump might win high marks from most Republicans, but the pool of Republican
voters might be smaller than in the past. Far from standing tall over the entire GOP, Trump’s base may have eroded significantly from where it
was at the beginning of his administration.

According to the Pew Research Center, Republican Party identification fell 3 points, to 26 percent, from 2016 to the end of 2017. The number of
self-identified independents increased at the same time, from 34 percent to 37 percent, while the number of Democrats remained steady.
Gallup shows a similar change: From November 2016 to November 2017, there was a 5-point drop in the number of people who called
themselves Republicans, from 42 percent to 37 percent. Democratic self-identification remained unchanged at 44 percent.

The sheer size of the United States makes it easy to find vocal support for anyone and anything, and Donald Trump has his vocal
supporters . But their staunch commitment overshadows the reality: a shrinking base for a president
who won by the skin of his teeth, reliant on a small group of voters in just a handful of states. His scandals
and outrages—controversies and improprieties—have had an effect. Even rank-and-file GOP reactions to Helsinki are
revealing; according to CBS, 21 percent of Republican voters disapproved of the president, a striking number
given typical partisan loyalty.

A smaller base is still a base, and depending on their locations and constituencies, Trump-skeptic Republican
lawmakers may see a backlash if they challenge the president.

The base is cracking now – incendiary policies wreck it

Kumar 18, Anita Kumar is a politics reporter for McClatchy Hyde DC. ["Supporters furious Trump is
picking establishment Republicans for federal appointments in states," mcclatchydc, 4-10-2018,]//ARK1

“The swamp is not getting drained fast enough,” Lax said. “I can’t think of one appointment in Tennessee who supported
Donald Trump.”
Trump supporters largely don’t blame the president . Indeed, his base has remained loyal for 15 months
even as he broke campaign promises by failing to repeal the Affordable Care Act and bringing troops home from
Afghanistan and began feuds within his own party. But now, that base is showing signs of cracking .

His supporters warn that Trump ’s 2020 re-election campaign could suffer if he doesn’t pay back activists who
turned out in droves to propel the unlikely candidate — a businessman and reality TV star — into the Oval Office.
at: non-policy thumpers
Voters only care about his core promises, nothing else
Brownstein 7/25, Ronald Brownstein is a CNN senior political analyst, regularly appearing across the
network's programming and special political coverage. ["To crack Trump's voter base, Dems must focus
on opportunity, not outrage," CNN, 7-25-2018,

Each time Trump shatters previously accepted boundaries of presidential behavior, it's become a ritual
for political strategists and analysts to ask whether this will be the moment that cracks the foundation of
his support, particularly among his core groups of blue-collar, older, evangelical and rural whites.

But the reaction to the summit, like his defense of white nationalists in Charlottesville, the firing of
then-FBI Director James Comey and the Stormy Daniels maelstrom, suggests that very few of those
voters are willing to abandon the President because of questions about how he behaves .

That pattern persisted in polls over the weekend from ABC News/Washington Post and NBC News/Wall Street Journal finding
to the summit largely divided Americans along the familiar lines of race, generation, education,
partisanship and geography that have characterized the reaction to Trump's presidency from the outset.
In the NBC/WSJ survey, conducted just before and after the summit, almost exactly three-fifths of whites without college degrees --
Trump's bedrock constituency -- still said they approved of his job performance .

Though the degree and frequency of Trump's provocations may be unique, many of his supporters
appear to be making the same calculation voters have commonly applied to earlier presidents: So long
as they believe he is fighting for their interests , they will overlook , or at least tolerate, behavior that
troubles them -- from paying off porn stars to fawning over Putin.

One of the great debates among political observers is whether Trump's supporters are drawn to him
primarily because they believe he is fighting for their racial and cultural interests or their economic
needs. But it's become more and more apparent that question represents a false choice, because many of the voters who are most uneasy
about the nation's social and demographic change are also concentrated in the places that are struggling to keep pace as the economy hurtles
into the digital era.
link – public charge
Trump’s expanding public charge definitions to fan his base – plan undermines that
Kasai 18, Nathan Kasai is a Policy Advisor for the Social Policy & Politics team across a wide range of
social policy areas, including immigration, LGBT equality, abortion, and guns. He’s written numerous
reports, articles, and op-eds on some of the country’s most challenging issues, ranging from sanctuary
cities to discrimination protections for LGBT Americans to concealed carry reciprocity. ["Trump's
Predictably Cruel Attack on Lawful Immigrants Receiving Public Benefits," Third Way, 4-11-2018,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently proposed regulatory changes that threaten to
drastically alter the rules for which immigrants are considered “public charges” – a categorization that
decides if a person is likely to become overly reliant on public benefit programs. If implemented, these new
rules would bar legal immigrants from entering the country and stop some who are already here from
applying for permanent residency. The proposed changes are a solution in search of a problem, as even immigrants who are in the
country legally are already ineligible for most federally-funded public benefits programs.

This memo explains how the “public charge” rules currently work, the ways in which immigrants are
already restricted from accessing public benefits, and how the Trump Administration plans to upend
this system for no reason other than to fan the political fever of its base .

Trump’s galvanizing his base by expanding public charges – plan wrecks it

Salam 17, Reihan Salam is a columnist for Slate. ["How Radical Is Donald Trump’s Proposal to Make
Immigrants Fend for Themselves?," Slate Magazine, 2-2-2017,

Refugees aren’t expected to prove they won’t become dependent on public assistance for the simple
reason that they are assumed to be in need. The flipside is that the federal government makes a concerted effort to ensure
that refugees face genuine threats. Those seeking to settle in America as immigrants are held to a different standard. Although
immigrants are not subject to anywhere near the same level of vetting as refugees, they do have to
pass the “public charge” test.

According to a long-standing federal policy, potential immigrants will be barred from the United States
if they are likely to become dependent on public assistance. If an immigrant does become a “public
charge” within five years of arriving in the country for reasons that can’t be attributed to, say, a disability she developed
after settling in the U.S., she can be deported. The idea is that immigrants choose to settle in America, and U.S. taxpayers can reasonably expect
that such voluntary entrants can provide for themselves.

The effects of this policy hinge on the definition of a public charge. What the term means in practice is almost entirely up to the executive
branch. Back in 1999, the Clinton administration put in place guidelines that defined a public charge very narrowly as someone who is
“primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either: (i) the receipt of public cash assistance for income
maintenance or (ii) institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” Are you dependent on public assistance if, say, you receive
Medicaid, SNAP benefits, or public housing? Not according to the Clinton guidelines, which put those social service programs in a different
category than cash assistance—a standard that remained intact under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In practice, relatively few
aspiring immigrants are turned away on the grounds that they might become a public charge, and almost no one has been deported on that
basis in years.

Why did the Clinton guidelines define public charges so narrowly? Since 1965, a large majority of immigrants have been admitted to the U.S. on
the grounds that they are related to a U.S. citizen. When you impose a stringent public charge definition, then, you’re not just keeping
immigrants out of the country: You are potentially infuriating their U.S. citizen relatives. Over the course of his presidency, Bill Clinton shifted
from a more restrictionist stance to an expansionist one. This was partly because the late 1990s economic boom put the country in a more
generous mood. But it also reflected a political calculation. President Clinton and his allies sensed that naturalized citizens, and especially low-
income naturalized citizens, might be turned into a reliable Democratic voting bloc, which could help make up for the party’s losses among
working-class whites. They weren’t wrong. President George W. Bush hoped to win back immigrant voters from the Democrats, which is why he
took a similarly permissive approach. And President Obama was, if anything, even more mindful of the importance of immigrant voters than his

Not surprisingly, President Trump

seems inclined to take a drastically different approach. According to the
draft executive orders, the Trump administration is looking to revise the public charge standard to
take into account all means-tested benefits, including Medicaid and SNAP, both of which are currently
used by millions of immigrant-headed households. The new Trump guidelines would bar large numbers
of immigrants who would have been admitted under the Clinton guidelines. Excluding immigrants with limited earning
potential would inevitably frustrate the U.S. citizens hoping to sponsor them. But unlike Obama and Bush, Trump is deeply unpopular

among immigrant voters, and he’s shown little interest in winning them over. He does enjoy substantial support among
working-class whites, who tend to be more restrictionist than the public at large. By defining public
charges more broadly than Clinton, he’d deliver a major victory to his base.
Legal immigrants are legal permanent residents as determined by USCIS
IRS 1/18/18—(US Internal Revenue Service, “Immigration Terms and Definitions Involving Aliens”
aliens HRB)


An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to
work without restrictions in the United States. Such an individual is also known known as a Lawful
Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551),
which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards
may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports.

Immigrant visas are available for aliens (and their spouses and children) who seek to immigrate based on
their job skills. An alien who has the right combination of skills, education, and/or work experience, and
is otherwise eligible, may be able to live permanently in the United States. Per USCIS, there are five
employment-based immigrant visa preferences (categories): EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4 and EB-5. Refer to
the USCIS Permanent Worker web site for more details.

1. ERO only deals with illegal immigrants
ICE 6/2/17—(US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Enforcement and Removal Operations” )

ERO enforces the nation's immigration laws in a fair and effective manner. It identifies and apprehends
removable aliens, detains these individuals when necessary and removes illegal aliens from the United

ERO transports removable aliens from point to point, manages aliens in custody or in an alternative to
detention program, provides access to legal resources and representatives of advocacy groups and
removes individuals from the United States who have been ordered to be deported.

2. US Customs and Immigration Services are in charge of legal immigration

USCIS 3/6/18—(US Citizenship and Immigration Services, “About Us” )
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system,
safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration
benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.

General Information

USCIS is the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. We are 19,000
government employees and contractors working at more than 200 offices across the world.
a. Predictability—our interp is from US agencies-- they are incharge of legal
b. Neg ground—its generated by legal immigrants coming to the U.S.—anything
else spikes out of generics-- destroys fairness and clash.
c. Limits—provides clear defined Brightline—anything else explodes the limit on
the topic—affs race to the margins—explodes neg research burden
Case list
Under our interpretation, topical affs would include affs that use the USCIS as an
actor, like Green card affs, employment affs, asylum and refugee affs, and
naturalization or citizenships affs.
We have the best case list because the USCIS literally lists the immigration forms that
you can use online. It’s literally a whole webpage that doubles as a topical caselist for
the rest of the season
We would also exclude clearly abusive affs, like temporary workers affs, and sanctuary
cities affs.
A2 Reasonability
Gut check—these guys obviously aren’t topical. They definitely aren’t reasonable.
Also reasonability is bad—two reasons
a. Creates unnecessary judge intervention. Obviously, some judge intervention is
inevitable, but you should vote for the model and the team that limits judge
intervention the most. It provides the best briteline for future debates and
makes it easier to judge.
b. Infinitely regressive. In a world where affs only have to be reasonably topical,
teams are incentivized to run to the margins for a competitive advantage. This
turns their fairness claims
Standards extensions
a. Predictability should determine this debate. Our interpretation literally couldn’t
be any more predictable—it’s based in US policy, we even cut a card from the
agency that their aff is about. Also, our violation is literally from the agency the
aff is about. It doesn’t get any more predictable than that. Predictability is the
best internal link to fairness in this debate, because any fairness claims they
make about neg ground or topic limits are based off of unpredictable and self-
serving versions of the topic.

b. Neg ground—under their vision of the topic, the neg loses most of the core
generics. This crushed fairness and makes it impossible to be neg, because
almost all of our offcase links are based off of legal immigration, and they shift
out off all of that offense. Under our vision of the topic, the neg gets things like
agent counterplans, with actors other than the USCIS, which creates the most
educational debates about real world issues like jurisdiction within the

c. Limits—They completely unlimit the topic, which is already huge and

multifaceted for the aff. It’s crucial early in the season to establish a briteline
for affs that are and aren’t topical. Additionally, our definition provides the best
briteline, because it is has an intent to define not only what legal immigration
status is, but it also has an intent to exclude—only the USCIS has the ability to
regulate legal immigration.
Impact comparison
Fairness turns education—
a. Without a fair debate space, people are disincentivized from doing research
and when they do, it’s research about tiny obscure topics to get a competitive
advantage, instead of learning about important policy that’s at the heart of the
b. Debates with competitive equity create more clash, which allows teams to gain
in round education, and competition will incentivize teams to improve their
advocacies and do more research to get ahead.
AT: they talk aboult legal immigrants not legal immigration
This arg is nonsense—immigration is the process of immigrants immigrating
AT: restriction is a reslutional constraint
1. You can restrict anything—links back to limits and ground I did that above
2. immigration is core topic controversy – just restrictions means they can read
anything tangentially related to the topic—embassy workers, troop withdrawal,
and vacations affs—explodes limits—I did that above
AT: neg read stuff
1. T is a model debate—even if we did read args—doesn’t means their interp is
good—we don’t need to prove in round abuse
2. All their answers in the 2ac disprove this
AT: reasonability
1. If we win any offence we win they aren’t reasonable
2. Limits turn reasonability—any interpretation being reasonable further expands
the topic exploding neg research burden
3. Infinitely regressive—anything can be reasonably reasonable-- impossible to
establish a Brightline
4. judge intervention-- impossible to decide what’s reasonable
AT: we meet
1. The ERO only deals with illegal immigrants—not legal immigrants—they don’t
meet that’s ICE
2. USCIS deports legal immigrants—not ICE—they don’t meet that’s USCIS
3. Deportation doesn’t meet-- to indicates movement towards a place
Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2018, "Definition of TO," Merriam Webster Dictionary,

Definition of to 1a —used as a function word to indicate movement or an action or condition suggestive

of movement toward a place, person, or thing reached drove to the city went back to the original idea
went to lunch b —used as a function word to indicate direction a mile to the south turned his back tothe
door a tendency to silliness c —used as a function word to indicate contact or proximity applied polish
to the table put her hand to her heart d (1) —used as a function word to indicate the place or point that
is the far limit 100 milesto the nearest town (2) —used as a function word to indicate the limit of extent
strippedto the waist e —used as a function word to indicate relative position perpendicular to the floor

4. ICE regulates illegal immigration, trade, and terror

ICE, 01/03/2018, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement "What We Do," Untitled States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ,

ICE’S mission is to protect America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten
national security and public safety. This mission is executed through the enforcement of more than 400 federal statutes and focuses on smart
immigration enforcement, preventing terrorism and combating the illegal movement of people and goods. Immigration Enforcement Immigration enforcement is
the largest single area of responsibility for ICE. While certain responsibilities and close cooperation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and others require significant ICE assets near the border, the majority of immigration enforcement work for ICE takes place in the country’s
interior. ICE special agents strive to help businesses secure a lawful workforce and enforce immigration laws against those who encourage and rely on unauthorized
workers, sometimes taking advantage of their situation to offer low pay and inadequate conditions. Multiple programs help ICE focus and improve on stated
priorities to find and remove illegal aliens who are criminals, fugitives or recent arrivals. Immigration enforcement entails cracking down on those who produce
fraudulent documents to enable unlawful activity. Additionally, several robust efforts seek to continue improving the safe and humane detention and removal of
persons subject to those actions. Browse through the “Immigration Enforcement” category of the What We Do drop-down menu to learn more. Investigating

Illegal Movement of People and Goods ICE special agents, officers and attorneys enforce provisions of approximately 400 federal statutes.
This large and diverse body of laws is reflected in the wide array of offices, programs and projects that make up ICE. People are smuggled and trafficked, while
children are sexually exploited at home and abroad. Illegal trade, in a very general sense, predominately involve guns,
money and drugs, but ICE’s responsibilities extend much further into all kinds of illegal and counterfeit
merchandise coming into the country. For instance, ICE’s responsibilities include the repatriation of cultural treasures out of the country to
original owners abroad, and combatting the trade of child pornography and much more. Browse through the “Investigating Illegal

Movement of People and Goods” category of the What We Do drop-down menu to learn more. Preventing Terrorism Most ICE
offices and programs have a role in preventing terrorism. Several are on the front lines of this effort, either identifying dangerous
persons before they enter the U.S. or finding them as they violate immigration or customs laws. ICE also works to prevent the illegal export

of U.S. technology that could be used or repurposed to do harm. Browse through the “Preventing Terrorism” category of the
What We Do drop-down menu to learn more.