Guest Workers 1AC

1AC

1AC Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should implement a renewable, uncapped, portable guest worker visa for agricultural workers from Mexico.

1AC Agriculture Advantage

Advantage __ Agriculture Massive ag labor shortage now immigration enforcement only makes it worse Elias 13
(Thomas, masters in journalism from Stanford, Farm labor shortages may drive immigration changes Sandiego Source, newspaper, May 10, pg online at http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?SourceCode=20130510tza&Commentary_ID=109&_t=F arm+labor+shortages+may+drive+immigration+changes#.Ucypofkphsk//sd) There has been some dispute over whether the labor shortages California farmers reported over the last few years are real. It turns out they are very real, but that doesnt quiet the skeptics. We are told that unless we allow
criminals, illegal aliens *the+ freedom to take American jobs, our agriculture will be destroyed, wrote conservative blogger Steve Frank, former president of the California Republican Assembly, last year. Like most other statements of the lamestream media, that is a downright lie. He used the fact that this states farm profits were up in 2011 from $11.1 billion the previous year to $16.1 billion to call the reported shortage phony. Those profit numbers came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But the USDA also reports on crop produc tion and some of those numbers tell a different story, while also implying that the added profits may have been a result of smaller supplies. For example,

California growers produced 1.5 million tons of raisin grapes last year, compared with 1.8 million in 2011, causing prices to increase while grape-harvesting expenses dropped. Prices were also up for table grapes from $306 per ton to $358 and the price of canned apricots went from $330 to $419 per ton, while production was down. So theres more to the farm profit picture than just the bottom line. The price per pound or ton also counts for a lot. And both wholesale prices and profits rose last year, making it an outstanding year for agriculture. With 2011-12 a relatively wet winter and prices at or near peaks for almost all crops, there was only one reason for production to be down last year: a shortage of labor. This was caused in part by stricter enforcement of immigration laws, with the Obama administration already having deported more illegal immigrants than the George W. Bush administration did in its full eight years. Farm labor problems persisted in 2012, although theyve sometimes been hard to quantify. The Western Growers Association said last fall that its members were reporting 20 percent fewer laborers available than the year before. At the same time, the California Farm Bureau Federation put the shortage between 30 per cent and 40 percent of the workforce needed. Those numbers are not official, but the group said U.S. workers were not taking the vacant jobs. That was consistent with the results of an experiment conducted several years ago by Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who had every Employment Development Department office in the state list farm jobs as available. Fewer than 10 unemployed U.S. citizens applied for that work, even though it paid well over the states hourly minimum wage. One Santa Barbara County farmer with crops
as varied as lemons and strawberries reported that he had to leave some of his produce to rot in the field last summer and fall. Similar waste occurred in Kern, Butte and Riverside counties, among others. One reason: A

high percentage of California fruit and vegetable pickers are illegal immigrants. Farm bureau organizations in other states report similar labor shortages. So farmers want any immigration changes coming from Washington, D.C. this year to include a guest-worker program.

US food production is on the brink of collapse a guest worker program is key to keeping US agriculture competitive Barlow 2013, June 8, Ag Industry needs Immigration Reform, H.H Barlow: was a member of the U.S
Board for International Food and Agriculture Development, http://www.newsgraphic.com/opinion/columnists/article_2bc51520-cfb7-11e2-8a20-0019bb2963f4.html
Thats why I support the passage of meaningful immigration reform through in Congress.As the owner of Barlu Farms in Cave C ity and former presidential appointee to the U.S. Board for International Food and Agriculture Development, I

see the economic consequences of our broken immigration system every day. My fellow dairymen and I have great difficulty in hiring people to work on our farms. Kentuckians often dont want these jobs, but immigrants do. Unfortunately, we simply do not have enough of these

hard-working immigrants consistently available to work. This labor shortage affects dairy farms, as well as beef, horse, chicken, and tobacco farms. The negative impacts of a broken immigration system not only affect my business personally but our state and ultimately national economy. If we are not able to pass meaningful immigration reform this year, food production across the US will be harmed. Its time to overhaul our outdated system and bring it into the 21st Century to make alleviate the pressure on our farms and remain economically competitive with the rest of the world.A recent study in another agriculture-heavy state, North Carolina, showed just
how important immigrant labor can be to the overall economy. The study done by the Center for Agriculture Development and the Partnership for a New American Economy found that every 3-5 foreign farm workers the U.S. allows in creates one additional American job. Fixing our immigration system enhances our economy and breeds more opportunity for American workers.Fortunately, many of our elected leaders in Washington are beginning to get the message. Getting Republicans and Democrats to work together often seems impossible, but we are seeing some bipartisan cooperation on this issue. Four Republicans and fo ur Democrats (the Gang of 8) are working to reform our broken immigration system and have a bill headed to the floor of the U. S. Senate very soon.

Guest workers are key to the whole industry US ag will collapse without the plan Clemens 13 [Michael A. Clemens; INTERNATIONAL HARVEST: A Case Study of How Foreign Workers Help American Farms Grow Crops
and the Economy; Clemens has a PHD from Harvard in Economics and is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development where he leads the Migration and Development initiative; http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/nc-agr-report-05-2013.pdf; May 2013] The data show this is not a case of farmers preferring foreign labor because they can pay foreign workers less; no matter how bad the economy turned, there were still very few native workers who were willing to take farm jobs. The picture is clear: farms

will not get the labor they need from natives alone. Without foreign seasonal workers, whole subsectors of agriculture would not exist in North Carolina today. The example of the North Carolina Growers Association affirms how deeply American farms depend on foreign labor, and how fundamental foreign labor is to making the agriculture industry run. Immigration policies can and should protect native employment, but should also not ignore economic reality. About two-thirds of hired farm workers in America today are foreigners, and Americas farms are depending steadily more on hired help and less on family members: according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, paid
employees made up about 60 percent of all farm workers, a substantial rise from the 40 percent share they made up in the 1990s (correspondingly, unpaid family members constituted 60 percent of farm workers nationally in the 1990s but only 40 percent today). The

same survey also showed that Americans are also demanding more fresh produce over time, which relies more heavily on manual labor to harvest, and demand for these labor-intensive crops is only expected to increase. These trends mean that the role of foreign labor on American farms will only grow larger in the coming years, and we need to make sure our immigration policies are equipped to get us the workers we need.

US agriculture is key to global food security FarmJournal Foundation, 2010, "Farmers Feeding the World U.S. Agriculture," Farmers Feeding
The World, http://www.agweb.com/farmersfeedingtheworld/farmers_feeding_the_world_agriculture1.aspx An unprecedented challenge lies before global agriculture: producing 70 percent more food than it does today in order to feed an expected world population of 9 billion people in 2050. In addition to the sheer number of people to feed, agriculture will have to meet this extraordinary demand sustainably, on essentially the same amount of land, and with diminishing natural resources. As the most prolific food producer in the world, great responsibility falls on the American farmer and U.S. agriculture to lead the global community in its fight to feed a hungry world. Why should responsibility fall to the American farmer? Because U.S. agriculture is blessed with abundant natural resources, significant investment in private and public agricultural research, and the most advanced agricultural technology in the world, placing it in the best position to drive total global food supply.

American ag industry key to support global food markets Bertini and Glickman, 13. Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, World Food Program,
United Nations. Dan Glickman, Former Secretary, US Department of Agriculture May 2013. Advancing Global Food Security: THE POWER OF SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS. report issued by an independent Advisory group on global Agricultural development. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning. http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/2013_Advancing_Glob al_Food_Security.pdf - clawan The United States has before it the opportunity to be a catalyst to advance global food security. The blueprint put forward in this report calls for the US government to lead an international effort to mobilize science, increase trade, and leverage the strengths of business to advance global agricultural development as a means to increase food security. The United States has proven it can provide international leadership in the quest
toward global food security and encourage others to act on this issue. It has the expertise, institutions, and experience to energize this effort. What is required is the vision and commitment of American governmental, university, research, and business leaders working alongside their international counterparts. The recommendations in this report, if implemented and sustained, will

help lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the next two decades and help ensure sustainable food and nutrition security for future generations to come. They will also guard the worlds natural resource base, make agriculture more resilient to climate change, and contribute to economic growth and social stability in regions of the world that are key to US interests. If the United States fails to form a strategy, or if attempts to meet future food demand would falter, progress toward reducing global poverty may halt, and Americas domestic and international interests may be put at risk. Hunger would sow more conflict and political unrest in parts of the world that are vitally important to US interests. The number of those living in chronic hunger would increase. The United States could miss the opportunity to cultivate new markets in developing countries. The American farm beltone of the strongest parts of the economycould lose export opportunities and see its future prospects dim.THE CHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL AFFAIRS 5

European policies fail too export-oriented GPF, 6/27/13. Global Policy Forum is an independent policy watchdog that monitors the work of the
United Nations and scrutinizes global policymaking. We promote accountability and citizen participation in decisions on peace and security, social justice and international law. EU Agricultural Reform Misses Opportunity. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/217-hunger/52432-euagricultural-reform-misses-opportunity.html According to the German NGOs Brot fr die Welt and WWF Germany, the preliminary agreement reached on the reform of the European Unions Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) remains far behind its formulated goals. In particular, it does not take into account the effect it has on economic development in countries of the global South, given that it leaves out both sustainability as well as justice. The EU continues to ignore any possible external implications of its agricultural policy, commented Stig Tanzmann, agricultural expert from Brot fr die Welt. Particularly disappointing is the fact that the EU was not even able to come to an agreement with regard to export subsidies, which have been going on for decades now, but whose cancellation is utterly overdue. The EUs milk quota will run out in 2015, at which point the EU will receive a lot of calls
demanding export subsidies to make up for the lost domestic revenues. Therefore, Tanzman worries tha t successful milk producers in developing countries such as Zambia or Kenya will once again have to compete with cheap EU milk, which will marginalize local production. The

new agreement further fails to account for the damage being done by EU imports, which have equally detrimental implications. The
production of soy beans which are imported from South America into the European Union is taking up 30 million hectares of farmland. In turn, this land cannot be used by developing countries themselves in order to provide food security for their populations. Thus, the

CAP is also a matter of land grabbing. Moreover, the soy bean imports enable large-scale poultry exports from the EU to African countries, which amount to more than 450,000 tons a year. The new CAP regulations are still lacking a complaint mechanism for producers who are affected by cheap EU exports. However, instead of facing the problems caused by European agricultural policies, the new CAP simply purports a new green look, without changing its old export-oriented nature.

Ag decline makes the US a net food importer triggers global food shortages, recession, mass die-offs, and nuclear conflict Andrew McKillop, former chief policy analyst @ European Commission, 8-4-2011, The Food Crisis
War Endgame, Market Oracle, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article29666.html We know all to well that "food is a weapon". This is what we can call FoodWar-1, dating from the 1970s and before. Food supply was then only a blunt instrument in the foreign policy of food exporter countries - which were traditionally led by the USA, the biggest exporter, but that is changing fast. In commercial terms, the balance on its food trade by value, the USA will likely become a net food importer by or before 2017. Other major food exporters are as small in number as the number of world net creditor nations - that is countries whose debts are lower than their credits, and which usually run net trade surpluses with the rest
of the world. More than 150 nations run a deficit on their food trade - they import more food than export it. The food deficit is worse than the oil deficit, measured by global food import dependence. The so-called "food weapon" in fact exhibits, yet again, the wall-to-wall schizophrenia that is not second nature, but the primary nature of our crisis prone and dangeroulsy incompetent ruling political and corporate elites. They want food shortage, to exercise

the growing population will eat up the food surpluses - and neither a worker nor a consumer of T-shirts and cellphones is much use when they do not have enought to eat. Food shortage is driven by population growth:
political and commercial power, and they also want population growth, for cheap labor and growing markets - but refuse to understand this is a zero sum game. Literally, anybody who wants to deny that by calling it fascistminded can take a look at how agribusiness operates, from Monsanto, Dow, Bayer and McDonalds to the Bill Gates Foundation. Their game is trashing the environment for decades or centuries ahead and making profits right now - - while just about being able to feed 6.1 billion persons on Earth. The other 900 million suffer permanent food shortage. That is one-in-seven of world population. The number of underfed is growing by around 4% to 6% per year - far ahead of the population growth rate, and the average rate of global economic growth. And one thing is sure: in global economic recession the underfed will grow

food prices stay high and dangerous. They can, could or might even continue rising in global economic recession, drastically multiplying the social stress and damage from recession. The cards and dice are stacked and rolling that way. We can be 100% certain that any abandonment of pesticides-and-ferilizer,
even faster, unless food prices behave like "other commodities" and tank in recession - which is no longer certain. This is the danger: recession will come. Oil prices will drop, even gold edges down a little - maybe - but monocrop, irrigation-based "farming", that is agribusiness, will firstly result in a large net fall in world total food supply. Any attempt at a rapid phase-out of agribusiness would move us up to say 1300 million persons who suffer permanent day in and day out food shortage - and anybody saying we need to control population is still a fascist, right ? The shift to sustainable low-input agriculture, ask Bill Gates, is a nice slogan but doing it will soon be a lot more necessary than only talking about it. This is an epochal shift and a change of civilization, which Gates doesn't mention too often - it will be bad for profits - and the change that is coming will be basically open-ended. Population control will be high up the list. GETTING WORRIED Just occasionally, our ruling elites get worried about their gameplan of food undersupply-population oversupply. Being fascist minded when pushed, they have all kinds of fallback ideas and plans for wiping out a billion persons here, a billion persons there: this isnt Norway designer massacre stuff ! But until they have to pull the plug on the human race - and being schizophrenic - they have to keep the party going with profits flowing from growing populations and for corporate cronies who make everything from fertilizers and pesticides to nerve gas and bioweapons. In fact, these 3 last-cited business activities are all closelinked and related: check the story of the organophosphate pesticides like TEPP, which started their commercial lives as ultra-powerful, ultralethal nerve gases and chem-bio weapons. Spraying them around in the country is called "farming". Monocrop high yield agribusiness, with its oil-pesticides-fertilizer mantra, to which you need to add irrigation (78 percent of world water is used in farming), is the only thing that separates us all from a decades-long food crisis. Our elites musing in private on how to get rid of 1 billion here and 1 billion there would have their musings fulfilled - and more. But their one-only choice of agribusiness, and their refusal to act against overpopulation means the unwinding of the coming global food crisis is completely out of their hands. Just like the sovereign debt crisis. Back as 1974 Henry Kissinger, who is often accused of war crimes but not FoodWar crime, mused in secret that

Hungry people will do anything for food". Those who control food supply can use it as leverage. This revelation for Kissinger coincided with the USA learning about oil shortage, but his argument was that food shortage can be used to induce political change including forced birth control. This musing from 1974 is now revealed, in a previously classified US National Security Study Memorandum, No. 200: "Implications of Worldwide Population
" Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests". Kissinger advocated various tactics but had no real strategy. Food supplies on one hand could be used to force family planning, and they could also be used as a blunt instrument of foreign policy but only against countries in dire straits. The use of "the food weapon" was not taken up at the time by US deciders, for the simple reason that the US food trade surplus was so important for helping trim the USA's already growing overseas debts and rising trade deficits. What happened since the 1970s is easy to summarize. The facts speak for themselves: through 1970- 2010 the world's population doubled from 3.5 billion to 7 billion. It grew by over 11 times the population of the USA today. If it could or might have been possible to feed the 3.5 billion in 1970, which wasn't the case, it will be even less possible to feed the 7 billion od today, growing at 65 million a year. This is a simple fact. Forgot about your "knowledge based agro-revolution" and Third World farmers with cellphones finding the best price for their products in the nearest market. Our ruling elites know all this, but being schizoid, they panic about ageing Baby Boomer populations and insufficient birth numbers of future consumers and future taxpayers to help pay the wild, fantastic sovereign debts they also cooked up through their one-only wait-

The Kissinger food war strategy was far away only really works on nations and territories enduring economic collapse and with few or no food stocks and resources for food production. The "peace dividend" for FoodWar is like the peace dividend in Afghanistan: zero. The country or countries wracked by famine and food shortage will certainly not bounce back into virile economic growth,
then-panic operating mode for running the economy. So they want population growth but they fear population growth - which they should. OUT OF TIME from being a subtle thing: it because solving food shortage - with growing populations - is not an easy thing. This is basically why Kissinger's 1974 strategy (in fact tactics) were put on the back burner. As a result, and because the world's population "just happened to double", the world's environment has been ransacked and continent-sized ecosystems have been dangerously weakened, often right to the brink. We have a whole new FoodWar, operating right now, worldwide, uncontrollable.We can call it FoodWar-2, and it's an endgame. Everybody loses, we have no choice. We can call FoodWar-2 more subtle because it is multiform, dangerous and permanent, unlike the outlyer food panics of the 1960s and 1970s - which were supposedly "solved forever" by the Green Revolution, which in fact was nothing but the good old mantra of oil-fertilizers-pesticides-irrigation, and nothing else. FoodWar-2 is also different because it

On present population growth trends, with present urban-rural population patterns, with the same the countdown to dependence on food imports for nearly all present major food exporters in the OECD group - like the USA, France and Spain - is fast and sure. It may happen by 2020, perhaps a little later, perhaps sooner. No Einstein is needed to tell you, it is not possible to have a world made up of countries all of which are net food importers. This is the endgame and it is coming. There are so few exceptions to the list of large
is engaged against every country on Earth - including the food game controllers. economic system as we have now, food exporters in the OECD Old Rich-New Poor group of countries which will not soon become importers, that we can name them: Australia and New Zealand. We can be sure and certain these 2 countries can't feed the world, and have already maxxed out in agroproduction.

By 2017 on current trends, the USA will be running a net trade deficit on food and

agricultural products. The European Union is proud of its agribusiness forcing strategy, the Common Agriculture Policy, taking over 60 percent of all European Commission spending but if those subsidies are stripped away, Europe's 27 countries become instant food deficit. Without subsidies and good old agribusiness, Europe is a food importing group of countries, and has been that way for decades. Japan has the most oil-intensive food production system in the world, using an incredible 10 barrels of oil per hectare, each year in its rice farming, but even with this, it remains a huge food importer country. Both China and India are large and growing net food importers, having to spend

there are only two ways out of the food shortage and overpopulation threat: increase food supply or reduce population. This has been known for decades - but nothing happened. Making this even worse, FoodWar-2 operates a multifaceted attack on anything and everything to do with
more and more on food subsidies.. Like we know, food. This ranges from what is outright biological warfare against natural species and natural ecosystems - called agribusiness and producing the food you eat - to people's physical, as well as commercial and economic access to food. In other words, what Kissinger advocated 37 years ago has spiralled out, grown in scale and complexity, getting so expansive and wide ranging that it is almost surely and certainly out of control. The game controllers themselves got trapped by their own refusal to treat the real problems - and when they are in trouble, watch out ! AGRIBUSINESS KILLS Global agribusiness is very comparable to, and dependent on global banking. Through massive corporate consolidation in agriculture, food and farming, coordinated and convergent global food regulations, and chaff dollars euro and yen thrown on the gaming play tables of unrestrained food commodity speculation, agribusiness creates food shortage, and has a vested interest in food price explosions. To be sure, we wont expect the agribusiness players to say that ! Commodity-oriented agribusiness is a corporate profit tool, but farmers net few or no gains from this. Farmers are low-tech debt-serfs in the low income countries, and are high-tech debt-serfs in the high income countries. Agribusiness is lethal to the planet and to our future. It wreaks chemical damage, genetic modification and systematic damage right across the food web, both locally and across continents. It punches deep holes in the very base of biosystem and ecosystem operation - for example by almost wiping out bee populations in dozens of countries, cutting their numbers by as much as 75% since 2005 in some cases. We have constant, sad and shameful proof of the damage dome by agribusiness, in the shape of collateral dead natural systems, right across the planet. The seven seas, for example, have been so ruthlessly predated by deep sea and inshore fishing, that large and ever-growing numbers of food fish species will take decades or even centuries to recoup numbers - or die out entirely. We have lost the resource. Aquaculture and mariculture run on the business mantra of oil-antibiotics-insecticidesfungicides, in case you didnt know, meaning we replace the good with the harmful and unsustainable. This is progress ! We are feeding about 6-in-7 of the world's population: Rejoice ! On top of real shortage,

FoodWar 2 brings manipulated and

unpredictable food shortages, and underlines what this new war really means: this war targets the general population everywhere. We are all targeted. The bottom line is simple and you can see it in your local shop: It means high food prices and also the increasingly sombre and real threat of straight physical shortage. The Olde Worlde term for this is: famine. We therefore need to understand the strategy and tactics in order to fight back against them: this war is produced by the exact same elites who have
destroyed our economic and monetary systems, but the damage done to natural ecosystems and living species is not going to be changed overnight through a stroke of the pen. Debts could or might be treated that way, even though debt conflicts often lead to war. But the damage from FoodWar-2 will need decades and decades of massive change to stop the Death Machine. Food shortage is not going to run away and disappear because the economy got a little less bad. Also and unfortunately, like so many other crises we heard too much about but which never happened, nobody will believe in this one until it hits them - in the stomach. YOU THOUGHT FOOD PRICES ARE RISING ? Crippling food price inflation, by 2008, had caused deadly riots in at least 40 countries. Today in 2011, food commodity prices are as high, in some cases higher than they were in 2008 - and world population has risen by another 200 million since 2008, or two-thirds of the USA's total population today. Through June 2010-June 2011, the UN FAO's world food price index rose by 39 percent. Food price inflation now affects every corner of the globe, to be sure with the poorest countries most exposed and feeling the worst hunger pangs. All and every country experiencing the Arab Spring revolt, and its trend to linked civil war, is we can note totally dependent on food imports for all basic foods. The world's three-largest wheat importes by rank are Egypt, Algeria and Saudi Arabia. Street protest might be nice, and is surely needed to overthrow dictators and tyrants - backed or tolerated by the western democracies for decades - but

food shortage is almost guaranteed to turn democracy protests into civil war, even faster and more surely. Exactly

like oil prices, food commodity prices rise not only through physical shortage, but also because of the naked decline of the US dollar used to pay for them, causing a flight to "real resources". Factors like extreme weather damage, tsunami damage in Japan, and plant or livestock diseases and pathogen outbreaks - often linked to chemical and genetic manipulation of crop plant and livestock species - can at any time radically cut supplies and increase food prices in a few days hectic trading. The arm of food shortage and high prices, to be sure, can still be wielded in blunt weapon FoodWar-1 style, on already down-and-out countries. The endless negotiations with North Korea are basically a nuclear threat and food game, where Pyongyang holds a nuclear gun to the West's head in exchange for food. Pirate Somalia, when it was last a country and not a fuzzy and starving no-mans-land of feudal chiefdoms, was food self-sufficient until the 1970s. It is a "failed state" because of food shortage or food shortage helps keep it locked down as a failed state. Like we can guess, the Peace Dividend in either of these cases will be almost zero, but deliberately intensifying the food crises in North Korea and Somalia yet again underlines the schizoid but vicious nature of our ruling elites. More important, FoodWar-2 needs no political trigger-pull, the process is in global operation now, 24/7, and will only keep going. The measuring rod of this is rising food prices. Food War 2 is worldwide and multiform, but has one single end result: food prices will rise. Trapped in a web of regulations restricting food freedom in all ways, starting with what farmers are allowed to produce, to protect the agribusiness cartel which controls the basic building blocks of food, from the molecular level up and through the entire system, the potential for change is low. Raising global food output through changing the methods and techniques utilised, including a shift back to traditional farming, is practically impossible, even in the midterm. There is no short-term way out, nor midterm way out. Food prices could "go on rising forever", but just like other fetish symbols and needs of the consumer society - oil in particular - when we have a constantly rising price, the economic and social systems get flakier, faster. This will go on a certain time, depending on wealth and spending capabilities in different countries, depending how much inflation middle class voters can absorb with their McDonalds - but the process will not go on forever. BLOWBACK TIME The elites took a look at runaway population growth in the 1970s and stepped back: they linked it with controlled and manipulated food production, and made a weapon out of it. The weapon was

People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." They also make revolutions, Mr Roosevelt. The same elites who cooked up FoodWar 2 have destroyed the economy of dozens of
remodeled and refined over the decades, while population kept on growing. Today, the words of Roosevelt are acid-tinged: " countries - especially their own countries - since 2008. In Europe's debtwracked PIIGS, adult unemployment is often 20 percent, and youth unemployment 40 percent. Rising food prices can easily help the generally placid, inert and egoist, consumption crazy populations of Old Rich-New Poor countries to get a lot less inert and a lot more more political. Food War2 comes at a particularly bad time for our ruling elites - so if they chose to aggravate and intensify FoodWar-2 this is yet another proof of their stupidity. Out in the killing fields, that is agribusiness fields, the damage keeps on growing. The biosystem damage reducing future bioproductivity - the ability of living systems to provide us food - continues 24/7. Agribusiness employs a host of methods and tactics which make this certain, like destroying biodiversity to the point where only GM seeds for crops totally dependent on pesticides and fertilisers can grow in near-sterile, compacted, degraded and eroded soils, called "fields". But agribusiness has no strategy - or if it does have one it has no sense at all - because it is zero sum and total loss. This blowback is known and proven by what we have now. More is coming and exactly the same applies to overpopulation. Refusal to apply population controls 40 years ago has in that time allowed another 3.5 billion persons to need food, now and every day, but

The growth in numbers of those who dont eat - around 4 to 6 percent a year - vastly outstrips either economic growth or the growth rate of global population - around 0.9 percent a year. Agribusiness and overpopulation are two proven loser strategies. When the ruling elites get a handle on this they will panic , as ever. In semi-secret cabals and clubs like the Club of Madrid and
agribusiness denies food to more than 900 million persons, today and every day. the WorldShift Network, for at least 4 years, agenda items include present world food shortage and the coming shortage of medecines, fertilizers, genetic materials for agribusiness crops, livestock pathogen outbreaks - and a string of other tell-tale items. Also figuring,

to be sure, is the "potential" for nuclear catastrophes, in the plural. We can perhaps get a little satisfaction

from knowing that FoodWar 2 was almost certainly never planned as a global strategy. It emerged from a nexus of never treating simple problems with clear and courageous action, but to always use two-faced muddling through with panic afterwards. Cynics can of course say the elites acted like that with the economy - they muddle through with bigger and bigger debts - so its no surprise they do the same with food and population. But as we have said many times in this article, the lasting damage to the environment from agribusiness, even if we stopped it dead in its bulldozer tracks, would take decades to heal. And between times how do we produce the food needed for 7 or 8 billion persons, assuming that population control goes serious, and world population peaks out at 8 billion ? FoodWar-2 happened because it was unplanned. It was only a reaction to short-term corporate needs for making profit out of hunger, but the agribusiness weapon that was used is now killing the planet. FoodWar-2 goes far beyond so-called "economic and military security" - and concerns our basic ability to eat. This ultra basic need is now systemically compromised, worldwide:

FoodWar 2 has gone critical.

Food shortages kill billions and spark global wars comparatively outweighs other impacts Julian Cribb, principal of JCA, fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, 2010, The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tv0zXxbQ7toC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+coming+famine&hl=e n&sa=X&ei=RR_mT7OYFKeq2gXP5tHZCQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20coming%20fami ne&f=false The character of human conflict has also changed: since the early 1990S, more wars have been triggered by disputes over food, land, and water than over mere political or ethnic differences. This should not surprise US: people have fought over the means of survival for most of history. But in the abbreviated reports on the nightly media, and even in the
rarefied realms of government policy, the focus is almost invariably on the playersthe warring national, ethnic, or religious factionsrather than on the play, the deeper subplots building the tensions that ignite conflict. Caught

up in these are groups of ordinary, desperate people fearful that there is no longer sufficient food, land, and water to feed their childrenand believing that they must fight the others to secure them. At the same time, the number of
refugees in the world doubled, many of them escaping from conflicts and famines precipitated by food and resource shortages. Governments in troubled regions tottered and fell. The

coming famine is planetary because it involves both the immediate effects of hunger on directly affected populations in heavily populated regions of the world in the next forty yearsand also the impacts of war, government failure, refugee crises, shortages, and food price spikes that will affect all human beings, no matter who they are or where they live. It is an emergency because unless it is solved, billions will experience great hardship, and not only in the poorer regions. Mike Murphy, one of the worlds most progressive dairy farmers, with operations in Ireland, New Zealand, and North and

South America, succinctly summed it all up: Global warming gets all the publicity but the real imminent threat to the human race is starvation on a massive scale. Taking a 1030 year view, I believe that food

shortages, famine and huge social unrest are probably the greatest threat the human race has ever faced. I believe future food shortages are a far bigger world threat than global
warming.2 The coming famine is also complex, because it is driven not by one or two, or even a half dozen, factors but rather by the confluence of many large and profoundly intractable causes that tend to amplify one another. This means that it cannot easily be remedied by silver bullets in the form of technology, subsidies, or single-country policy changes, because of the synergetic character of the things that power it.

1AC Illegal Immigration Advantage

Advantage __ Illegal Immigration Illegal immigration from Mexico to the US is massively increasing and sucking up border patrol resources dont buy the negs statistics La Jeunesse, 13 (William La Jeunesse, journalist since 1998 for FOX News, graduate from Syracuse
University, Stats show surge in illegal immigrant border traffic despite Napolitano claims, April 5 2013, FoxNews.com, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/05/stats-show-surge-in-illegal-immigrantborder-traffic-despite-napolitano-claims/, //nikp) Newly released arrest numbers show a significant increase in illegal immigrants crossing along the southwest border, despite claims as recently as Thursday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that the border is more secure. "I can tell you having worked that border for 20 years, it is more secure now than it has ever been. Illegal apprehensions are at 40-year lows," Napolitano told reporters this week in Houston. But figures released Thursday by Customs and Border Protection to Fox News tell a different story. Arrests are actually up 13 percent compared with the same time last year. The number was 170,223 in 2012, and is 192,298 this year. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, reacting to those numbers, questioned Napolitano's insistence that the border is becoming more secure. "There is no statistic, metric or evidence that the border is more secure than ever. I went out there for a couple days and found multiple spots where you can see trails of people coming in. They were still apprehending massive amounts of drugs out there, this is a very porous border," Chaffetz said. The numbers back up anecdotal claims that Texas is seeing a marked surge in traffic. The increase comes as Congress prepares to debate immigration legislation, which in its draft form is expected to include a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already here. Some have expressed concern this provision could entice illegal immigrants to cross over. The stats show that in Texas, arrests in the last six months are up 53 percent in the Rio Grande Valley; up 22 percent in Laredo; and up 24 percent in El Paso. While arrest figures can be interpreted in different ways, the administration generally has seen lower numbers as a sign of better security. For the last five years, the administration claimed the border was more secure because arrest numbers declined as the economy tanked. Would-be illegal immigrants from Mexico either stayed home or went home. Now, however, arrests are actually up by 25,000. That means more traffic, and more immigrants actually getting through. According to the Government Accountability Office, up to 40 percent of those who make it over the southwest border never get caught. But a new radar drone, called "VADER," showed during a three-month test in Arizona that agents are catching fewer than 50 percent
of those who successfully cross the border and then disappear into the mountains, valleys and deserts. Administration sources say, however, the system is still in a testing phase, the 50 percent figure is inaccurate and VADER alone offers an incomplete picture. Customs

and Border Protection says they are using all the resources they can to crack down on the problem areas. "Under this administration, DHS has dedicated historic levels of personnel, technology, and resources to the Southwest border. CBP has more than doubled the size of the U.S. Border Patrol since 2004. In FY (Fiscal Year) 2012, CBP employed over 21,300 Border Patrol agents, keeping staffing levels along the border at an all-time high.

Guest worker program for Mexico increases legal immigration and reduces incentives for illegal immigration status quo approaches fail Bier, 5/31 - David Bier is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. His publications are often posted on the Huffington Post
(Senate Bill Wont Stop Illegal Immigration Without More Work Visas, 5/31/13, http://www.openmarket.org/2013/05/31/senate-bill-wontstop-illegal-immigration-without-more-work-visas) Cards When the Senate Gang

of 8 released their immigration reform principles earlier this year, they made an important admission: that drastic restrictions on low-skilled work visas incentivizes illegal immigration. The

principles called for a humane and effective system for the overwhelming majority of the 327,000 illegal entrants apprehended in 2011 to prevent future waves of illegal immigration. Unfortunately, although

the Gangs bill improves legal immigration options, it clearly doesnt live up to this principle. The Senate legislation deletes one option while creating two new ones
one for agricultural work and another for non-agricultural work. It allocates 112,333 ag visas (W-2/W-3 visas) per year for the first five years. But it replaces the H-2A farm visa program that already brought in around 80,000/year. This means the new ag visa program initially adds at most just 32,333 net visas each year. For other employment (W-1 visas), the bill grants just 46,250/year over the first four yearsmeaning, the government would issue up to (no guarantees!) 78,583 new visas per year for the next four years. In other words, the bills quotas are 250,000 below what the Gang claimed was necessary just a few months ago. Worse still, the

actual shortfall is much greater than this because the Gangs estimate of visa demand 1) excluded demand from would-be legal immigrants and 2) only included apprehended entrants 3) from a single year and 4) from a single border region. 1) Many more would-be legal immigrants would want to come if legal options open up; 2) the apprehension
figure ignores all those avoided detection (about 350,000/year during the 2000s); 3) FY2011 had extraordinary few apprehensionseven in 2008 the number was twice as high (475,000/year over last five years); 4) these

visas might primarily go to immigrants from Mexico and central America, the primary sending nations for border crossers, but other nations would also compete for the limited supply; 5) finally, the calculation ignores how increasing the availability of work visas to new sectors
(dairy, meatpacking, etc.) and new job categories (employment longer than a year) might affect U.S. employer demand. After the fifth year,

the quota for farm workers would be set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in consultation with the Department of Labor (DOL) based on a variety of market-based factorsa demonstrated shortage, unemployment of U.S. farm workers, visas sought by employers in the previous year, etc. The end product of this calculation is discretionary and
could result in many more or many less visas depending on what USDA and DOL negotiate and the politics of the next president. Unfortunately, the initial quota level might act as a starting point for the USDA, keeping the total number of new visas relatively low. For non-farm workers, the annual quota after year five could increase up to 200,000 plus up to 20,000 more for meat cutters. Unfortunately, the actual quota will be calculated by a political appointee based on an undefined methodology. If historical precedent is any guide, regulatory agencies tend to like to regulate rather than deregulate, and such open-ended authority might ultimately keep numbers far below this level. Consider the current H2A Ag visa program already has no numerical limit, but still has never issued more than 80,000 visas in a given yearit is open in theory, closed in practice. Over the (~825,000), guest work visas

next five years, based on the number border crossersapprehended and notin recent years are at least 740,000 short of the Gangs goal to stop attempted illegal

entries. After that, the shortage might drop, optimistically, to 490,000 or so. A final consideration is the time-constraints for these workers. These low-skilled visas are good for three years and only can be renewed once. After that, all must leave. But the incentives to overstay are huge, particularly given the uncertainty of being able to secure another visa. We know that almost half of the unauthorized population did not cross the border illegally, but simply ignored visa time-constraints. Therefore, if the Senate bill is serious about eliminating illegal immigration, it should implement two reasonable guest worker reforms: Permit work renewals (assuming their employers remain eligible for a worker) indefinitely, but
withhold a certain percentage of guest workers income to be returned upon departureif they fail to return after losing employment, take a certain percentage each month they stay without working at a registered employer. Include

the level of illegal immigration into the market-based factors for increasing the quotas. We already know that robust guest worker programs can dramatically reduce illegal immigration. The 1960s Bracero work visa program proved that beyond any doubt. It is good that in principle, the Gang of 8 recognizes this, but their proposal fails to meet their principle. Congress must
amend this bill to head off another wave of illegal immigration.

Removing quotas is key to stop illegal immigration status quo approaches wont remedy the problem Jacoby 6-11 - Tamar Jacoby is known primarily for her writing on immigration-related issues. She is also president and CEO of
ImmigrationWorks USA (Guest Workers Are the Best Border Security, 6/11/13, WSJ, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324634304578535823045836956.html)
With the Senate beginning debate this week on the immigration reform bill, border security will be one of the most contentious issues. Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) argues at every opportunity that "immigration

reform hinges on border security," and he isn't wrong. But physical control of the least as important is finding a way for immigrants to work here legally. That's where a guest-worker program is crucial. The U.S. workforce is changing. Americans are having smaller
border can go only so far in preventing illegal immigration. At families, and birthrates are well below replacement level. Baby boomers are retiring: 10,000 leave the workforce every day. Younger workers coming up behind them are much more educated than earlier generations. In 1950, according to the Census Bureau, 56% of U.S. workers were high-school dropouts. Today, the figure is less than 5%. The result is that the pool of people available to fill low-skilled jobs has shrunk dramatically. It is not so much that the native born don't want to work as busboys, farmhands or nurse's aides. But the overwhelming majority of Americans are now overqualified for these jobs and have other options. Meanwhile,

less-skilled immigrants with no family in the U.S. have no wayno access to a visa programto enter the country

legally and work in year-round jobs. This is why so many immigrants have flowed into the country illegally in recent decades and remain here, underground. The challenge facing Congress is to create a better systemone that works for willing immigrant workers and willing employers, replaces the current illegal influx with a legal labor force, and protects the rights of Americans who are looking for low-skilled jobs. The

workervisa program in the Senate bill meets most of these tests. Participating employers must first try to hire American workers, recruiting widely and offering a decent wage. If they can't, the program gives them a way to hire foreign workers easily, quickly and legally. The work visas
in the Senate bill bear little resemblance to traditional guest-worker programs, which generally tie the worker to one employer, opening the door to exploitation and an inefficient labor market. Instead, under the Senate proposal, an immigrant here on a work visa can quit any time and go to work for any other U.S. employer that has been approved to participate in the program. Business owners get access to a more flexible labor force, including the possibility of hiring in real time without going back to the government for approval. The

size of the guest-worker program is designed to adjust automatically in response to changing U.S. labor needs, growing in good years when the economy needs more foreign workers and shrinking when more Americans are out of work. Finally, unlike most guestworker programs, the Senate proposal recognizes that some participants will want to stay in the U.S. when their visas have expired. Those who have done well while on temporary visaslearning English, developing new skills, moving up on the job, putting down roots in their communitymay apply to stay permanently. This

is a win-win for the immigrants and for the U.S., combining the benefits of a temporary worker program with those of the nation's traditional way of immigrationthe melting-pot model based on permanent residence
and assimilation. The one area where the Senate proposal falls short: It's almost surely too small to address the country's future labor needs. In the early 2000s, when the economy was booming, more than 350,000 unauthorized Mexicans entered the U.S. every year to fill low-skilled jobs for which there were not enough Americans. The downturn eased this demand somewhat, but it's now picking up again. If

the trends of recent decades resume, the Senate proposal won't be big enough to divert future illegal immigration. In its first year, the Senate's guest-worker program will be capped at 20,000 visas. It will grow over time in response to market demand but is capped at 200,000 workers annually. The danger is that if there aren't enough visas to meet U.S. labor needs, the program won't prevent illegal immigration in years ahead. The best antidote to illegal immigration is a legal immigration system that works. The Senate's visa program is a good start. The challenge now, for the House or the Senate, is to scale up the Senate model so it can work in years to
come.

Reducing illegal immigration lets the border patrol focus on counterterrorism status quo undermines ability to prevent threats Barry 13 (Tom, January 9, 2013, Director for the TransBorder project at the Center for International
Policy in Wash. DC. With the Resurrection of Immigration Reform We'll Hear a Lot About Securing Our Borders, But What Does It Really Mean? http://www.alternet.org/immigration/resurrectionimmigration-reform-well-hear-lot-about-securing-our-borders-what-does-it) One likely reason the Border Patrol does not address its counterterrorism in any detail is that the agencys border security buildup on the southwestern border has not resulted in the apprehension of members of foreign terrorist organizations, as identified by the State Department. Experts in counterterrorism agree there is little risk that foreign terrorist organizations would rely on illegal border crossings particularly across the U.S.Mexico border for entry into the United States. While the fear that foreign terrorists would illegally cross U.S. land borders drove much of the early build-up in border security programs under the newly created homeland security department, counterterrorism seems to have dropped off the actual and rhetorical focus of todays border security operations. Indicative of this reduced focus on terrorism and return to the traditional focus on illegal immigration and illegal drugs is found in the recently released *2012-2016 Border Patrol Strategic Plan*. There is only one reference to terrorism in the new strategys executive summary. In contrast, the previous Border Patrol Strategy, issued in September 2004, has 13 such references. The Border Patrol offers no explanation for this stunning change in focus. Counterterrorism is still cited as the overarching goal of CBP, yet there is little in the new strategy statement to demonstrate this strategic focus. *From Terrorists to Transnational Criminals* * *As cross-border terrorism has faded as a
homeland security concern, the Border Patrol has shifted the focus of its threat assessments to transnational criminal organizations based in Mexico. What formerly were called drug trafficking organizations by the federal government are now labeled TCOs. Although never mentioned previously, the Border Patrol over the past three years has warned of the threat posed by TCOs to border security. Unfortunately, the Border Patrol has supported its escalated threat assessments about TCOs by counting the arrests of all drug couriers as blows to the TCOs, implying or stating that immigrants and other illegal border crossers carrying varying amounts of marijuana (or in rare cases other illegal drugs) are transnational criminals. Since the creation of DHS, CBP, together with ICE, have also attempted to demonstrate that immigration and drug enforcement at the border and elsewhere is risk-based. Yet rather

than prioritizing focusing their intelligence gathering on likely foreign threats to the borders, the post-9/11 border security apparatus has quickly

returned to its traditional targeting of illegal drugs and unauthorized immigrants as dangerous goods and people, while recklessly labeling illegal border crossers as part of the operations of Mexican criminal organizations. The Border Patrol
should, as part of its risk-based and intelligence-driven strategy, maintain a near-exclusive focus on the TCO hierarchies and their enforcers. Likewise, the Border Patrol should end its characterization of all drug-trade networks as TCOs but instead focus on those designated as TCOs by the State Department. CBP, ICE and the Border Patrol have also used its post-9/11 commitment to risk-based enforcement to shift many immigrants into criminal categories, such as criminal aliens and fugitive aliens. In the borderlands and elsewhere, DHS has found broad support for its professed commitment to prioritize the arrest and deportation of the most dangerous immigrants, both those here legally and illegally. The widespread use of illegal recreational drugs in the United States combined with harsh anti-immigrant statutes have resulted in routine deportation of otherwise law-abiding legal immigrants for even minor drug violations, thereby making a travesty of the risk-based criteria. This all counts, in the estimation of DHS, as improved border security. The crossing of illegal drugs has long characterized the border and will continue to do so as long as there is a U.S. market for these substances. Currently, the Border Patrol routinely labels illegal border crossers carrying marijuana as being accomplices or members of TCOs, thereby demonstrating its lack of strategic focus. *Bipartisan Support for Border Security Deserves New Scrutiny* * *As

part of its stated determination to pursue risk-based border protection, the Border Patrol should deprioritize immigration enforcement. A credible risk-management process
cannot justify operations that make no distinction between truly dangerous individuals and ordinary immigrants seeking work and family reunification. The Border Patrol should instead target border bandits who prey upon vulnerable immigrants and the smugglers of truly dangerous illegal and prescription drugs. Marijuana is not a security threat, and there is mounting momentum for its decriminalization on both sides of the border. More than 95% of the Border Patrols drug war activities involve marijuana. This

is a waste of scarce government resources; it diverts DHS from actual security threats, and contributes to the unnecessary militarization of the border. Administratively, DHS could, and should, mandate that the Border Patrol end what is, in effect, its
strategic focus on the marijuana drug war.

Perception of strong border security is key to deterring terrorists Willis 10 (Henry H. Willis , Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis, Wayne P. Brown , Henry is the Director, RAND
Homeland Security and Defense Center; Senior Policy Researcher. Ph.D. from the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University.Sponsored by the DHS- RAND study, Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2010/RAND_TR837.pdf)
4.2.2 Contributions of Border Interdiction, Deterrence, and Networked Intelligence Th e principal contributions that border security makes to counterterrorism relate to preventing certain kinds of terrorist attacks dependent on ows into the country of people or materials. Th ese contributions can be illustrated by considering what opportunities exist to disrupt terrorist attacks while they are being planned and orchestrated. Th rough a number of planning e orts, DHS and its components have developed detailed planning scenarios of terrorist events (DHS, 2006). Each of these scenarios has been deconstructed into attack trees that are useful for considering how DHS border-security programs contribute to terrorism security e orts. In their most generic form, these attack trees specify dimensions of attack scenarios with respect to building the terrorist team, identifying a target, and acquiring a weapon (see Figure 4.1). Th is decomposition of attack planning provides a structure around which to consider how interdiction, deterrence, and networked intelligence contribute to preventing terrorist attacks and, thus, why it is relevant to measure these functions. DHS border-security e orts focus on interdiction of terrorist team members and weapons or weapon components when they cross U.S. borders. Examples of initiatives that are intended to enhance these capabilities include the Secure Border Initiative, the acquisition of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals for nuclear detection, the Secure Communities Initiative, and US-VISIT. In addition, it is often pointed out that, when

border-security measures are perceived to be eective, terrorists groups may be deterred from attacking in particular ways, or possibly from attacking at all .
Th is could result from awareness of what type of surveillance is occurring or the capability of interdiction systems. In either case, deterrence refers to the judgment of terrorists that they will not be successful, leading them to choose another course of action. Finally, many

border-security initiatives also contribute information to the national networked-intelligence picture.

For example, the Secure Communities Initiative has implemented new capabilities to allow a single submission of ngerprints as part of the normal criminal arrest and booking process to be queried against both the FBI and DHS immigration and terrorism databases. Th is e ort makes it easier for federal and local law enforcement to share actionable intelligence and makes it more di cult for terrorists to evade bordersecurity e orts. 4.2.3 Non-DHS Factors on Which Border-Security Outcomes Depend Th

e terrorist threat that border-security e orts must counter will be signi cantly in uenced by the e ectiveness of security, economic policy, military, diplomatic, and intelligence e orts targeting other aspects of terrorism. If terrorists
overseas are able to acquire signi cant quantities of weapon material or establish advanced counterintelligence capabilities, attack plans may easily overwhelm border-security e orts. If terrorists are successful at recruiting and building networks within the United States, bordersecurity e orts may never get the chance to interdict attacks. Similarly, the

perceptions that terrorists have about the di culty of entering the country could in uence decisions of how to organize and plan attacks. If borders are viewed as porous and open, terrorist groups can be expected to take advantage of this vulnerability. To the extent that border security is seen as presenting barriers to terrorist planning (especially barriers that include

substantial operational uncertainty), e

orts will create a deterrent e ect that could lead terrorists to shift to attacking interests outside the United States or attacking in di erent ways. Th e extent to which border security will be e ective at both interdicting and deterring terrorists will itself depend on a number of contextual factors, including the following:
material being smuggled: Is it possible to detect the material using noninvasive means (e.g., with nuclear detectors)? mode of travel: Will crossings be via air, land, or sea? environment and terrain: Will crossings occur during times when and at places where border security bene ts from good visibility or poor visibility? U.S. intelligence capabilities: Do expenditures on intelligence collection and analysis a ord border security the ability to anticipate terrorist incursion attempts? terrorist counterintelligence capabilities: Do terrorists have enough understanding of border-security tactics and techniques to be able to avoid them and to do so with considerable con dence? Th e answer to this, of course, will depend on the visibility and predictability of border-security systems and procedures. Th e measures used for evaluation of border-security e orts must be able to re ect some of these dependencies and factors that moderate the e effectiveness of border security.

Terrorists can get nukes- they exploit security gaps and have incentive Brill and Luongo 12 (KENNETH C. BRILL and KENNETH N. LUONGO, March 15, 2012, Kenneth C. Brill
is a former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A.Kenneth N. Luongo is president of the Partnership for Global Security. Both are members of the Fissile Material Working Group, a nonpartisan nongovernmental organization. Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-clear-danger.html?_r=0 MB ) Terrorists exploit gaps in security. The current global regime for protecting the nuclear materials that terrorists desire for their ultimate weapon is far from seamless. It is based largely on unaccountable, voluntary arrangements that are inconsistent across borders. Its weak links make it dangerous and inadequate to prevent nuclear terrorism. Later this month in Seoul, the more than 50 world leaders who will gather for the
second Nuclear Security Summit need to seize the opportunity to start developing an accountable regime to prevent nuclear terrorism. There is

the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, not a Hollywood confection. President Obama, the leaders of 46 other nations, the heads of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, and numerous experts have called nuclear terrorism one of the most serious threats to global security and stability. It is also preventable with more aggressive action. At least four terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, have demonstrated interest in using a nuclear device. These groups operate in or near states with histories of questionable nuclear security practices. Terrorists
a consensus among international leaders that

do not need to steal a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to make an improvised nuclear device from highly enriched uranium or plutonium being used for civilian purposes. And there is a black market in such material. There have been 18 confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable nuclear material . In 2011, the Moldovan police broke up part of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one member is thought to remain at large with a kilogram of this material . A terrorist nuclear explosion could kill hundreds of thousands, create billions of dollars in damages and undermine the global economy. Former Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear terrorism would thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty and create a second death toll throughout the developing world. Surely after such an event, global leaders would produce a strong global system to ensure nuclear security. There is
no reason to wait for a catastrophe to build such a system. The conventional wisdom is that domestic regulations, U.N. Security Council resolutions, G-8 initiatives, I.A.E.A. activities and other voluntary efforts will prevent nuclear terrorism. But existing

global

arrangements for nuclear security lack uniformity and coherence.

Risk of nuclear terrorism is high no acquisition barriers Bunn 7

Matthew Bunn, senior research director @ Harvard, Nuclear Threat Initiative, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401154.html Yes. Unfortunately,

terrorist use of a nuclear bomb is a very real danger.

During the 2004 presidential campaign,

President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) agreed that nuclear terrorism was

the single greatest threat to

U.S. national security . Published estimates of the chance that terrorists will detonate a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city over the
next ten years range from 1 percent to 50 percent. In a 2005 poll of international security experts taken by Senator Richard Lugar (R-

the median estimate of the chance of a nuclear attack in the next ten years was 29 percent -and a strong majority believed that it was more likely that terrorists would launch a nuclear attack than that a state would. Given the horrifying consequences of such an attack, even a 1 percent chance would be enough to call for rapid action to reduce the risk. What materials could terrorists
Ind.), use to make a nuclear bomb? To make a nuclear bomb requires either highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium. Neither of these materials occurs in nature, and producing either of them requires expensive facilities using complex technologies, almost certainly beyond the capability of terrorist groups. Hence, if all of the world's stockpiles of nuclear weapons, HEU and plutonium can be effectively protected and kept out of terrorist hands, nuclear terrorism can be prevented: no nuclear material, no bomb, no nuclear terrorism. How

Highly enriched uranium and plutonium are hard to make, but may not be so hard to steal. These raw materials of nuclear terrorism are housed in hundreds of facilities in dozens of countries -- some with excellent security, and some secured by nothing more than an underpaid guard and a chain link fence. There are no binding global standards setting out how well nuclear weapons and the materials needed to make them should be secured. Theft of the essential ingredients of nuclear weapons is not just a hypothetical worry, it is an ongoing reality . The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has documented 15 cases of theft of HEU or plutonium confirmed by the countries concerned (and there are additional well-documented cases that the countries involved have not yet been willing to confirm). In many of these cases, the thieves and smugglers were attempting to sell the material to anyone who would buy it -- and terrorist groups have been seeking to buy it. How much expertise is needed to make a nuclear
difficult would it be for terrorists to get the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb? bomb? Would a large operation be required? Unfortunately, government studies have concluded that once a terrorist organization had the needed nuclear material, a

handful of skilled individuals might be able to make a crude nuclear bomb using commercially available tools and equipment, without any large fixed facilities that might draw attention, and without access to classified nuclear weapons information. Getting nuclear material and making a crude nuclear bomb would be the most complex operation terrorists have ever carried out but the risk that a sophisticated group could pull it off is very real. Roughly 90 percent of the effort in the Manhattan Project was focused on
making nuclear bomb material; getting stolen nuclear material would allow terrorists to skip the hardest part of making a nuclear bomb. The simplest type of nuclear bomb, known as a "gun-type" bomb, slams two pieces of nuclear material together at high speed. The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, for example, was a cannon that fired a shell of HEU into rings of HEU. Plutonium cannot be used to make a gun-type bomb with a substantial explosive yield, because the neutrons that all plutonium emits cause the bomb to blow itself apart before the nuclear reactions proceeds very far. To make a bomb from plutonium would require a more complex "implosion-type" bomb, which would be more difficult for terrorists to build -- but government studies have repeatedly concluded that this possibility also cannot be ruled out. How much nuclear material would terrorists need to make a bomb? The amount of nuclear material needed to make a bomb depends on the material and the skill of the bomb-maker. A simple gun-type nuclear bomb would require approximately 50 kilograms of HEU -- an amount that would fit in a suitcase. Implosion-type bombs are more efficient, requiring less nuclear material.

bombs like the Nagasaki bomb can be made with 6 kilograms of plutonium or 15 kilograms of HEU. With these relatively small amounts, a terrorist group could potentially build a bomb with the power of thousands of tons of high explosive.
Unclassified estimates suggest that basic first-generation implosion-type Sophisticated nuclear weapon states can potentially make nuclear bombs with smaller amounts of nuclear material. Rather than stealing nuclear material and making a bomb, could terrorists steal and use an already assembled nuclear weapon? Possibly. Nuclear weapons are generally better secured than some stocks of HEU and plutonium are. Nevertheless, the United States is spending hundreds of millions of dollars beefing up security for its own nuclear weapons complex sites, and hundreds of millions more helping Russia improve security for its warhead sites. A stolen nuclear weapon might be very difficult for a terrorist group to detonate. Many nuclear weapons are equipped with electronic locks making it impossible to set off the weapon without putting in the appropriate code or figuring out a way to bypass the lock. Unfortunately, on older Russian tactical nuclear weapons, such locks are thought to be absent in some cases and relatively easily bypassed in others. U.S. strategic nuclear weapons also do not incorporate such locks, and some other countries' weapons may also lack them. In addition, modern nuclear weapons are typically equipped with devices that prevent the weapon from going off until it has passed through its expected flight sequence such as a period of rocket-powered flight followed by coasting through space and reentering the atmosphere, in the case of a long-range ballistic missile. While designed more for safety than security, these devices would also make it more difficult to detonate most stolen weapons. If terrorists could not figure out how to detonate a stolen weapon, they might choose to cut it open and use the nuclear material inside to try to make a bomb of their own. Are there "suitcase nukes" on the loose? Probably not. In the 1990s, Gen. Alexander Lebed, then the national security advisor to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, said that more than 100 nuclear weapons designed to be carried by one person so-called "suitcase nukes" could not be accounted for and might be missing. The Russian Ministry of Defense firmly denied that any weapons were missing, and Lebed ultimately backed off from his initial statements. Ultimately enough information was released to make a reasonably convincing case that none of these man-portable nuclear weapons were missing. It is clear, however, that both the United States and the Soviet Union did in

fact manufacture nuclear weapons designed to be carried and used by one or two people. In the United States, all such weapons have been dismantled, and some Russian statements indicate that the same is now true in Russia. Once a nuclear bomb or nuclear material

The amounts of HEU or plutonium needed for a bomb are small and easy to smuggle. These materials are not radioactive enough to require any special equipment to carry them, or to make them easy to detect. After they have left the site where they are supposed to be, they could be anywhere, and all the later lines of defense are
has been stolen, could we stop it from being smuggled? The chances would not be very good, unfortunately. variations on searching for needles in haystacks. With hundreds of millions of people and vehicles crossing U.S. borders every year, making sure no one gets in with a suitcase of potential bomb material is an immense challenge. Even if governments screened every container coming across their borders with a radiation detector, terrorists would not be likely to send their nuclear bomb material through one of the readily-observable radiation detectors, but would use one of the many other possible routes to avoid inspection. Moreover, if HEU was shielded with lead, detectors now being deployed would not be able to detect the weak radiation it emits (unless it was contaminated with the isotope U-232, and the detector was designed to look for the gamma rays from that decay chain). If the United States cannot stop the flow of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants across its borders, it is unlikely that it will succeed in stopping nuclear material. Even an assembled nuclear bomb might fit in the hold of a yacht, in a truck, or in a small plane. What would happen if terrorists set off a nuclear bomb in a major city?

Terrorist use of a nuclear bomb would be an historic

catastrophe.

US will retaliate HotAir 10; New Obama policy: No nuke retaliation for bio or chemical attack? Apr 5 2010;
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/05/new-obama-policy-no-nuke-retaliation-for-bio-or-chemical-attack-mr-obama%E2%80%99s-newstrategy-is-bound-to-be-controversial-both-among-conservatives-who-have-warned-against-diluting-america/ Unless Ive misunderstood, we

reserve the right to nuke the following, whether in self-defense or otherwise: (1) nuclear states, (2) non-nuclear states that are in violation of the NPT (i.e. Iran), (3) non-nuclear states that attack the U.S. with bioweapons, but only if they possess a stockpile large enough to pose a risk of a devastating strike. I hope Ive misunderstood that last one; the idea of Obama explaining to Americans that, yes, 50,000
people may be dead of smallpox but we cant nuke country X because they dont have a big enough stockpile of the virus yet is dark comedy gold. The idea here, of course, is deterrence comply with the NPT and you have nothing to fear but (a) no one, least of all Iran, thinks Barack Obamas going to use nuclear weapons against targets inside a non-nuclear state whether its following the NPT or not, and (b) everyone, including Iran, understands

that a devastating attack on the U.S. by whatever means will create such unbearable pressure on the president to retaliate that these rules will be revisited instantly. Its the nuclear equivalent of his interrogation protocol, essentially. America does not and will not torture captured terrorists as a matter of national policy but if the CIA really, truly believed that a bomb was about to go off somewhere, dont be surprised to see that policy politely ignored, to great public acclaim for Obama afterwards for having done what he needed to do to try to get the information. All this is, really, is a symbolic gesture of good faith to put pressure on Russia and China to reduce their own stockpiles. Why we think they can be trusted to do that,
especially when the United States is handing them a tactical advantage by reducing its own stockpiles unilaterally, is beyond me. But then its also beyond me why Obama would suspend development on any new forms of nuclear weapons, which the new policy also demands. New weapons, I assume, would be smaller and more precise, in the bunker-buster mold; theres certainly no pressing need for state-of-the-art 100megaton monsters when the

chief nuclear threat at the moment comes from small non-state groups like Al

Qaeda.

Nuclear terrorism escalates to major nuclear war resolving in the transfer period is key Ayson10
Robert Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, obtained via InformaWorld A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even

thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two catastrophic interstate

nuclear worldsa non-state actor nuclear attack and a nuclear exchangeare not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, todays and
tomorrows terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how

might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks, FN 40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that
nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important some indication of where the nuclear material came from.41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular,

if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washingtons relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States
was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?

Washingtons early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the countrys armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment
in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the Chechen insurgents long-standing interest in all things nuclear.42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide.There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither for us or against us) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing

for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it of nuclear thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How

may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of is subjected to an attack

terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russias use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russias traditional sphere of influence?
And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In

the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase how dare they tell us what to do
immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists.

This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint. FN 40. One way of reducing, but probably not eliminating, such a prospect, is further international cooperation on the control of existing fissile material holdings.

1AC US-Mexico Advantage

Advantage __ US-Mexico Relations US-Mexico relations are at a crossroads US engagement over immigration is key to bolster cooperation on other issues Shifter 13 (Michael, Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown
University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue, A More Ambitious Agenda February 2013 http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf\\CLans) US President Barack Obama was sworn in for his second four-year term on January 20, less than two months after Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto took office for a single term of six years. Their nearly concurrent inaugurations come at an especially auspicious moment for relations between the United States and Mexico. Today, more than at any time since the signing of the NAFTA treaty in 1992, the two nations have the opportunity to substantially upgrade their already robust economic partnership. Mexicos proposed
reform of its energy sector coupled with the oil and natural gas boom taking place in the United States are particularly promising. Together, they could bring North America closer than ever to energy independence. In light of the decisive role of the Latino vote in US elections, the

prospects are better than they have been in decades for a sensible reform of US immigration policy which should produce significant economic gains for both nations while easing a long-standing source of bilateral tension and mistrust. While some progress has been achieved in recent years, Mexico is still searching for more
effective strategies for battling organized crime and drug violence. Though the United States and Mexico do not always agree on the right approach, the extensive bilateral collaboration between security and police agencies is unprecedentedwith both governments recognizing public security as a shared responsibility. Bilateral cooperation is also increasing on regional and global issues. Challenges to democracy and human rights, the growing security threats in Central America, reforming multilateral organizations, the building of new trade partnerships worldwide, and problems of nuclear non- proliferation and climate change are just a few of the issues that deeply concern both countries.

Even if the two countries disagree on many of these matters, they remain natural partners. Indeed, the United States and Mexico can best meet the current challenges of global instability and uncertainty by stepping up efforts toward economic integration. More than anything else, this report of a special Inter-American Dialogue
Commission is a call to presidents Obama and Pea Nieto and their administrations to recognize the enhanced opportunities they have to forge cooperative approaches to the multiple challenges their two countries faceand make the most out of the four years they have to work together to address them. Their

most important priority should be to deepen their economic partnership, increase the productivity and international competitiveness of both nations, open opportunities for longterm growth and job creation, and set the stage for further economic integration

Guest worker program is a pre-requisite to stronger US-Mexican relations status quo immigration approaches make coop impossible Cieslik 11 (Thomas, Institute of Political Science and Social Research, University of Wrzburg, Beyond
the MridaInitiative: the future of security cooperation between the United States and Mexico August 18, 2011 http://www.wiscnetwork.org/porto2011/papers/WISC_2011-670.pdf\\Clans) Therefore, it is important that the Mexican and U.S. government intensify their cooperation on all binational levels. Because U.S.Mexican security collaboration depends heavily on goodwill and ad hoc initiatives, rather than institutionalized mechanisms, there is an unfortunate lack of consistency and continuity (EdmondosPoli, Shirk 2009:
367p.). That does mean that both governments develop sustainable institutions and instruments in order to combat successfully against crime and terrorism. The U.S.Mexican border has become the battlefield for human, arm and drug trafficking. Next year, when the presidential elections will be held in Mexico (July) and the United States (November) it is likely that electoral campaigns demand more political rhetoric in the emphasis on domestic issues; candidates and the later presidents, however, must strengthen the bilateral cooperation in order to cope with drug trafficking related crime. If

Mexico would turn into a failing state and the drug war would significantly spill over onto U.S. territory the U.S.security national interests is threatened like the terror attacks

from September 11, 2001. It is in

the national interest of the United States to support the economic development of its neighbor, its democratic transformation process and the establishment of the rule of law. It would be helpful to review the recommendations of the Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations on immigration policy where it demands that the most important positive signal that the United States can send to Mexico is to broaden the current narrow focus in enforcement, and to reengage with the issue of comprehensive immigration reform (CFR 2009: 111). And the same Council on Foreign Relations came to the conclusion that the failures of U.S. immigration policy affect national security, economic growth, and foreign relations. The status quo fails even to meet the most basic objective of guaranteeing proper documentation of visitors and noncitizen residents. It concentrates almost solely on the U.S.Mexico border, despite the fact that nearly half of unauthorized workers in the United States enter legally through other ports and overstay their visa (CFR 2008: 47). Both countries would become the beneficiaries of an immigration reform that includes temporary visa and a legalization processing the framework of a deeper NAFTA integration process. Nevertheless, as long as a common immigration policy has not been defined yet, border security will dominate the future political agenda of the U.S.Mexican relations.
Within the Council on Foreign Relations recommend to support a binding international arms trade treaty that establishes international standards, to work closely with Mexican authorities to regulate foreign exchange companies (casas de cambio) in order to prevent money laundering, to improve the monitoring of border flows from the United States to Mexico, to create a system similar to the CIA based Foreign terrorist Asset Tracking Group for the dissemination of intelligence, diplomatic, regulatory and law enforcement information, and finally to collaborate in dismantling transnational gangs(CFR 2008: 63p.). And if the MridaInitiative should achieve such successes like the Colombia Plan did after many years, the United States should in spite of its budget cuts invest its free (military) resources from the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq in its Homeland and Borderland Security fostering the funds of the MridaInitiative. Indeed, though border surveillance and more militarization might restrict individual rights and control the (il)legal

immigration, the necessary political cooperation might boost integration on the long run toward a more united North America in economy and politics that could live in peace, wealth and security on both sides of the border.

Immigration is the lynchpin for spillover to relations on other issues Diaz & Selee 10 (Alberto Diaz-CayerosPhD in Political Science @ Duke; MA in political science @
Duke; Fellow at the Center for US-Mexican Studies and the Latin American Regional Concentration Program // Andrew SeleePhD in Policy Studies @ University of Maryland-College Park; MA in Latin American Studies @ UC San Diego; BA in Latin American Studies @ Washington University in St. Louis; He serves as the vice President for Programs at the Wilson International Center for Scholars // Mexico and the United States: The Possibilities of Partnership Published in April 2010) //L Shen
Even more important than binational civic networks, however, is the way that civic organizations in each country influence key policy arenas that affect relations with the other country, although generally without any intention to affect U.S.-Mexico relations as such. The

rise of Latino political influence in the United States, for example, has influenced many politicians views in that country on immigration policy. 49 Anti-immigration organizations that want to restrict immigration also play a huge role on this
issue. Both have significant social bases within different communities, and the interplay between their efforts and elected officials political calculations is at the heart of the schizophrenic decision-making in the U.S. Congress and many states and localities on immigration-related issues. The

politics of immigration influences other issues in U.S.-Mexico relations , including politicians

willingness to support other kinds of cooperation with Mexico. 50 The growing weight of Mexican migrants in internal politics within Mexico, often more symbolic than real, is also at the heart of Mexican politicians frequent trips to the United States and declarations about U.S. immigration reform . One large unknown question is how, in the long-term, the growing Mexican-origin population will influence U.S.-Mexico relations. There is some evidence that U.S. citizens and residents of Mexican origin do have an interest in bilateral relations between the countries. 52 It also appears that many U.S. elected officials with constituents of Mexican origin believe that showing an interest in Mexico is good local politics. This tendency is likely to increase as the number of U.S. citizen voters of Mexican origin grows over time, and this may well shape overall citizen opinions towards Mexico in the future. In Mexico, on the other hand, there are increasing signs that greater interdependence and perhaps most significantly the number of Mexicans with
relatives and close friends abroad has already changed attitudes towards the United States. A study conducted by CIDE suggests that

average Mexicans have quite pragmatic ideas about the relationship with the United States, much more

so than political elites. 53 This

overwhelmingly pragmatic attitude is likely to increase over time, increasingly shaping the attitudes of political elites as well. However, Mexicans personal engagement with the United States also
means that attempts to criminalize immigrants in the United States and incidents involving violence against them often produces broad emotional responses that can undermine public trust in the relationship with the United States. In short, the growing number of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the United States is likely to continue to heighten the political salience of U.S.-Mexico relations in both countries far into the future although the exact direction this may influence policy is as yet uncertain.

Nieto administration reducing cooperation now plan reverses that cooperation is key Schaefer 13 (Agnes Gereben Schaefer, 5/29/13; Senior political scientist and professor at Pardee RAND graduate school; If
U.S.-Mexico Get Security Right, Other Good Policy Will Follow; http://www.rand.org/blog/2013/05/if-us-mexico-get-securityright-other-good-policy.html)
But while

security will remain central to the U.S.-Mexico relationship, the two sides may well change how they handle it. The new Pea Nieto administration is re-evaluating Mexico's recent close cooperation on security. The new Mexican leader's overall security strategy is evolving, but he has embarked on some important reforms to defense institutions. Pea Nieto has called for a more centralized approach to security issues that would eliminate inefficiencies and redundancies across government agencies. He is also pushing to develop a new National Intelligence Agency similar to the U.S. Office of the Director of
National Intelligence set up after the 9/11 Commission to quarterback the U.S. intelligence community that would streamline Mexico's intelligence collection and analysis, which is now conducted by many disparate agencies. The

most important unanswered question is how involved Pea Nieto and his Institutional Revolutionary Party want the U.S. to be in future efforts to decrease drug-related violence. Some Mexican leaders and commentators are calling for the U.S. to back off, and some are explicitly asking to roll back the cooperative mechanisms of the past several years. As Pea Nieto refines his national security strategy, he will need to navigate these domestic pressures and, ultimately, decide how much U.S. assistance he will consider, and in what form. Pea Nieto isn't the only one facing domestic pressures, of course. Obama could almost hear the heated debates in Congress on
immigration reform and border security from Mexico City. So the two leaders emphasized economic cooperation at their summit not because security issues have gone away, but because the new rules of the game in this nascent relationship between Obama and Pea Nieto are evolving. Economic cooperation is of course also exceedingly important. The United States is still Mexico's largest trading partner. In 2011, U.S. trade with Mexico totaled $500 billion, and Mexico was the United States' second-largest goods export market in 2012. But let's not assume that economic issues will displace security issues at the top of the U.S-Mexico agenda. Because security

issues are not going away, the two sides need to tackle them as best they can . The Obama and Pea Nieto administrations should build on the unprecedented levels of cooperation developed over the past six years and if they get security right, they will be far better-positioned to broaden the relationship to focus on other issues such as economics, energy and the environment. If the two sides continue to invest together in security today, they may find themselves with far more opportunities for broader cooperation tomorrow.

US-Mexico relations are key to Latin American democracy Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnolgico
Autnomo de Mxico and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Caldern; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)
At the same time the after the global

global context has changed. The U.S. faces post-9/11 security needs and the challenge of creating jobs economic crisis. Both give the U.S. reason to work more closely with its Mexican and Canadian

neighbors since together they buy nearly one-third of all U.S. exports and are partners in securing the region. Participants in the Sunnylands Process agreed
that no single issue should dominate the bilateral agenda. In the past, incoming administrations normally prioritized a single issue whether violence, migration, or tradeas the focus for U.S.- Mexico relations. Today, however, the

relationship has matured sufficiently that the two countries are in a position to work together across a range of complex and interconnected issues that could improve the

quality of life for citizens in both countries while also engaging each other on key global challenges. Achieving

progress on any one issue would likely facilitate progress on the others, and a greater focus on the major opportunities for partnership on issues like trade and economic competitiveness could improve the tone of a relationship that has recently focused on addressing the challenges of security and migration. Continued and deepened security cooperation within the framework of shared responsibility is vital as Mexico struggles to overcome the scourge of organized crime and to build the rule of law, while the U.S. depends on its neighbors as part of its homeland security strategy. Nonetheless, the economic
relationship should be at the heart of bilateral relations as the United States recovers from the global financial crisis and Mexico seeks to move from a middleincome to a high-income country within a generation. Labor mobility and human capital development, integral to growth in both countries, also remain important challenges. Both

countries should engage much more on global issues, particularly trade agreements, the global financial

architecture, and strengthening democracy in the hemisphere. Finally, the United States and Mexico continue to face the important challenge of building greater understanding between their people as the two countries move ever closer.

Latin America is a key model for global democracy Perry Bacon Jr, 3-21-2011, "Obama lauds Latin American democracies as role models for the Middle
East," Washington Post, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-03-21/world/35207771_1_historyand-gain-clarity-pinochet-era-obama-administration, accessed 5-10-2013 Can the Middle East learn from Latin America? On his tour of Central and South America, President Obama has repeatedly lauded many of the regions countries for shifting from dictatorships to democracies over the past two decades. In a speech Monday, he invoked Chiles rise from the Pinochet era to a democracy. A day earlier, in Brazil, Obama said its transition could be a model for countries in the Middle East and North Africa where a historic wave of popular uprisings has surprised authoritarian governments in that region and the Obama administration itself. The lessons of Latin America can be a guide for people around the world who are beginning their own journeys toward democracy, Obama said in a speech at an art museum in the capital city of Santiago. With decades of experience, theres so much Latin America now can share, how to build political parties and organize free elections, how to ensure peaceful transfers of power and how to navigate the winding paths of reform and reconciliation.

Extinction Larry Diamond, democracy expert @ Carnegie, October 1995, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s,
http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01.html OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they

respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

Democracy solves all major wars, terrorism, environmental destruction, and prolif Kenneth Wollack, President of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, 2008,
Democracy promotion: Serving U.S. Values and Interests, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 102, No. 1. Needless to say, threats to American interests still exist. They include international terrorism; economic competition that could produce dangerous regional trade blocs and trade wars; environmental degradation reaching crisis proportions; the proliferation of weapons, both conventional and nuclear; and ethnic and national conflicts that could lead to war. These threats and others may not be easy to encapsulate in the publics mind, but any one of them could affect, fundamentally, our way of life what Tom Friedman would call our flat world.1 And together they constitute ample reason for an engaged America in the international arena. The answer to todays threats is not to win a metaphorical war against a single adversary. The answer lies in creating an overall environment in which international cooperation is emphasized, and in which conflict can be managed and terrorism effectively confronted militarily, economically, and politically. In this context, foreign assistance is not only a charitable endeavor, but also an exercise in enlightened self-interest and the promotion of democracynot some idealistic crusade, but rather quintessentially an exercise in realpolitik. Nothing better serves the interests of this country economic, political, or ideologicalthan the promotion of democratic practices and institutions. A more democratic world is not simply a more orderly and humane place: It is a more peaceful and prosperous place. The notion that there should be a dichotomy between our moral preferences and our strategic goals is a false one. Our ultimate foreign policy goal is a world that is secure, stable, humane, and safe, where the risk of war is minimal. Yet, the undeniable reality is that the geostrategic hotspots most likely to erupt into violence are found, for the most part, in areas of the world that are nondemocratic, or where governments are antidemocratic. Even from the traditional foreign assistance perspective, the establishment of democratic institutions has been found to assure sustainable development. Deforestation, rural dislocation, environmental degradation, and agricultural policies that lead to famine all trace to political systems in which the victims have no political voice; in which government institutions feel no obligation to answer to the people; and in which special interests feel free to exploit the resources, land, and people without fear of oversight or the need to account. Terrorism and political extremism pose an immediate security threat that must be confronted directly and forcefully. Concurrently, there must be a new urgency in the promotion of the rule of law, pluralism, and the respect for human rights. Democracy and human rights are not only ideals to be pursued by all nations; they are also pragmatic tools that are powerful weapons against extremism.

1AC Solvency
Guest worker program solves farm labor shortages and border security Todd Staples, The Express-News, 3-8-2013, "U.S. needs strong guest worker program," San Antonio
Express-News, http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/U-S-needs-strong-guestworker-program-4340209.php Let's use pencil and paper to solve our immigration problem, rather than badges and bullets. This will enable our law enforcement to better focus on drug-running terrorists, with the net result being a more secure border and a better knowledge of who is
really in our country. The real problem and solution when it comes to border security is more about policy than criminal prosecution. It's about our broken immigration system that fails

provide a win-win for U.S. taxpayers and guest workers. Our nation needs to find a safe and legal way to welcome those willing to fill the jobs the domestic labor market has not filled. Let's be honest: No Americans are relocating to the Rio Grande Valley to pick grapefruit. In California, strawberries are going unpicked. In Washington last year, apples were dropping to the ground. Why? Because we have too few workers to pick them. Meanwhile, law enforcement is placed in the unworkable situation of having to treat all undocumented individuals hiding in the brush as though they are deadly threats. And while our federal, state and local law enforcement personnel are capable of defending our communities from the drug cartels, they are grossly outnumbered by the combined population of cartels and undocumented workers. With a viable mechanism in place to welcome guest workers, law enforcement officials could reasonably suspect that anyone still trying to enter our country in a covert manner is either seeking to do harm or at the very least blatantly willing to flout our laws. Either way, that individual should be subjected to custody and the letter of the law,
to not bureaucratic guesswork and the loopholes of red tape.

Current H-2A visa fails its too bureaucratic and only drives more illegal immigration Mcneill 09 [Jean Baker Mcneill;June 30, 2009; Ag JOBs Amnesty: The Wrong Way to Help American Agriculture; Senior Policy Analyst at
the Heritage Foundation and Senior Professional Staff Member at United States Senate; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/ag-jobs-amnesty-the-wrong-way-to-help-american-agriculture]

The H-2A visa was designed as temporary, non-immigrant visa to allow foreign nationals to enter the U.S. and work on farms and in other seasonal jobs in order to fulfill the workforce needs of U.S. agriculture. Currently, however, only an estimated 75,000 workers are in the H-2A program. The reason: It is simply too bureaucratic and expensive for employers to use it effectively. The current method by which the Department of Labor calculates wages is flawed, resulting in inflated wages that are higher for H-2A workers than for American employees. Furthermore, employers must file paperwork with multiple departments, identify specific workers when filing a petition with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and then wait for months. This long process often means that workers are no longer available when the visas are granted. The H-2A program's problems reduce employers' incentives to hire employees legally. Often employers wind up hiring illegal immigrants as employees instead--making illegal border crossings all the more attractive, because illegal immigrants know there will be work whey they get to the United States.

CIR doesnt solve the case tanks the US ag industry and ensures agricultural offshoring that undermines US food security Dan Wheat, 6-28-2013, Immigration passes Senate but faces steeper hill in House, Capital Press,
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/djw-immigration-062813 Many agricultural groups issued laudatory statements about Senate passage of immigration reform, but a key ag lobbyist says he's growing less optimistic daily about any bill passing the House. "We saw Republicans in the House pay no attention to what the Senate does and no attention to what their leadership does with the Farm Bill," said Tom Nassif, president and CEO of Western Growers Association, Irvine, Calif. "Even though Speaker (John) Boehner voted for it his chairmen voted against

it," Nassif said, "and I don't think the Farm Bill is as difficult to resolve as immigration." Others in the Agricultural Workforce Coalition are probably just as concerned as he is, he said. S. 744 passed 68-32 on June 27. If bills from both chambers aren't in a conference committee before the August congressional recess, there's a good chance immigration reform will die, Nassif said. Other issues like budgets and the debt ceiling will overshadow immigration for the rest of the year, and mid-term elections in 2014 make it unlikely anything will happen then, he said. If immigration reform fails, the exodus of vegetable producers from the American Southwest to Mexico, Latin America, the Middle East, South Africa and China will accelerate, he said. "If the U.S. wants to be a producing nation and feed its own without having to be dependent on foreign countries that may not like us and use food as a leverage point, immigration reform needs to happen," Nassif said. Agricultural components of the Senate bill remain unchanged since the bill was introduced, Nassif said. Key parts are a blue card or temporary legal status for experienced farmworkers and a new agricultural visa program to meet future labor needs, said Kristi Boswell, director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation. Both of those elements are needed and the problem with tying legal status to future votes determining border security, as Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and others are talking about, is that it doesn't solve the urgent and immediate need of a shortage of farmworkers, Nassif said.

CIR cant solve agriculture uncapped is key Helen Krieble, chair for Center for Opportunity, Protection and Fariness, 6-10-2013, Senate's
immigration 'gang' will bungle guest worker quotas, Mercury News, http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23429033/senates-immigration-gang-will-bungle-guestworker-quotas The latest Gang of Eight senators have proposed an immigration reform bill that could only have been drafted in secret, because anyone else could have told them their plan would never work. The 867-page bill would create another new government bureaucracy, the Immigration and Labor Market Research Bureau, headed by a political appointee and charged with determining the number of workers needed by a wide range of businesses in future years as if any government agency could ever know that. And just to be sure the Gang of Eight pleased all its favorite interest groups, it didn't leave those decisions entirely to the new bureau, but instead wrote specific quotas into the law itself: Agriculture gets 337,000 visas; construction gets 15,000; high-tech industries get 115,000; other specifically named industries get 200,000. Small businesses that don't fit into these defined categories get none. Now the Gang of Eight is busily trying to silence opposition, declaring that skeptics will be left behind as this freight train leaves the station. Its members are working hard to defeat the dozens of amendments the bill was sure to face once others finally started reading it. A system in which government determines what types of businesses are eligible for visas, and how many workers they all need, cannot work. The current system which nearly everyone agrees is badly broken is based on that same flawed premise. That's why the number of H-2B seasonable workers is capped at 66,000, even though there are several million such workers in the U.S. (which is why most are working illegally). That's why the alphabet soup of visa programs includes A-3 visas for foreign diplomats, B-1 for nannies, H-1A for agricultural workers, P for athletes, and dozens of others. It's why we have F-1 visas for students, but J-1 for professors. It's a mess, and it's why we have more than 12 million people in the U.S. illegally. Why shouldn't all businesses, big and small, have a level playing field where employers and the free market not government bureaucracy &mdsash; determine how many guest workers are needed? Even the all-powerful Gang of Eight can never repeal the law of supply and demand. If they only allow 200,000 guest workers and the economy needs 250,000, the rest will come illegally perpetuating the very problem Congress is trying to solve.

CIR cant solve immigration Jacoby 6-11 - Tamar Jacoby is known primarily for her writing on immigration-related issues. She is also president and CEO of
ImmigrationWorks USA (Guest Workers Are the Best Border Security, 6/11/13, WSJ, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324634304578535823045836956.html)
With the Senate beginning debate this week on the immigration reform bill, border security will be one of the most contentious issues. Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) argues at every opportunity that "immigration

reform hinges on border security," and he isn't wrong. But physical control of the border can go only so far in preventing illegal immigration. At least as important is finding a way for immigrants to work here legally. That's where a guest-worker program is crucial. The U.S. workforce is changing. Americans are having smaller
families, and birthrates are well below replacement level. Baby boomers are retiring: 10,000 leave the workforce every day. Younger workers coming up behind them are much more educated than earlier generations. In 1950, according to the Census Bureau, 56% of U.S. workers were high-school dropouts. Today, the figure is less than 5%. The result is that the pool of people available to fill low-skilled jobs has shrunk dramatically. It is not so much that the native born don't want to work as busboys, farmhands or nurse's aides. But the overwhelming majority of Americans are now overqualified for these jobs and have other options. Meanwhile,

less-skilled immigrants with no family in the U.S. have no wayno access to a visa programto enter the country legally and work in year-round jobs. This is why so many immigrants have flowed into the country illegally in recent
decades and remain here, underground. The challenge facing Congress is to create a better system one that works for willing immigrant workers and willing employers, replaces the current illegal influx with a legal labor force, and protects the rights of Americans who are looking for low-skilled jobs. The

workervisa program in the Senate bill meets most of these tests. Participating employers must first try to hire American workers, recruiting widely and offering a decent wage. If they can't, the program gives them a way to hire foreign workers easily, quickly and legally. The work visas
in the Senate bill bear little resemblance to traditional guest-worker programs, which generally tie the worker to one employer, opening the door to exploitation and an inefficient labor market. Instead, under the Senate proposal, an immigrant here on a work visa can quit any time and go to work for any other U.S. employer that has been approved to participate in the program. Business owners get access to a more flexible labor force, including the possibility of hiring in real time without going back to the government for approval. The

size of the guest-worker program is designed to adjust automatically in response to changing U.S. labor needs, growing in good years when the economy needs more foreign workers and shrinking when more Americans are out of work. Finally, unlike most guestworker programs, the Senate proposal recognizes that some participants will want to stay in the U.S. when their visas have expired. Those who have done well while on temporary visaslearning English, developing new skills, moving up on the job, putting down roots in their communitymay apply to stay permanently. This

is a win-win for the immigrants and for the U.S., combining the benefits of a temporary worker program with those of the nation's traditional way of immigrationthe melting-pot model based on permanent residence
and assimilation. The one area where the Senate proposal falls short: It's almost surely too small to address the country's future labor needs. In the early 2000s, when the economy was booming, more than 350,000 unauthorized Mexicans entered the U.S. every year to fill low-skilled jobs for which there were not enough Americans. The downturn eased this demand somewhat, but it's now picking up again. If

the trends of recent decades resume, the Senate proposal won't be big enough to divert future illegal immigration. In its first year, the Senate's guest-worker program will be capped at 20,000 visas. It will grow over time in response to market demand but is capped at 200,000 workers annually. The danger is that if there aren't enough visas to meet U.S. labor needs, the program won't prevent illegal immigration in years ahead. The best antidote to illegal immigration is a legal immigration system that works. The Senate's visa program is a good start. The challenge now, for the House or the Senate, is to scale up the Senate model so it can work in years to
come.

We dont link to their exploitation DA making the visas portable solves the problem and the impact is non-unique Alex Nowrasteh, 1-29-2013, "Immigration plan does only half the job," Reuters,
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/29/immigration-plan-does-only-half-the-job/, accessed 5-10-2013 Now unions say they oppose a guest-worker visa program to protect these workers from abuse. But unauthorized workers are going to come in any case, so preventing a guest-worker program can only place them in a black market where employer abuse, backed up by the threat of deportation, is far worse. If unions are honestly concerned about guest-worker abuse, the solution is making the visa portable and not tied to one employer. A World War I guest-worker visa let guest workers quit their jobs and be hired by approved employers. Guest workers simply had to tell the government about their new employer after they were hired not seek permission before switching jobs. The best labor protection is a workers ability to quit a job without legal sanction. If the government could create such a guest-worker visa program 100 years ago, there is no reason why it cannot be revived today. As long as there is economic opportunity here, immigrants

legal or not will come. An immigration bill that does not create a vehicle for legal migrants to enter the country is not real reform.

Case Extensions

Inherency

CIR Doesnt Include Guest Workers

Immigration reform might not include a guest worker program at all only the aff removes incentives for illegal immigration Christine Pratt, 7-4-2013, Reform with no guest workers could cost growers 70 percent of workforce,
Wenatchee World, http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2013/jul/04/reform-with-no-guestworkers-could-cost-growers-70-percent-of-workforce/ Tighter border security without a provision for an agile, workable guest worker program could result in a 70 percent decline in the seasonal labor force for the regions orchardists. Thats the figure that worries the local tree
fruit industry, as a bill for comprehensive immigration reform cleared the U.S. Senate last week and now enters a tougher fight in the House of Representatives. U.S. senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and immigrant advocates last week hailed the Senate passage of the bipartisan Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, which includes provisions favored by Republicans to toughen border security and create a mandatory system to verify job applicants migratory status. It would also create an agile visa and contract-labor program for ag workers and path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. issues important to democrats. And thats all good, local industry officials say. If it all comes together as hoped. If we get immigration reform, it wouldnt matter how tight the borders are, because there would be an effective guest worker program, West Mathison, president of Stemilt Growers, said Tuesday of the proposed federal legislation. We believe that for seasonal work needs, the majority of work would be done by guest workers. Thats part of why I truly think this is comprehensive and that they are truly looking at all aspects. I dont have a fear it would jeopardize future workforce needs. But congressional

vetting often produces laws that are not as originally conceived. Tighter security without guest-worker assurance could decimate the current labor force. But, by how much? Thats the wild card in all of this and the thing that concerns the tree-fruit industry, said Kirk Mayer, manager of the Washington Growers
Clearinghouse, an orchardists trade group. Tree fruit is very, very labor intensive and is the largest employer of seasonal agricultural workers in the state. Mayer said that some federal and state reports have estimated that as much of 70 percent of the total seasonal workforce is made up of undocumented workers. That would amount to about 50,000 fewer workers to pick the states cherries, apples and pears. The tree fruit industry recognizes that part of the reform package has to improve border security and document verification, Mayer said. The

legislation looks good on the surface, but there are always discussions going on. The association hasnt taken
a position on the current reform bill, but Mayer said theyll support an immigration law that legalizes experienced farm workers who have been in the country and provides an ag-worker visa and contract programs that allow at-will, eager laborers to come here, work for the season and go back to their home countries when the work is finished. The countrys current solution, the H2A contract-worker program, is complex, expensive and not agile enough to respond to the unpredictabilities of the ag business, Mayer said. But for big fruit companies, including Wenatchees McDougall & Sons, its become the norm for seasonal orchard work. Scott McDougall, the companys orchard division manager, said 95 percent of the companys seasonal workforce is on the job under H2A contracts. He said he would welcome the reform, but doesnt expect it would change the way they do business very much. For us, even if they tighten border security, well still be very heavily reliant on continuing the H2A, he said. We have less than 5 percent of workers who are domestic hires. He added, Its almost too cos tly for small growers to be a part of. Im sympathetic to that... If youre a farmer, and you depend on that labor force for your livelihood, thats where your frustration is, regardless of the party. Replacing workers who dont qualify for employment will be crucial. If the current, unauthorized workforce shrinks, there needs to be a flexible enough tool to let employers fill those voids, Mayer said. If

you have a good visa program, it wont be as attractive for the individuals to cross the border illegally. Theyre only doing that because there is no viable visa program in place. State Sen. Linda Evans Parlette, R-Wenatchee, isnt involved in the
federal immigration debate, but said shes fielded angry phone calls from a few constituents who oppose reforms and legalization. I dont look at this as a Republican or Democratic issue, she said Tuesday. Its an issue long overdue in being resolved. Youve come here for a better life and work. We have to deal with this issue.

got to have a

reliable, legal, stable workforce. There has to be a legal way for people to come to this country and work and then go home... They

CIR doesnt include a guest worker program Narvette, 2/19 - Ruben Navarrette is a CNN contributor and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers
Group (Guest worker issue may kill immigration reform, 2/19/13, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/opinion/navarrette-immigrationreform)

All those who are hoping that comprehensive immigration reform is going to happen this year -- Latinos, businesses, churches, agriculture industry, law enforcement and others -- are in for a rude awakening. The trick for politicians will be
to look as if they're doing something, when really they're doing nothing. But, regardless of how it looks, it's a long shot that Congress will pass immigration reform this year. That's bad news for those who want to give the undocumented a chance to get right with the law and develop a sensible, fair and efficient policy for future immigrants. But it's good news for those who resist legalizing the undocumented because they're afraid of foreigners -- either because of competition with their work ethic, or that they're changing the culture and complexion of the country. Is enforcement key to fixing America's immigration system? The problem isn't just Republicans, who can't get on the same page about whether

they want to be reformers. It's also Democrats, who seem to be playing the immigration reform camp for chumps. The signs are everywhere, if you know where to look. For instance, a few days ago, a draft of President Obama's immigration reform plan

was leaked. It took four border security, a requirement that employers use an electronic system to verify if prospective hires are eligible to work, and a long path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Obama's immigration plan leaked Obama: Harvest immigrants' talents How long? The undocumented could immediately
years to write, and yet its key points fit on a cocktail napkin with room to spare. Here's what is in the plan: more apply for a special protective status to avoid deportation, but it would take them about eight years to get legal permanent residency (a green

Here's what is not in the plan: a guest worker program . Republicans have repeatedly insisted that this needs to be in the mix for them to vote for any reform package. The fact that it was left out tells us that Obama isn't serious about reform and ensures that his plan would be, as Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said, "dead on arrival" in Congress. The idea would be to bring in a few hundred thousand temporary "guest workers" to do the hard and dirty jobs that Americans won't do at any wage. When the work is done, and the workers have been paid a fair salary, they go home. And another batch is
card) and another four or five years to become a U.S. citizen. brought in. It's not a perfect solution. But you won't find any of those in the immigration debate. The first U.S. president to push for guest workers was Abraham Lincoln. Industries were facing labor shortages during the Civil War and, with Lincoln's support, Congress in 1864 passed The Act to Encourage Immigration. The bill allowed employers to recruit foreign workers and pay their way to America. There were more guest workers during World War I. But the concept really became popular during World War II and the Cold War. From 1942 to 1964, under the Bracero program (as in "brazo", which is Spanish for arm as in someone who works with his arms and hands), nearly 5 million guest workers came in and out of the United States. In fact, arguably, the reason the Braceros stopped coming was because journalist Edward R. Murrow -- in the 1960 CBS documentary, "Harvest of Shame" -- exposed the horrible treatments the workers received at the hands of employers, including low wages, unsanitary conditions, dilapidated housing, etc. Congress pulled the plug soon thereafter. But exploitation

doesn't have

to be part of the deal, and not every guest worker program is run as badly as that one. There are apple
growers in Washington State who don't have to scramble for pickers at harvest time because the same crews return every year. The growers lure them back by paying decent wages and providing clean living quarters. Everyone is happy. Well, maybe not everyone. Many in organized labor hate the concept of guest workers because their leaders are busy peddling the fantasy that the hard and dirty jobs in question are sought after by union members. Sure. Then why aren't they doing them now? Answer: Because they're hard and dirty. It's

time for Congress to create a new guest worker program for the agriculture industry where employees can have decent wages, access to health clinics, livable housing, workers comp in case of injury, and legal protection so that they aren't
exploited. Of course, there's the catch. If growers have to pay for all that, labor economists say, it might well kill the incentive for them to participate. But it's those same growers who are now complaining that they aren't able to find American workers who are willing to pick a variety of crops that can't be harvested by machine -- peaches, plums, apples, lettuce, tomatoes, avocadoes, nectarines, strawberries, blueberries, apricots, table grapes, etc. So those employers will have to make some tough choices. If they want a reliable labor supply, it'll cost them. That's the way it should be. There is no free lunch. Either way,

it's a guest workers program that will make or break the prospects for immigration reform. I'm betting it's the latter.

AT: CIR Solves The Aff

CIR guest worker program is inadequate still has a cap and doesnt meet labor demand or solve illegal immigration WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]
The good news is that the

Gang of Eight bill replaces the H-2A visa with a more rational guest-worker program. It would create a more flexible "W" visa that would last three years and allow workers to change employers. The new program would be administered by the Department of Agriculture, which has traditionally been less subject to union manipulation than
the Labor Department. Enlarge Image Bloomberg News A worker carries boxes of packed vegetables at Swank Specialty Produce farm in Loxahatchee, Florida, U.S., on Wednesday, May 8, 2013. Meanwhile, current unauthorized workers would be able to obtain legal status with a new blue card, and after paying taxes in addition to a $400 fine would be eligible for a green card after five years and ultimately citizenship. This would give certainty to employers who now live under constant threat of audits by the Labor Department and raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Workers lost in these shakedowns aren't easily replaced. The

problem is that in return for these improvements, labor unions demanded a cap on new guest workers of 337,000 over five years. That isn't likely to fill the needs of an industry in which labor shortages run as high as 20%, depending on the location and crop. The guest-worker flow ought to follow labor demand, not have an artificial cap that might still allow a shortage that would attract more future illegals.

Farmers think the CIR version of guest workers is inadequate WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]

The Senate begins floor debate on immigration reform next week, and our hope is that it can improve the Gang of Eight bill that emerged from the Judiciary Committee with the U.S. economy foremost in mind. One place to start is ending America's farm-worker shortage. Farm growers have reluctantly (and under Democratic pressure) endorsed the Gang of Eight's framework, flaws and all, because they desperately need more workers. Although there's currently no cap on agriculture visas, only 5% of the country's two million farm workers are employed under the current and very onerous H-2A visa program. One reason is because H-2A visas are only good for a year and don't allow workers to change jobs. The fast-twitch bureaucrats at the Labor
Department also must certify that U.S. workers aren't available to do the job, so workers arrive late if they arrive at all.

CIR guest worker program is inadequate forces returns which disrupt farm operations WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]
Related Video Americas columnist Mary Anastasia OGrady on how and whether immigration reform could collapse in the Senate. Photo: Getty Images The

Secretary of Agriculture would be able to lift the cap in "severe labor shortages," but much will depend on how the Secretary defines "severe." Is a shortage that results in several thousand acres of spoiled lettuce in California's San Joaquin Valley severe? Or must prices increase at the supermarket? The legislation also makes life difficult for employers who need labor year-round by requiring that guest workers return home for at least one-sixth of the duration of their visas. This can disrupt operations by taking away the most experienced workers at crucial times, even if they want to stay.

CIR guest worker program has fixed wages drives agricultural offshoring WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]

Equally troublesome are the legislation's fixed wages, which unions demanded to ensure that pay for domestic workers doesn't fall with an influx of foreign labor. The wage scales vary by job classificationranging from $9.17 per hour for field hands to $11.30 for equipment operators and would automatically increase by 1.5% to 2.5% each year. Wage controls suppress market signals that determine the most efficient allocation of labor, and these new wage scales would make it especially difficult for farmers of low-grossing crops to compete with foreign producers. Some
would shift to row crops that allow more mechanization, but that would mean fewer U.S.-produced strawberries and other high-value crops that require humans to harvest. Because the wage controls would apply only to employers who use guest workers, farmers would have an incentive to hire domestic workers exclusively. But because

relatively few Americans want to do farm work, this would merely drive more farm production overseas. The definition of perverse would be an immigration reform that causes the U.S. to import more of its food supply.

AT: Goodlatte Bill Solves The Aff

Goodlattes house bill sucks requires returns to Mexico and lacks true portability Dan Wheat, 6-28-2013, Immigration passes Senate but faces steeper hill in House, Capital Press,
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/djw-immigration-062813 An effort for a comprehensive bill in the House stalled but a series of bills sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., are beginning to pass the committee. One requires all employers to check their workers' legal status within two years. One involves agricultural workers and another makes illegal immigration a federal crime instead of a civil offense. Goodlatte's bills contain no temporary legal status but require people "to go back (to Mexico) and become part of our guest worker program," Nassif said. Goodlatte's guest worker plan only allows atwill employment or portability, the ability of workers to move from employer to employer, after guest workers have worked by contract, he said. The Senate bill gives agricultural workers the choice of atwill or contract work at the start, something ag employers and workers want, he said. However, agricultural differences with Goodlatte can be resolved, Nassif said. "He's prepared to reasonable about that (at-will employment)," he said.

CIR Wont Pass

CIR wont pass major house opposition Philip Elliott, 7-1-2013, Immigration Bill Faces Uncertain Future In House, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/immigration-bill_n_3528051.html The immigration debate is shifting to the Republican-led House, where lawmakers have shown little appetite for the large-scale, comprehensive approach their Senate colleagues embraced last week. The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that any attempt at comprehensive immigration legislation cannot offer a "special pathway to citizenship" for those in the United States illegally. Democrats have called that position a deal-breaker. Meanwhile, both parties eyed the politics that could yield electoral victories or irrelevance among the growing Hispanic voting bloc. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who leads the House Judiciary Committee, said he does not foresee a proposal that could provide a simple mechanism for immigrants here illegally to earn full standing as U.S. citizens. His committee members have been working on bills that address individual concerns but have not written a comprehensive proposal to match the Senate's effort. A pathway to legal standing, similar to that of immigrants who have green cards, could be an option, he said. Unacceptable, said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "No Democrat will vote for any bill without a path to citizenship," said Schumer, who helped write the Senate immigration plan that passed that chamber last week. The Senate bill would provide a long and difficult pathway to citizenship for those living in the country illegally, as well as tough measures to secure the border. In the Democratic-controlled Senate, 14 Republicans joined all Democratic senators and independents in the 68-32 vote. In the Republican-led House, conservatives have stood opposed to any pathway to citizenship for those workers. House lawmakers have urged a piecemeal approach to the thorny issue instead of the Senate's sweeping effort. House Speaker John Boehner has ruled out taking up the Senate bill and said the Republican-controlled chamber would chart its own version of the legislation with a focus on border security. Illustrating the strong opposition among conservative lawmakers, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said flatly: "The Senate bill is not going to pass."

Current guest worker program fails and new guest worker program unlikely to pass House Richmond 13
(Matt, Freelance writer for NPR, Immigration reform would address labor shortages on NY farms May 17, pg online at http://wrvo.org/post/immigration-reform-would-address-labor-shortages-ny-farms0//sd) As lawmakers in the Senate's Judiciary Committee debate the immigration reform bill released last month, farmers in New York State are hoping to find enough workers to fully staff their operations. It's a yearly struggle in New York and nationwide and according to a report by Farm Credit East, more than 1000 farms in New York could close or shrink by two-thirds if immigration laws were fully enforced. Anyone looking to hire foreign workers for the planting and harvesting seasons can go through the Department of Labor's H-2A guest worker visa program. But it is often a source of frustration for farmers. The
current H-2A guest worker program is a nightmare for many farmers in New York and nationally," says the farm credit cooperative's vice president Bob Smith. Smith says the

program is too expensive, applicants have to pay for the workers travel to and from the farm and provide housing. And the Department of Labor, which approves requests for farm workers, often responds late to applications. Many times, farms have gotten workers after their harvesting period or after their planting period and that costs farmers collectively millions and millions of dollars each year, says Smith. In 2011, about 4,000 guest worker visas were issued to farm laborers
coming to New York, about 7 percent of the total full time and seasonal positions on New York farms. Immigration reform We h ave lots of illegal immigrants who are doing the work now although theyre chased by INS, ICE, the immigration service, particularly in New York because we have a border with Canada, says Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). Schumer is a member of the group of eight, the four Democratic and four Republican senators behind immigration

reform

legislation. The

bill is facing stiff opposition in the Senate, and has yet to go to the Republican-controlled House of Representatiaves. Under the group of eight bill, farm workers in the country illegally since 2011 would be offered legal status. And a new guest worker program would be created to supply all agriculture with new laborers. The bill includes legalization provisions for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States and a separate path for children whose parents brought them to the U.S. illegally. The new guest worker visa would last three years. That means farmers would not have to reapply every year, oftentimes just to be able to bring the
same workers back. And the guest workers would be a ble to take jobs on other farms with the same visa, something the current system doesnt allow. And so this is kind of a basic right the right to move, the right to leave ones workplace, says Leanne Tory -Murphy of the Workers Justice Center of New York. Rights for farm workers Murphy says

the current system of guest workers and undocumented migrants has turned farm work into a job that Americans dont want. You can see other industries that are equally dangerous, equally dirty, equally hard, like mining for example, which is still a mostly American workforce because its unionized, there are protections, the pay is much better, says Murphy. For both undocumented workers and their employers, theres always the threat of a crackdown by immigration. Employers check their workers status with the same I-9 form that every new hire has to fill out. According to the Society of
Human Resource Management, audits of I-9 forms by immigration authorities have jumped from just 3 in 2004 to 3,000 last year. Jim Allen is head of the New York Apple Growers Association. He says immigration officials are a constant threat to his members employees. In the past, theyve staked out laundromats, theyve staked out child care, theyve sat in front of the Catholic Church on Saturday night, says Allen. Allen says his industry, where every apple is picked by hand, relies on migrant labor and targeting them isnt helping anyone. Theyre very diligent, theyre very conscientious, they work very har d, they work circles around anybody else. And they pay taxes, by the way, says Allen. Allen says apple growers are expecting a bumper crop this year, after a bad year last year. And, like always, theyre wondering if theyll be able to find enough workers. Salvador's story Salvador is 32 years old and from the Mexican state of Veracruz. Hes been in the U.S. illegally since 2008, working on a dairy farm 20 minutes from Ithaca. He didnt want to give his real name. Salvador lives in a trailer down the hill from his boss dairy barn and works 6 days a week, for up to 70 hours each week. When he needs to leave the farm, he pays for a ride from someone with a license. And he only leaves to do what he needs to, for grocery shopping or sending money to Mexico, then comes right back to the far m. When you go out are you worried about what might happen? Yes, always. Salvador first crossed the border in 2005, went back to Mexico after two years and made the trip agai n in 2008. He says the walk across the border has gotten much harder. It took him eight days; two of those days were spent without food or water. He had to pay 5,000 pesos to gangs along the way and was turned back once when Border Patrol sent a dog after him. Once a person gets here, it might be a month, two months, thre e months, but theyll find a job. The most dangerous part is getting here, says Salvador. Under

the proposed Senate immigration bill, Salvador could be eligible for what's known as a blue card, so long as he can prove he's spent enough time doing farm work since the end of 2011. Republican opposition to the bill has centered on whether new border security provisions are strict enough. The last time Congress offered legal status to undocumented immigrants was in 1986, and the number of immigrants here illegally has more doubled since then. The bill includes a new guest worker visa, the W-2, that its supporters say would help end the flow of job seekers crossing the border illegally.

CIR Wont Pass: House Republicans Ashley Killough, 6/30/13, Ashley Killough is a journalist for CNN, the Washington Post, and is a student
at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Immigration Reform in the House Looks Uncertain as Lawmakers Quarrel, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/30/immigrationreform-in-the-house-looks-uncertain-as-lawmakers-quarrel/
Two top lawmakers in the House immigration reform effort battled Sunday over how a compromise could be obtained in the Republican-

Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, flatly said the House should not take up the Senate bill and should produce its own version instead. But Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a fellow member of the committee, said Republicans are failing to produce anything worth voting on. The two sat side by side Sunday morning on CNN's "State of the Union." "We cannot put compromise to one side," Gutierrez said. "What the House Republicans are doing is giving a Republican solution, and a Republican solution isn't what we saw was successful in the Senate." In a 68-32 vote, the Senate passed a 1,200-page bill Thursday that promises to
controlled chamber, after the Democrat-controlled Senate passed sweeping reform legislation last week. overhaul immigration laws. The legislation includes a pathway to citizenship for most of the country's 11 million undocumented workers. A lastminute, bipartisan amendment added tougher border security measures to the bill as a way to make it more enticing to House Republicans. A bipartisan group is also working on a package in the House, though it differs sharply from the Senate measure by making it harder for undocumented immigrants to get on a path to citizenship. Members of the House group negotiating the bill would also require that border security measures be in place before any process toward gaining legal status could begin.

Lawmakers agreed to include security "triggers" in their proposal in hopes of attracting support from more House Republicans who have been highly critical of the Senate bill. The Senate rejected a similar GOP proposal. "The compromise is going to
have to come both in getting a bill out of the House and then in going to conference with the Senate to work out the differences," he told CNN's chief political correspondent Candy Crowley. Asked if he thinks the House bill will include a pathway to legalization, he said "yes," but not necessarily a pathway to citizenship. Goodlatte reiterated what House Speaker John Boehner has said, saying the bipartisan group must

produce a bill "that can get a majority of House Republicans to support it." But Gutierrez said the proposals coming from Republicans are "old" and "discredited." "The breadth and the depth of support which exists for comprehensive immigration reform is greater than I've seen on any

But he added House Republicans are "the one people that stand on the side, unwilling to compromise and sit down with Democrats."
other issue," he said, talking about labor unions, religious communities and poll numbers that show support for immigration reform.

Agriculture Advantage

Yes Ag Labor Shortage

Labor shortages wreck ag industry across the nation Serrano 12 Alfonso Serrano is a senior editor at TIME magazine
(http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-onimmigration-laws/) Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws Roughly 70% of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture industry are undocumented. No U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented immigrants. But acute labor shortages brought on by anti-immigration measures threaten to heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of stiff foreign competition. Nationwide, labor shortages will result in losses of up to $9 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. In Arizona, Nan Waldens complaints mirror those of the Broetjes. Walden is vice president of the family-owned Farmers Investment Co., the largest grower and processor of pecans in the world, with 6,000 acres (2,500 hectares) of farmland in the Santa Cruz Valley, 35 miles (56 km) from the U.S.-Mexico border. Walden says the state system in place for luring seasonal workers is wholly inefficient and adds that Arizonas infamous SB1070 immigration law has only compounded the problem, creating a climate of fear for Arizona employers and employees. This has led to people leaving our state, going to other states without these ambiguous clouds and legal sanctions hanging over employers and employees heads, says Walden.

American labor shortages in the Ag market hinder production Plan solves Serrano 12 Alfonso Serrano is a senior editor at TIME magazine
(http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-onimmigration-laws/) Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex web of local and state anti-immigration laws account for acute labor shortages. With the harvest season in full bloom, stringent immigration laws have forced waves of undocumented immigrants to flee certain states for more-hospitable areas. In their wake, thousands of acres of crops have been left to rot in the fields, as farmers have struggled to compensate for labor shortages with domestic help. The enforcement of immigration policy has devastated the skilled-labor source that weve depended on for 20 or 30 years, said Ralph Broetje during a recent teleconference organized by the National Immigration Forum, adding that last year Washington farmers part of an $8 billion agriculture industry were forced to leave 10% of their crops rotting on vines and trees. Its getting worse each year , says Broetje, and its going to end up putting some growers out of business if Congress doesnt step up and do immigration reform.

Ag labor shortage still exists, despite better benefits Serrano 12 Alfonso Serrano is a senior editor at TIME magazine
(http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-onimmigration-laws/) Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws Farming operations nationwide, from New York to Georgia to California, are reeling from similar labor shortages despite offering domestic workers competitive packages that include 401(k) plans and health insurance. Almost in unison, farmers complain that even when they are able to lure domestic workers to what often amounts to high-skilled, grueling work, its not long before they abandon the job. North Carolina, whose four main crops are valued at $2 billion, has seen its labor supply vanish since nearby Alabama and South Carolina enacted restrictive immigration laws. Clearly, immigration

reform is as much a federal issue as maintaining our military or managing our money supply, says Larry Wooten, president of the North Carolina Farm Bureau. And this state-by-state regulation, with hyperenforcement, is putting pressure on farming operations here in North Carolina and across the country.

The US is facing systemic labor shortagesreform is key to maintain competitiveness Atwater and Aisha 4
(David, PhD in economics at Graziado School of Business. Preparing for a Future Labor Shortage Graziado Business Review Vol 7 Issue 2, pg online at http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2010/08/preparing-fora-future-labor-shortage///sd)
Despite the current rhetoric, demographic trends suggest the potential for a shortage of skilled workers as the baby boomers retire. What can

A systemic labor shortage occurs when the overall number of new job openings exceeds the number of qualified new entrants in a national economy for a sustained period of years. By definition, systemic labor shortages spread across a wide range of occupations and skill groups. Systemic labor shortages have been recorded historically when nations transition from
you do to ensure that you maintain a productive enterprise? Is a Systemic Labor Shortage Developing? wartime economies to peacetime economies, when widespread health problems or plagues devastate an economy, or when major innovation cycles such as the Industrial Revolution transform work organizations. Today, national and global demographic changes are a potential catalyst for a long-term systemic imbalance. According to the Employment Policy Foundation (EPF), a

systemic labor shortage is expected to transform the workplace over the next 25 to 30 years as the gap between baby boomers and entrants of college-educated workers widens due to the boomers mass retirements. If the U.S. economy continues to grow at three percent per yearthe economys consistent average since 1948the workforce will have to increase by 58 million employees over the next three decades if the same rate of productivity is maintained. Yet, if the current population trend continues, the number of workers will only increase by 23 million. This trend would create an overall U.S. labor shortage of 35 million workers .[1] Most of these projected shortages are
expected to involve workers having specific skills. The consequences of such a skilled worker shortage at the national level would be substantial. Results would include: reduction of the growth in the standard of living, compared to historical trends;

higher wage-

push inflation; potential decreases in international competitiveness, and even the erosion of future domestic production capacity.

US Ag industry depends on Foreign workers Bloomberg 2013, May 15, Mike Bloomberg: Mayor of New York city, US Agriculture Industry
Depends on Foreign Agriculture Workers, http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=AA0D6AF8-C29C-7CA2-FD8B6D602550A74D Business leaders in our coalition and across the country who work in the agriculture industry see everyday how American farms are hurt by an immigration system that hasnt been updated for decades, said Partnership for a New American Economy Co-Chair and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. Until we fix this broken system, Americas farm owners will continue losing out on the critical labor they need to keep their businesses healthy and our economy strong. Its time for lawmakers in both parties to pass comprehensive immigration reform that includes measures to streamline our temporary guest-worker program so we can get the workers we need to keep our farms running and create American jobs. It's clear in the data that without foreign farm workers, North Carolinas farms would not have access to the labor they need. U.S.-born workers simply will not take the jobs offered on North Carolina farms, but immigrants are filling these roles, creating American jobs, and promoting our economic well-being with their contributions, said CGDs Michael Clemens.

West Coast Faces Ag Labor Shortage Hecht 2013, March 24, As young workers avoid Agriculture shortage looms, Peyer Hecht: reporter
for the Post Gazette, http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/as-young-workers-avoidagriculture-farm-labor-shortage-looms-680616/ Increasingly, California's $44.3 billion agricultural industry must rely on the well-calloused hands of older workers who came many years ago to fill jobs pruning, planting, picking and packing.These days at
Chandler Farms, a fourth-generation family ranch 20 miles south of Fresno, veteran workers like Mr. Contreras are in the majority.On a recent weekday, Antonio Magdaleno, 59, cut grapevines in a neighboring field. Mr. Magdaleno emigrated from Michoacan, Mexico, in 1973 and has spent 36 of his last 40 years on Central Valley farms.His features bronzed and weathered, Mr. Magdaleno said he looks forward to the midwinter pruning, "a beautiful time and something special," marking the start of the growing season."It's always been us," Mr. Magdaleno said in Spanish. "Time has passed, and we're older. The young people want to work in factories and other places."The

aging of California's agricultural workforce reflects a convergence of trends.In many cases, the children of farmworkers who arrived decades ago have little interest in fieldwork. Tighter U.S. immigration enforcement, as well as brutal cartel-driven violence along the Mexican border, have deterred many potential workers from attempting to cross.And, amid a rebounding economy in Mexico, Mexican farms are facing their own labor shortage and have plenty of work to offer at home.The upshot, according to the California Farm Bureau Federation, is that more than 70 percent of state agricultural producers anticipate a worker shortage starting this spring and worsening through the growing season. Some officials estimate the labor force could fall by more than 80,000 farmworkers -- down from the 450,000 workers on whom farmers have come to rely for the peak harvest of late summer."Basically, we're running out of low-skilled workers. People simply are not doing farm work to the extent they were doing before," said J. Edward Taylor, a University of California-Davis economist who has studied the migration of farmworkers from Mexico.From California's Central Valley to Washington, D.C., the graying workforce adds urgency to the debate over immigration reform.Farm lobbyists and
elected officials are discussing remedies that include granting legal status to more than 1 million undocumented farmworkers in the United States and establishing an expanded guest worker visa program for agriculture to ensure a steady supply of laborers."We have to try to find a system that is not going to cause a major disruption to our industry," said Bryan Little, director of labor affairs for the California Farm Bureau Federation. The industry group favors letting undocumented farmworkers stay in the country while applying for legal status, as well as drawing in seasonal guest workers to replenish the labor force.California agricultural interests estimate that as many as 70 percent to 90 percent of farmworkers in the state may be here illegally, often presenting counterfeit documents to secure work.Bill Chandler, 73, runs the family ranch in Selma with his son, John, who is 35. Mr. Chandler says his workforce largely consists of older laborers who got permanent residency or U.S. citizenship under a 1986 immigration reform law signed by President Ronald Reagan."There are always people in the ag labor force who don't have [proper] papers," he said. "So we're all scrambling for what labor is here. And they're older folks."He added: "They're special. They're really special."Mr. Taylor of UC-Davis said economic factors may continue to drive down the number of farmworkers and prompt growers to convert to less labor-intensive crops.That is already happening at the 480-acre Chandler Farms. Because

of difficulty finding

workers for harvesting fruit, the family decided to cut back by 40 acres on peaches and plums and use more land to grow almonds, which can be harvested by machine."I don't know if it is going to get better for a while," Mr. Chandler said. "If you want peaches or plums, or strawberries or lettuce or tomatoes, we need a program in which we can have labor. I don't have the answers."

Ag labor shortage continues to worsen as current worker age ABCLocal News 2013, March 12,California farm labor shortage expected to get worse
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/ag_watch&id=9023957 Agriculture officials say the problem is getting worse -- mainly because current farm workers are getting older, more are going home to Mexico, and fewer migrants are coming into the country to replace them. An economist with U.C. Davis says the ag industry is basically running out of lowskilled workers. The California Farm Bureau Federation says more than 70-percent of farmers expect a worker shortage starting this spring -- and getting worse through the growing season.

Californias 38 billion agricultural sector in danger- worker shortage Wells 2012, August 20, CNBC News, California Farm Labor Shotage Worst Its Ever Been, Jane Wells:
New reporter, http://www.cnbc.com/id/48725145 There's a different sort of drought plaguing California, the nation's largest farm state. It's $38 billion agricultural sector is facing a scarcity of labor.Benjamin Lowy Migrant workers weed lettuce seed plants at an organic produce farm near Fresno, California."This year is the worst it's been, ever," said Craig Underwood, who farms everything from strawberries to lemons to peppers, carrots, and turnips in Ventura County.Some crops aren't get picked this season due to
a lack of workers."We just left them in the field," he said.The Western Growers Association told CNBC its members are reporting a 20 percent drop in laborers this year. Stronger border controls are keeping workers from crossing into the U.S. illegally, and the current guest worker program is not providing enough bodies. (Related: Massive US Drought Leads to Worst Fears for Corn Crop.)"We

have 100 fewer people this year," said Sergio Diaz, who provides workers under contract for growers . "We're having difficulty finding people to do this work."The lack of workers is forcing farmers to pay more. In one of Underwood's fields, pickers are harvesting peppers for $9.25 a hour, or $5 a bucket, whichever is more. Craig Underwood said his workforce is aging and starting to retire, and no one is coming in to replace them. (Related: Recession-Proof
Industries.)"Migratory flows between Mexico and the United States have come to a halt," Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, consul general of Mexico in Sacramento, told a California farm bureau labor committee, according to AgAlert. Growers of California's wine grapes are concerned there won't be enough pickers for this fall's harvest. Berry growers among the highest paying saw fewer field hands show up in the spring."Fruit that you should be picking is not being picked," said grower John Eiskamp.Most pickers in California are not here legally, a fact of life for decades.When asked if any local residents have come out to apply to work in the fields, Craig Underwood replied, "None. Absolutely none."

He is even having trouble finding truck drivers and other semi-skilled labor for jobs that pay $12-$18 an hour.

Yes Offshoring
Lack of guest workers is causing agricultural off-shoring WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]

In 2010, farmers reported more than $320 million in losses because they didn't get the workers they needed. Illegal workers fill most of the gap, but increasingly the bigger companies are moving production to Latin America. Growers estimate that 80,000 acres of fruit and vegetable production have moved out of California alone because of the labor shortage.

Ag Competitiveness Brink
Ag industry is on the brink-competitors are catching up Agrimoney 2012
(US crop exports face 'crisis of competitiveness', February, http://www.agrimoney.com/news/us-cropexports-face-crisis-of-competitiveness--4179.html, DOA: 7-13-12) "US producers face a crisis of competitiveness," the council said, noting an "intense battle" for share in export markets. "Aggressive competitors in Argentina, Brazil and the Black Sea region are ramping up production in response to high global prices for corn and other feed grains." US producers "can hardly fault others for competing effectively for market share because, in large part, we taught them how to do it ", the group said. "But rising competition means US producers must look aggressively to emerging markets in which the US can earn a competitive edge." Foreign threats The comments follow forecasts last week from the USDA that the US was over the next decade to continue to lose market share in exports of major crops including corn, soybeans and wheat and, to a lesser extent, cotton and sorghum. In wheat, US shipments will represent 16% of the world
total in 2021, down from an average of 23% over the past five years, the last decade, mainly due to increased shipments from the Black Sea. The USGC highlighted that in corn, "the US

cannot take market dominance for granted", noting "increasing selfsufficiency" in the rest of the world. "Non-US demand continues to rise rapidly, prices remain high, and non-US producers are responding."

Guest Workers Key Economy

Guest worker program is key to the economy Clemens 13 [Michael A. Clemens; INTERNATIONAL HARVEST: A Case Study of How Foreign Workers Help American Farms Grow Crops
and the Economy; Clemens has a PHD from Harvard in Economics and is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development where he leads the Migration and Development initiative; http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/nc-agr-report-05-2013.pdf; May 2013]

Foreign farm workers create jobs for American workers: In North Carolina, temporary foreign workers play a vital role in commercial agriculture. Because local farms cannot get local labor for many essential manual tasks, foreign workers allow those farms and their whole contribution to North Carolinas economy to exist, creating additional jobs for US workers in all sectors. The 7,000 seasonal H-2A workers recruited by the NCGA in 2012 added at least an estimated $248 million to $371 million to the North Carolina economy that year. This economic benefit created one US worker job for each 3.04.6 H-2A farm workers who worked in North Carolina. The projected benefit here is actually a conservative estimate for what foreign seasonal laborers add to the North Carolina economy. It underestimates total job creation because it assumes that the H-2A workers could be completely replaced by other methods of harvesting crops, like machines that mechanize harvests, which is not currently possible for many crops. Also, the estimated benefit does not account for the H-2A workers spending a portion of their wages in the local economy, or for the spending of US workers who work on the same farms. Thus, the actual economic impact of the foreign agricultural laborers is higher.

Labor Shortage Bad Housing Scenario

Labor shortages cause housing market collapseincreasing immigrants boost it NAHB 13
(National Association of Home Builders, IMMIGRANT WORKERS IN THE CONSTRUCTION LABOR FORCE 4/1 pg online at http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=734&genericContentID=200529&channelID=311//sd)
The turnaround presents new challenges for the construction industry. The Housing Market Index (HMI) surveys conducted by NAHB in January and March 2013 indicate that labor

shortages are quickly rising on home builders list of the most significant problems. More than half of all home builders surveyed in January confirmed that they expected cost and labor availability to be one of the most significant problems faced by builders in 2013. This stands in
sharp contrast with the situation as recently as in 2012 and 2011 when only 30 and 13 percent of surveyed NAHB members, respectively, reported cost and labor availability as their most prominent concern. More than half of all home builders surveyed in March reported that

labor shortages over the past 6 months caused them to pay higher wages and subcontractor bids and, consequently, raise home prices. Fifteen percent of respondents had to turn down some projects and nine percent lost or cancelled sales as a result of recent labor shortages. The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the month of January had the second highest number of unfilled positions in the last 17 months. This study examines where construction workers come from by analyzing the most recent 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) from the Census Bureau and compares the findings with the results from the 2004 ACS, the last time the NAHB Economics conducted a similar analysis. The results show that immigrants

have been an important source of new recruits to the construction industry accounting for a large share of the overall labor force. The inflow of foreign born labor into construction is cyclical and coincides with the overall housing activity. Their share was rising rapidly during the housing boom years when labor shortages were widespread and serious. But even during the severe housing downturn and a period of high unemployment the construction labor force continued to recruit new immigrants to partially replace native and foreign born workers leaving the industry. Particularly, immigrants are concentrated in some of the trades needed to build a home, like carpenters, painters, drywall/ceiling tile installers, brick masons, and construction laborers trades that require less training and education but consistently register some of the highest labor shortages in the HMI surveys.

Housing is key to the economyboosts consumer confidence and raises net GDP Noguchi 13
(Yuki, nqa, As Housing Industry Builds Up, Other Sectors Follow NPR News 3/29/13 pg online at http://www.npr.org/2013/03/29/175690983/as-housing-industry-builds-up-other-sectors-follow//sd) When fortunes rise in the housing industry as they currently are it tends to lift sales for other businesses, too. Home construction, sales and prices are all improving. And according to many analysts, the market is gaining steam. For nearly two decades, Scott Gillis has owned his own moving company, Great Scott Moving in Hyattsville, Md. Moving high season is just around the corner, which means Gillis is hiring. "I'm doing it right now, I'm calling up all my old employees. Basically, I'm doing as much as possible 'cause I'm anticipating we're having a good summer," Gillis says. That's in contrast to several years ago, when Great Scott moved more people into rental apartments than houses as its sales and staff plunged by a third. Gillis says things have improved. But they're still very hard to predict. 'The Mood Is Much Better' "I think the mood is much better than it was five years ago. I think we are heading in a better way," he says. "But nobody knows the forecast." The federal spending cuts known as the sequester don't help. And there are pockets of housing weakness. Still, overriding all that, he says, is a sense that things are fundamentally better and improving. "When you start seeing larger offices going to smaller offices, it's an indicator that everybody's cutting back. Now I see offices getting larger. And that's usually a good indicator," Gillis says. Part of what's driving the urge to move is that people are spending again. "This housing market recovery is a tremendous boost to the economy," says Lawrence

Yun, a chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. More On The Housing Industry Business Technology Upends Another Industry: Homebuilding Increase In Sales And Low Inventory Indicate Housing Recovery Is In Full Swing March 21, 2013 Is The Housing Market Finally Back On Track? March 20, 2013 A Powerful Economic Boost Yun says residential construction, remodeling, moving, gardening and furniture buying add up to about 20 percent of the country's g ross d omestic pr oduct which is why the upward momentum in housing is such a powerful boost to the economy. But it's not just that. Yun says by year end, U.S. homes will collectively be worth $3 trillion more than they were at the bottom of the market. "And that will provide a significant boost in consumer spending" $100 billion in extra spending this year, to be exact, he says.

Food Security Impact General

Billions will die without expanded agricultural output Mahendra Shah, Executive Secretary of CGIAR and Maurice Strong, Senior Adviser to UN and World Bank 2000 Food in the 21st century: from science to sustainable agriculture, p. 9-10
As the new millennium begins, the world faces another food crisis that is just as dangerous but much more complex than the one it confronted thirty years ago. Each year the global population climbs by an estimated 90 million people. This means, at the very least, the world's farmers will have to increase food production by more than 50 percent to feed some two billion more people by 2020. But the numbers don't tell the full story. The
challenge confronting the world is far more intricate than simply producing more food, because global conditions are very different than they were on the eve of the Green Revolution. To

prevent a crisis, the world community must confront the issues of poverty, food insecurity, environmental degradation, and erosion of genetic resources. Feeding the world in the 21st century will
require not only food availability, but food security access to the food required for a healthy and productive life. It means the ability to grow and to purchase food as needed. It also means that people do not have to rely only on staples such as wheat, rice, potatoes and cassava. Food security focuses attention on areas such as income, markets, and natural resources. The

basic statistics on food security are grim. In addition to the expected population growth, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates as many as 840 million people a number that exceeds the combined populations of Europe, the United States, Canada, and Japan currently do not have enough to eat. The companion problem of "hidden hunger" deficiencies of
vital micronutrients affects even more people in the developing world. The shift away from the traditional food staples will make this challenge even more difficult. Simply increasing productivity of wheat and rice alone may not have the impact it did 30 years ago

Food Security Impact Resource Wars

Food insecurity is rapidly increasing now causes resource wars and global instability//Agricultural development is key to resolve Bertini and Glickman, 13. Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, World Food Program,
United Nations. Dan Glickman, Former Secretary, US Department of Agriculture May 2013. Advancing Global Food Security: THE POWER OF SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS. report issued by an independent Advisory group on global Agricultural development. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning. http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/2013_Advancing_Glob al_Food_Security.pdf - clawan
The world is facing perhaps the greatest challenge of a generation: how to feed two billion more people nutritiously in the decades ahead. Thiscombined with rising incomes in the developing world and growing needs for energy is increasing demand for agricultural products at an unprecedented rate. With global

demand for food expected to rise 60 percent by 2050,1 the worlds farmers will need to produce as much food over the next 40 years as they have in thousands of years to date. Globally, nearly 870 million people are already chronically hungry.2 In 2013 the world will likely consume more grain than it produces.3 With the buffer against shortages shrinking, food prices have sharply increased in recent years around the world, slowing progress in reducing the proportion of hungry people. At the same time, global agricultural production is not increasing at the same rate as it has in decades past. Water and untapped productive land are getting harder and harder to find. Climate change is projected to make food production more unstable by upending the places where crops can be grown and by stirring up agricultural diseases and pests. Left unchecked, these problems will only worsen. Not only will millions more people be sentenced to lives of hunger and malnutrition, but societies will become increasingly unstable. Hunger and conflict are bound together. Insufficient food production or barriers in agriculture and food trade result in food shortages, making people angry and desperate enough to take to the streets or take up arms. Riots in dozens of countries around the world in recent years have been linked to commodity price spikes. When events spiral out of control, US intervention in the form of emergency food assistance or even more costly military engagementbecomes more likely. Yet this course of events is not inevitable. History has proven that agricultural development is one of the most effective ways to remedy food security-related challenges. In particular, global food security is advanced when the world empowers smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia to maximize their agricultural potential. These
regions are agricultures last untapped frontiers. Their farmers isolation from methods that increase their production of nutritious foods and therefore increa se agricultural incomes not only condemns hundreds of millions of people to chronic hunger, it denies global markets a tremendous source of food. Done properly,

agricultural development increases production, improves nutrition, protects the environment, and raises incomes among some of the worlds hungriest people. It drives economic development and reduces poverty while creating new markets and social stability. New research suggests that helping smallholder farmers in
poor nations become self-sufficient is also one of the most effective types of foreign aid for promoting peace.4

Empirics Arab Spring conflict was the result of food insecurity Vidal 13 John Vidal, environment editor for The Guardian; Climate change: how a warming world is a
threat to our food supplies; Apr 13 2013; The Guardian: The Observer http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/13/climate-change-threat-food-supplies RMJ
When the Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire on 17 December 2010, it was in protest at heavy-handed treatment and harassment in the province where he lived. But a uprisings, which became known as the

host of new studies suggest that a major factor in the subsequent Arab spring, was food insecurity. Drought, rocketing bread prices, food and water shortages have all blighted parts of the Middle East. Analysts at the Centre for American Progress in Washington say a combination of food shortages and other environmental factors exacerbated the already tense politics of the region. As the Observer reports today, an as-yet unpublished US government study indicates that the

world needs to prepare for much more of the same, as food prices spiral and longstanding agricultural practices are disrupted by climate change.

Food Prices Scenario

Higher food prices absent increased guest workers--American farms grow unprofitable Hinyub 12
(Chris, history and political science major from the Palm Beach Atlantic University, Agriculture & Voters Keen on Guest Worker Program 5/10/12, pg online at http://ivn.us/2012/05/10/agriculture-voterskeen-on-guest-worker-program///sd) Attempts to tackle comprehensive immigration reform at the state level has wounded agriculture and exposed an unavoidable issue for farm-state lawmakers seeking election in 2012. Because U.S. citizens, by and large, will not work in farm fields and because partisan gridlock over amnesty has kept comprehensive immigration reform off Congress to-do list, agricultural stakeholders are pleading with lawmakers to reform the countrys immigration policy to accommodate an ag-centric guest worker program. Last year, farm labor shortages gripped states that had passed stringent immigration reforms. Since then the symptoms have spread, as entire regions are feeling the pinch. Industry insiders have voiced concern that its only a matter of time before the promised papers please crackdowns of individuals detained in Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia coupled with e-verify mandates for employers in those states translate to higher food prices at the grocery storebut not before the failure of many American farms. To avoid this scenario, a coalition of 100-plus farm organizations led by the California-based Western Growers farm/trade group are floating an idea to invite foreign guest workers into the U.S. to harvest and process crops without giving them a path to citizenship. Industry leaders hope the plan could operate
parallel to the current H2A program in which migrants enter the U.S. for 12 months to work in agriculture before they are supposed to return home. Under the new proposal, immigrant workers could renew their work credentials for another year, but would not be allowed to bring their families into the states. I dont think there

is an appetite for comprehensive immigration reform (nationally) so thats why were trying an ag-first proposal, said Tom Nassif, Western Growers President and Chief Financial Officer
during a conference call with reporters late last March. A Tarrance Group-conducted poll (PDF), which surveyed a broad cross section of the American electorate in January, found that 70

percent of voters back such a plan. The survey showed overwhelming support for a streamlined ag-first guest worker program from all likely voter groups including Republicans, Tea Party supporters, Democrats and Independents. During an Agriculture Department press conference last summer, American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman called for new, innovative approaches like programs where biometric identifiers can be provided (to guest workers) who want to, frankly , do the jobs that American workers will not do. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack reaffirmed Stallmans claim that farmers are hard pressed to find legal employees, urging Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform to prevent
farm labor shortages. While some American citizens step up and take (farm) jobs, the truth is even when farmers make their best effort to recruit a domestic workforce, few

citizens express interest. In large part thats because this is hard, tough

work Simply put, our broken immigration system offers little hope for producers trying to do the right thing and make a living. But again and again good faith efforts to fix this broken system from leaders of both parties fall prey to the usual Washington political gains. Most of Washingtons political gains (at least on the right of the spectrum) have hinged on the treatment of immigration reform proposals that include amnesty or citizenship pathways as anathemas. The revised guest worker plan pitched by agricultural interests grew up from that volatile soil. It bans any such pathway outright. Nassif made it clear that his group does not want to attach immigration reform language to the next Farm Bill, which has already been jeopardized by budgetary partisanship in the earliest phases of its deliberation. Expect the agricultural industry to pitch its guest worker program to Congress before fall elections. According to Stallman, between $5 billion and $9 billion per year of production is dependent on workers whose legal status has not been verified and who are assumed to be working illegally. He says that California accounts for almost $3 billion and Florida for $1 billion of that total. Most of that is in specialty crops like fruits and vegetables. But the livestock sector, particularly dairy, is also affected, Stallman said. In the debate over comprehensive immigration reform its difficult to gain a broad enough
perspective not to disqualify one, if not more valid points of view. This owes to the complexity of a political issue which holds livelihoods and the integrity of family units in its balance. But the practical necessity of maintaining a constant and safe food supply while keeping American

farms competitive and profitable is an issue of pressing concern for all voters. If summer, a refined

farm labor shortages continue through the ag-first guestworker program will likely be a national election issue.

Labor shortages increase food prices Washington Post 1/29

(Were running out of farm workers. Immigration reform wont help. 2013 pg online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farmworkers-immigration-reform-may-not-help///sd) For decades, farms in the United States have relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers mainly from Mexico to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural workers in the United States were foreign-born . (And half of those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that cheap labor has helped keep down U.S. food prices, particularly for labor-intensive fruits and vegetables. But that labor pool is now drying up. In recent years, weve seen a spate of headlines like this from CNBC: California Farm Labor Shortage Worst Its Been, Ever. Typically, these stories blame drugrelated violence on the Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the decline. Hence the call for new guest-worker programs.

Food industry is on the brinkcollapse tanks the financial sector Holt-Gimnez 8

(Eric, Ph.D., Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and analyst for the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy. The world food crisis: what is behind it and what we can do 10/23 pg online at http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5611//sd)
Food, finance and speculation: bailing our way out of crises? "The current financial crisis might be mitigated by going to the Federal Reserve Bank and the U.S. government to tap capital reserves. But what

happens if we have a devastating drought or other natural or man-made disaster which results in a food crisis in the United States? There are no food reserves! The United States has a Federal Reserve Bank for money, and a Strategic Petroleum Reserve for oil, but absolutely no federal reserve for grain and other emergency foodstuffs." The American economy is in the worst shape we've seen since the Great Depression. The federal government is investing billions of dollars in taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street. Both the food crisis and the financial crisis are rooted in similar polices that have fed on each other for years. Free market reforms worldwide, championed by the United States, eroded support for local agriculture and led to massive consolidation in the agriculture industry. In the same period, deregulation in the financial services industry allowed banks to "cross over"
their investments: small banks that traditionally held mortgages were allowed to invest in other areas of the economy. Large banks quickly swallowed up small banks. Between 1980 and 1998 alone there were over 8,000 bank mergers in the United States, accounting for over $2.4 trillion in assets. As

banking became more centralized, loans to small businesses, including farms, became harder to come by, which in combination with falling prices and expensive chemical and seed packages left many farmers to "get big or get out." Commodities traders increasingly invested in other financial services, large traders moved into futures markets, and some banks began to trade in financial instruments, including commodities, in
order to protect their loans. Some financial services companies, like Goldman Sachs, even became importers of physical goods, while traditional agribusinesses, like Cargill, now have investment banking arms that deal in everything from real estate and corporate securities to IT technology. Deregulation

and consolidation both make markets extremely vulnerable to shock. When the subprime mortgage crisis hit in 2007, investors began to scramble for safe places to put their investments. At least some of the rampant food price inflation that began at the beginning of 2008 was caused by exactly that scramblea combination of investing in agricultural commodities and oil, which drove up the price of food and farm inputs. Looking for safer investments, traders that may or may not be in businesses related to food at all, put their money into commodities futures. This kind of speculative trading that is exacerbating the food crisis was not possible on this scale until financial services deregulation in the 1980's. This system of deregulation has caught our economy and our food system in

a negative feedback loop. Less regulation breeds more consolidation and less stability in both agricultural and financial markets. The irony is that because markets and investments are now so intertwined, we are facing a breakdown in the world's food and financial systems at the same time. The Wall Street bailouts may or may not stabilize financial markets in the short run, but will do nothing to address the root causes of the current crisis, nor will they stave off the next one. A real solution must include measures to stabilize both food and financial markets. We need strong oversight on large traders and financial services, and increased support to local
economies, small farmers, local banks, and small borrowers. Most of all, we need a dramatic departure from the free-market fundamentalism that brought us here in the first place.

High food prices collapse Chinese economy and spur tension with CCP NYT 3/11
(Food Costs Threaten Rebound in China 2013, published on Reuters, pg online at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/business/global/food-costs-threaten-rebound-inchina.html?ref=foodprices&_r=0//sd)
BEIJING Diners looking for beef hot pot on a chilly evening in Beijing pay more than their counterparts in Boston, a discrepancy that shows the challenges China faces in reviving growth as inflationary pressures return. A

6 percent increase in food costs drove a rise in the Chinese consumer price index to 3.2 percent in February, compared with the same period a year earlier, a 10-month high, official data released Saturday showed. The index was 2 percent in January. On Monday, Chinas top
economic planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, forecast consumer price inflation at about 3 percent for 2013.

Food prices typically rise in advance of the Lunar New Year holiday, which occurred in February this year. But since the holiday ended, meat prices, especially those for beef and lamb, have stayed elevated. Retail beef prices in
Beijing city markets are higher compared with supermarkets in the Boston area. Pork, Chinas staple meat, is only about 50 cents per kilogram, or 23 cents a pound, below the U.S. price, a Reuters comparison of standard retail prices show. Those

prices represent a direct hit on the spending power of Chinese, whose average income is about a 10th the size of Americans salaries. Contributing to food production costs are the loss of farmland and farm labor to urbanization Chinese cities are swelling as they
absorb hundreds of millions of people. Grazing restrictions because of land degradation are also causing costs to rise across the country. The more the economy develops, the harder it is to raise calves, said Wang Jimin, who tracks cattle trends for the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Rural Economic Development Institute.

In the short term, I dont see meat prices falling unless there are

a lot of imports.

After an international outbreak of mad-cow disease a decade ago, China allows beef imports only from Australia,

New Zealand and Uruguay, so options to tame prices with imports appear limited. For the near future, high feed costs will also help elevate the price of pork, an increase that is expected to drive broader inflation gains by the third quarter. Its a question of fundamentals, not monthly C.P.I. fluctuations, said Shi Tao, a livestock analyst at eFeedlink in Shanghai, referring to the consumer price index. He s aid he expected a reduction in the pork supply this year because some pig breeders had decided to drop out of the business after losing money last summer. Beef production in China has decreased every year since 2008, although it could rise by less than 1 percent this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates. Cattle take at least a year to raise, not like chickens, which need a few months at most, said Yang Shaohui, a poultry vendor in Beijing. Poultry producers can respond to the market much faster. His chicken was selling for about a third of the price of the beef at a nearby stall. The pressure on meat prices in China highlights not only the challenge of bringing inflation under control but also the drive to shift the economy toward consumer-led growth, Beijings stated goal after decades of export-led expansion. Accelerating

food prices

mean less growth in spending on other goods and services in the economy, Carl Weinberg, the China-watching chief economist at the New York consulting firm High Frequency Economics, wrote in a client note. A large increase in prices could jeopardize Chinese economic growth, which weakened in 2012 to its slowest pace in more than a decade. Growth only started to pick up in the fourth quarter after a seven-quarter slide. It is a dilemma that Chinas incoming leaders, Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang, might have hoped they would not have to face so early in the economic recovery. This year, I think, there are three priorities: to stabilize economic growth, which is not too big of a problem, to stabilize the prices of goods,
where already it looks like there could be some pressure, and to reduce the risk from hidden debt, like off-book wealth management products, said Zhao Xijun, deputy director of the Finance and Securities Institute at Renmin University in Beijing. There are already indications that the

Chinese central bank is shifting its policy focus to inflation from growth. China needs to control inflation as a priority, the central bank said in its fourth-quarter policy report in February, shifting from a pledge in its previous report to support the economy above other needs. Rising food prices represent a sensitive area for the Chinese Communist Party leadership given that social tension has often accompanied price increases . Food

price increases can fuel inflation expectations that lead to a broader rise in inflation and the risk that the central bank will tweak monetary policy to keep a lid on the price pressures. .

High food prices increase the chance of conflict Von Braun 8

(Joachim, PhD in agricultural economics, The Economist debate: Rising food prices The Opposition's opening statement July 28, pg online at http://www.economist.com/node/11829097//sd) The surge in food prices is also a trigger for social andpolitical unrest. As prices increase, the poor usually suffer silently for a while, while the middle class typically has the ability to organise, protest, and lobby. Since 2007, social unrest related to high food prices has occurred in more than 50 countries, with some experiencing multiple occurrences and a high degree of violence. Under current conditions, the effects of high food prices on humanity are largely negative. Now fundamental changes in trade policies, in biofuel policies, increased investment in agriculture, more agricultural science and technology, sound social protection and nutrition action, and improved governance of the food system at national and global levels are needed to allow people and countries to cope with and grow out of the food-price crisis. So far these needed actions have not been forthcoming at sufficient scale.

Food shortages block exports and causes protectionism Dapice 11

(David, Yale Global, Associate Professor of economics, The Looming Food Crisis Feb 18 pg online at http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/looming-food-crisis//sd) Percentage of Leading Importers of Food 1980-2009. Enlarge Image Fifth, many countries try to protect their consumers by increasing imports and subsidies, even blocking exports of food. Russia did this to wheat during its drought. The effect: World prices jump more as demand fails to adjust even for eating less meat due to subsidies. Supply to other countries drops as exports end, prompting many importers to stockpile extra food and pushing some countries towards self-sufficiency due to the perceived unreliability of the world food market. Sixth, the jump in Chinese soybean imports was only half driven by consumption. Stocks of oilseeds in China grew by 15 million tons from 2006/7 to 2010/11. There are various ways to interpret this, but one is that the Chinese government, fearing a weak dollar, decided to keep reserves of food rather than US Treasury debt. Its otherwise difficult to understand why stockpiles of oilseeds would skyrocket when prices are doubling. It could be panic stockpiling or speculative behavior by state firms with access to cheap credit. Whatever the explanation, a large part of the
demand seems to come from speculative buying and it might not only be in China. If real interest rates begin to approach normal levels, such speculation is more expensive and normally reduced.

High food prices bad

High food prices trigger Middle East conflict Arab Spring proves Guild, 12. Monty Guild, Chief Investment Officer at Guild Investment Management Inc. 10/19/12.
Another Food Crisis Is Likely to Spur Revolution in the Developing World. http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/guild/another-food-crisis-is-likely-to-spur-revolution-inthe-developing-world clawan With another food crisis is in the works, revolution becomes a likelihood in some parts of the world. We would like to draw readers' attention to the fact that the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization at the United Nations) Food Price Index hit a near-high in September. The cereals portion of the Index was 263, just a hair below the peak reached in April 2008, when food riots were sparked across the developing world. Of all the food groups, cereals are particularly significant to the people of the world, primarily because of the many developing nations where cereal imports are critical for food security, and where most of the imports are consumed directly rather than being processed into further commercial foodstuffs as in the developed countries. The availability and price of cereals is a matter of grave concern for many nations. They consume cereals as the basis of their diet. So while a spike in wheat prices will add only pennies to the cost of an American loaf of bread, most of which is comprised of manufacturing, transport, and marketing expenses, a spike in wheat prices can mean the difference between sufficiency and hunger for citizens of many countries in the Middle East, the Caribbean, East Asia, and Africa. As we saw during the Arab Spring, when food prices create social instability in geopolitically sensitive areas, the consequences can be severe for all members of the global community. We believe that the full ramifications of the Arab Spring have not yet been felt in the world and that they will be felt in many ways over coming years and decades. Some serious research has been done on the correlation between food prices and social unrest. The New England Complex Systems Institute has published several reports (NECSI). Their data show clear correlations during periods of food shortage in 2008 and during the Arab Spring period in 2011 . Alarmingly, today the current food crisis is at the same type of levels that led to widespread unrest in 2008 and 2011. These studies clearly show that political instability results from food insecurity, regardless of the level of esteem the people hold for their government. In other words, if you're hungry, you're ready for revolt, no matter how much you say you trust your leaders. Food Prices Tracked Political
Unrest Closely... Food Price Index Source:NECSI ...And May be Set to Do So Again FAO october 2012 Source: FAO A number of factors intersect to render some nations and regions more vulnerable than others to social crisis driven by food price spikes. First is the level of import dependency and domestic production, influenced by the current drought. For example, many North African countries (including Egypt) rely heavily on wheat imports as the backbone of their food supply, importing 30 to 70 percent of their needs, and in addition are often challenged by water constraints. Asia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines are similarly dependent on wheat and other imports, as is much of sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa is the largest corn producer on the continent, and its neighbors (Botswana, Namibia, and Swaziland) are all heavily import-dependent. Drought has driven yields down sharply in countries such as Lesotho, which under better circumstances are able to meet more of their own cereal needs. When

political unrest reaches a severely disruptive point, it puts production into a disastrous downward spiral, as in Mali, Yemen, and especially Syria. Many nations in the Caribbean and in Central
America are similarly affected and similarly dependent. The effects of the 2007/2008 and 2011 crises persist also in that many poor citizens sold assets during the crisis and cut down expenditures on education and health, putting them in an even more vulnerable position for the present spike. Unfortunately, besides a confluence of long-term dependency, drought, political turmoil, and reverberations of the last rounds of price spikes, there are other factors at work driving up cereal and soybean prices, as we observed in our discussion of the current drought in last week's letter. The U.S. still has ethanol production mandates in place which divert half of its corn production away from food use. The states of Georgia, New Mexico, Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina, and Arkansas have all petitioned the EPA for a suspension of the mandate. Not surprisingly, in the current divisive political climate, a decision on whether to grant that suspension has been put off until the week after the election. Notably also, global waves of QE liquidity are pouring into the world's financial system from every central bank eager to boost its nation's flagging economy. And much of that freshly printed money is finding its way into commodity markets. This raises food prices both directly and indirectly; directly because cereals and soybeans are themselves the objects of financial speculation, but also indirectly through the volatility of hydrocarbon prices, which influence both the cost of food production itself and that of the ammonia-based nitrogen fertilizers on which the world food supply is dependent. Appreciating asset prices thus add another layer of instability. Sadly, instability in certain parts of the world that is caused by food insecurity is often perceived to be geopolitically irrelevant to many in the developed world. However, a

few critical hotspots, particularly in the Middle East have shown that food insecurity is far from being simply an occasion for the deployment of short-term international aid. Food is necessary for life and people will risk their lives to procure a stable supply. As investors, we should be alert to the probability that turmoil may develop in the Middle East if food is once again in short supply during 2013.

Agroterror Scenario
Food security Is key to stop an agro terrorist event. Schnider et al 12 (R. Goodrich Schneider, associate professor; University of Florida, 6/26/12 , Agroterrorism in the U.S.: An Overview
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FS/FS12600.pd

Since the attacks of 9/11, vulnerabilities of the nation's infrastructure have been analyzed and discussed. The United States (U.S.) has identified the protection of national systems and infrastructure, such as the transportation, communication, water supply, and agriculture networks, as priorities to defend against terrorism.
Terrorism is widely defined as the unlawful use of force, violence, or implied harm against persons and property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any element of either, to further political, religious, or ideological aims. Agroterrorism is

the deliberate introduction of detrimental agents, biological and otherwise, into the agricultural and food processing system with the intent of causing actual or perceived harm. The broad areas of agriculture that could provide targets in an agroterrorism event are farm animals and livestock, plant crops, and the food processing, distribution, and retailing system. The term bioterrorism will be widely used in this discussion, and in fact is closely related to agroterrorism. Bioterrorism is defined as the use of biological agents in a deliberate, harmful attack, or terrorism using the weapons of biological warfare such as anthrax, smallpox, or other
pathogens. Bioterrorism attacks can be directed not only at agricultural targets, but also at the general public and key domestic infrastructure systems and personnel. The anthrax incidents involving tainted mail that occurred shortly after the 9/11 events can be classified as bioterrorism. In the discussion herein, biological agents can be considered the most probable weapon used to launch an agroterrorism event.

Collapses the economy Schnider et al 12 (R. Goodrich Schneider, associate professor; University of flordia, 6/26/12 , Agroterrorism in the U.S.: An Overview
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FS/FS12600.pd Agriculture and the food industry are important to the U.S. economy . The USDA's Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) estimates one person in eight works in some part of the agriculture/food sector. Cattle and dairy farmers alone earned over $95 billion a year in meat and milk sales in 2007. Domestically, a significant portion of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is related to agriculture and food production. Even

without agroterrorism, livestock and crop diseases cost the U.S. economy billions of dolars annually. These are the baseline losses to which the financial impact of an actual agroterrorism event would be added. If an agroterrorism event occurred in the U.S., the potential for disruption of our export market would be immense. International trade is crucial, as it provides a
market for a major part of our crop production, and a growing share of meat output. Overall, 12.7% of the U.S. GDP was due to international trade in 2008. For comparison, close to 30% of U.S. farm products were exported in 2008, while nonagricultural exports were about 12% of the GDP. Proportionately, the U.S.

agriculture industries rely on export markets more heavily than other sectors of U.S. industry. An agroterrorism event that instigated fear or even uncertainty in our international customers could be financially devastating to U.S. agricultural interests.

U.S agriculture is vulnerable to an agroterroirst attack Schnider et al 12 (R. Goodrich Schneider, associate professor; University of flordia, 6/26/12 , Agroterrorism in the U.S.: An Overview
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FS/FS12600.pd

Various factors lead to the heightened state of vulnerability of the U.S. to an agroterrorism event. As previously discussed, agriculture, food processing and food retailing contribute significantly to the U.S. economy, despite the perception of the ceaseless encroachment of urban growth into rural areas. As urban growth has occurred, agricultural operations, including farms, packinghouses, and processing plants have become larger, more centralized, and more intensive. It is this type of industrial concentration that perhaps increases the vulnerability of the U.S. agriculture system; as almost all agricultural sectors consolidate, their overall size generally increases. Thus, the impact of a targeted agroterrorism event affecting just one entity could still have a serious, adverse impact. For example, foot-andmouth disease (FMD)
confined to a very small geographically distinct herd is a vastly different situation than FMD occurring through intentional spread of the disease in a large cattle operation. Although large operations typically have greater economies-of-scale, they also lead to these types

of

vulnerabilities. There are other reasons to be aware of the need to better security in agricultural operations. It is difficult and expensive to secure large areas of farm land with fences, gates and monitoring devices. Yet, it is incumbent upon producers to provide security in these areas. Packinghouses and processing plants are more easily controlled from a physical perimeter standpoint, but conversely have more personnel that need to be screened and then trained in specifics of plant security. More and more auditors focus on specific areas where their clients can improve their procedures and practices. Defense against terrorism must become ingrained in the normal operations of all agricultural operations before the U.S. can expect an improvement in the current state of readiness against an attack.585858

Leads to Econ Collapse Monke 04, (Jim Monke Analyst in Agricultural Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division at the
library of congress, 8/14/04, Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness , http://www.cnmihomelandsecurity.gov.mp/downloads/agroterrorism-threat-and-preparedness.pdf) The potential of terrorist attacks against agricultural targets (agroterrorism) is increasingly recognized as a national security threat, especially after the events of September 11, 2001. In this context, agroterrorism is defined as the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease with the goal of generating fear, causing economic losses, and/or undermining stability. Agroterrorism is a subset of the more general issues of terrorism and
bioterrorism. People more generally associate bioterrorism with outbreaks of human illness (such as from anthrax or smallpox), rather than diseases first affecting animals or plants. Agriculture

has several characteristics that pose unique problems for managing the threat: ! Agricultural production is geographically disbursed in unsecured environments (e.g., open fields and pastures throughout the countryside). While some livestock are housed in secure facilities, agriculture in general requires large expanses of land that are difficult to secure from intruders. !
Livestock are frequently concentrated in confined locations (e.g., feedlots with thousands of cattle in open-air pens, farms with tens of thousands of pigs, or barns with hundreds of thousands of poultry). Concentration in

slaughter, processing, and distribution also makes large scale contamination more likely. ! Live animals, grain, and processed food products are routinely transported and commingled in the production and processing system. These factors circumvent natural barriers that could slow pathogenic dissemination. ! The presence (or rumor) of certain pests or diseases in a country can quickly stop all exports of a commodity, and can take months or years to resume. ! The past success of keeping many diseases out of the U.S. means that many veterinarians and scientists lack direct experience with foreign diseases. This may delay recognition of symptoms in case of an
outbreak.CRS-2 ! The number of lethal and contagious biological agents is greater for plants and animals than for humans. Most of these diseases are environmentally resilient, endemic in foreign countries, and not harmful to humans making it easier for terrorists to acquire, handle, and deploy the pathogens. Thus, the general susceptibility of the agriculture and food industry to bioterrorism is difficult to address in a systematic way due to the highly dispersed, yet concentrated nature of the industry and the inherent biology of growing plants and raising animals. The

results of an agroterrorist attack may include major economic crises in the agricultural and food industries, loss of confidence in government, and possibly human casualties. Humans could be

at risk in terms of food safety or public health, especially if the chosen disease is transmissible to humans (zoonotic). But an agroterrorist attack need not cause human casualties for it to be effective or to cause large scale economic consequences.

US Ag Good Hegemony
Domestic US Ag production is key to future Global Leadership more important than all other factors Andrew Pickford, 2008, Andrew Pickford holds positions of Mannkal Fellow at Mannkal Economic
Education Foundation and Project Consultant at the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Western Australia, Masters of Studies in Strategic Affairs from the Australian National University, Research Manager of Future Directions International, Australia's Center for Strategic Analysis, 7/29/2008, (The Rise of Agri-Powers, http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1499253/the_rise_of_agripowers/) AGRICULTURAL POWERS those self-sufficient in food, fabric, and hydrocarbon production once were unambiguously regarded as strategic powers. This has been true throughout history: societies which were not agriculturally efficient and abundant could never long or fully sustain strategic power. Now, once again, a new set of nations is likely to emerge in the 21st Century with significant regional, if not global, influence demonstrably based on their agricultural capacity and their ability to match capital, productive land, and emerging technology on a scale which was not possible in the past. These emerging agri-powers are benefitting from trends making agricultural commodities more strategically important, and will gain from
having a significant agricultural base. Unlike the second half of the 20th Century, the global strategic environment is set to become more fluid, and the criteria which marked middle-power status, such as access to sophisticated military technology, is likely to become less overwhelming in importance. Even the term itself will lose its relevancy as dozens of nations fulfil the original definition of a traditional middlepower. In

this period of global turbulence, a back to basics approach, which leverages agricultural surpluses for international sale, biofuel production and potentially, through biotechnology, industrial applications, may result in nations with a substantive agricultural sector, such as Australia, having a more prominent global position. Similarly, it could make smaller agri-powers attractive targets for larger, hungrier1 nations.

US Ag Good Brazil Scenario

Decline in US ag allows Brazil to fill in AP 2008
(Associated Press, U.S. grain exports snagged by infrastructure delays, 8-25, http://www2.jcfloridan.com/news/2008/aug/25/us_grain_exports_snagged_by_infrastructure_delaysar-60163/, DOA: 7-13-12) Some agribusiness groups worry the bottlenecks could hurt the United States' standing as a global food provider as other nations, such as Brazil and Argentina, compete for a lucrative share of the market. In years past, bountiful harvests meant millions of bushels were stored outside overstuffed grain silos, waiting for shipment.
Commodities loaded on barges faced long waits at outdated locks and dams on the Mississippi River, adding days and dollars to their transportation. The barge delays alone added an average $72.6 million annually to cost of shipping goods down the Mississippi and Illinois rivers, according to a new Army Corps of Engineers analysis provided to The Associated Press. Rail delays are costly as well. In 2006, an estimated 1 billion bushels of grain was stored outside or in improvised shelters in Iowa, Illinois and Indiana, adding an estimated $107 million to $160 million that year to the cost of transporting it, according to USDA figures. That's about 1 percent of the combined $13.8 billion value of corn and soybean exports in 2006. "We're

way, way behind in our infrastructure investment, both in the private

sector and publicly," said Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, a trade group representing grain exporters. "And we need to move a lot on that or we will see other countries supplant us as they get greater investment in their infrastructure." The problem is likely to persist, if not worsen, in years to come. Fixing the bottlenecks will take billions of dollars in investment over several years. In the meantime, exports are forecast to increase, with corn shipments expected to grow every year over the next decade from 54 million metric tons to 77 million metric tons, according to the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. Added costs from bigger bottlenecks could only hurt U.S. farmers in a competitive global industry. "Price is still king in this business," said Larry Jansky, senior trader in agricultural commodities for North Pacific Inc. in Portland, Oregon. "Two or three dollars a ton is the difference between getting a contract or not." Agricultural exports last year were worth just less than $90 billion. If the U.S.
loses just 1 or 2 percent of that market to fast-growing exporters like Argentina, it could drain between $9 billion and $18 billion from the economy.

Specifically, Brazil pushes the US out of the soy export market- causes deforestation Martin, Chicago Tribune, 2004
(Andrew, Brazil threatens U.S. soybean dominance, 6-13, http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/290689.shtml, DOA: 7-13-12) Spurred by new global markets, soaring prices and vast tracts of undeveloped land, Brazil is poised to surpass the United States as the largest soybean producer in the world, largely due to the explosive growth of farming in Mato Grosso. Mato Grosso's success has stirred waves of panic in the American Midwest. Some U.S. soybean farmers worry that they can't compete with Brazil's cheap labor and land, divided into soybean plantations that are routinely 10,000 acres, far larger than a typical U.S. farm. Environmentalists, meanwhile, fret that Brazil's soybean success is accelerating deforestation of the Amazon for new farmland .
Mato Grosso's governor, Blairo Maggi, gruffly brushes off such criticism and prefers to talk about his state's tremendous potential for agricultural expansion. Only 7 percent of the land in Mato Grosso is used for farming, and with twice as much land as California, Mato Grosso could see 10 percent annual growth in new farms over the next decade, the governor says. Already, Mato Grosso--"thick forest" in Portuguese--has more acres devoted to soybeans, 12.9 million, than Illinois or Iowa, America's biggest soybean states. Illinois has 10.5 million acres and Iowa 10.4 million acres, according to a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report for 2002. "People have a lot of fear of the unknown," said Maggi, known locally as the Soybean King because

The emergence of Brazil and Argentina as players in the world soybean market is unwelcome news to U.S. soybean farmers, who faced little competition for decades. In the 1960s, the United States controlled 80 percent of the global market for soybeans,
his family owns the world's biggest soybean farming operation. "There is a lot of room to enlarge." which are used mostly as a protein source in livestock feed. By the turn of the century, that market share shrunk to 34 percent, and Brazil and

The pain has yet to be felt by many Midwestern farmers because of government price supports and increasing world demand, primarily from
Argentina together now supply 50 percent of the world's soybeans. Farmers still thrive

China's emerging middle class. Indeed, Midwestern soybean farmers are seeing some of the best prices ever. A drought in the United States, along with Asian soybean rust fungus in South America, helped drive up prices this year, past $10 per bushel. Soybean prices usually hover around $5 or $6 a bushel, according to the USDA. But experts suggest that U.S. soybean farmers should enjoy the good times while they last.

The future, they say, is clear: Brazil will grow more soybeans and the United States less. "At this point, it has been more talk than actual impact," said Darrell Good, an agricultural economist at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. "Everyone who goes down to South America comes back with a scare story for the American producer. "It's much more profitable to grow soybeans in Brazil than it is here. Over the next decade, we are going to lose beans to South America and switch to corn." Recognizing the threat, U.S. soybean associations are busily working on strategies to remain competitive, such as promoting U.S. advantages in

Transport improvements Because many soybeans are transported by barge, U.S. soybean growers are pushing the government to improve locks and dams along the Mississippi River. They are also promoting an energy bill, now stalled in Congress, that encourages the use of soybeans to produce diesel
quality, tracing shipments and transportation. fuel. In Illinois, a new program called SoySelect will allow farmers to quickly deliver soybean products that can be traced from the store to the field in which they were grown. Such "traceability," officials hope, will make U.S. soybeans more attractive. "We know that they [Brazilians] are producing lots of beans, more and more all the time," said Sharon Covert, a Tiskilwa, Ill., soybean farmer who heads the Illinois Soybean Checkoff Board, which uses farmers' money for promotions. "You just have to be ready for that type of competition." The potential of that competition--as well as its weaknesses--is evident on the road north from Cuiaba. BR 163 stretches 1,100 miles to the Amazonian port city of Santarem, through an immense stretch of largely undeveloped land that Maggi's government touts as the world's last great agricultural frontier. Roberto Smeraldi, director of the environmental group Friends of the Earth Brazil, said soybean expansion is a "powerful driver" of deforestation. Because land planted with soybeans typically soars in value, Smeraldi said speculators are clearing more and more territory in the hopes that it becomes the next cluster of huge soybean plantations. "It stimulates people to open up the frontier," Smeraldi said. "Out of four areas they open up, maybe only one actually works for soybeans . . . but then the damage is done."

Amazon key to prevent extinction- biodiversity, oxygen and disease Sohn, staff writer, 99
(Pam, "Eight Days in Brazil," Chatanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee), 4-11, lexis) Inside Brazil's rainforest, the Amazon is a waterworld of life. It nurtures more than half of the Earth's plant and animal species and spreads its life-giving oxygen to all of the planet. In late March, a 20-person group sponsored by the
Tennessee Aquarium made a eight-day trip there to find, study and harvest seeds from the Amazon's Victoria lily. The lily is legend. With its giant green pad, the lily is an indicator of the health of the world's largest contiquous rain forest, which provides breathable air and serves as a global source of climate control. The Chattanooga Times and Free Press went along on the Amazon trip, which was arranged so that Tennessee Aquarium horticulturalist Charlene Nash and the Victoria Conservancy could find and study the lily in the wild. Inside today's newspaper, beginning on Page G1, an eight-page special section chronicles the trip with a special team of travelers, people with an eye for plants, fish and bugs. Many of the lessons learned in a Amazon also apply, on a smaller scale, to the Tennessee River Valley. Both regions are known for abundance. The Amazon,

sometimes called the cradle of diversity, claims some 50 percent of the earth's known plant and animal species. The Southeast, with its Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, is said to be the global epicenter of freshwater mollusks. But the Amazon Basin's rain forest, which provides the habitat for all that biodiversity, is disappearing fast. And in the Tennessee and Cumberland river basins habitats are so changed that 30 species of freshwater mussels are already extinct and 70 percent of those remaining are considered endangered. Biodiversity is a scientific word for variety of life, and it may be key to human survival if a life-form that provides a life-saving medicine is lost. The threads of biodiversity are river basins with their wealth of plants and creatures. The rivers give life. The rivers are life. And the Amazon is life on a grand scale.

US Ag Good Food Security

U.S. leadership in agriculture is key to combat food insecurity globally Bertini and Glickman, 13. Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, World Food Program,
United Nations. Dan Glickman, Former Secretary, US Department of Agriculture May 2013. Advancing Global Food Security: THE POWER OF SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS. report issued by an independent Advisory group on global Agricultural development. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning. http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/2013_Advancing_Glob al_Food_Security.pdf - clawan As the worlds leading agricultural power, the United States has an immense opportunity to lead the international community in addressing the challenge of global food 2 ADVANCING GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY: THE POWER OF SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS security through agricultural development. While the United States has taken positive steps over the past several years to move in this direction, much more must be done in the coming decades to meet the complex challenges of feeding the world. Now is the time to move the agenda forward. The United States possesses the most successful agricultural research enterprise globally through its universities, research institutes, and agrifood businesses. It has the capacity to rally the necessary resources and expertise at home and abroad toward equipping the global agriculture and food system to sustainably meet future demand. Through the
right partnerships with other governments and organizations in both the developed and developing world, smallholder farmers living in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia can get the tools needed to lift themselves and others from poverty and become part of the solution.5 By

leading this charge, the United States would also create more American jobs, expand trade and investment opportunities, grow markets, and increase US influence globally, including in regions that will become increasingly important strategically in the years ahead.

American ag industry key to support global food markets Bertini and Glickman, 13. Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, World Food Program,
United Nations. Dan Glickman, Former Secretary, US Department of Agriculture May 2013. Advancing Global Food Security: THE POWER OF SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS. report issued by an independent Advisory group on global Agricultural development. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning. http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/2013_Advancing_Glob al_Food_Security.pdf - clawan The United States has before it the opportunity to be a catalyst to advance global food security. The blueprint put forward in this report calls for the US government to lead an international effort to mobilize science, increase trade, and leverage the strengths of business to advance global agricultural development as a means to increase food security. The United States has proven it can provide international leadership in the quest
toward global food security and encourage others to act on this issue. It has the expertise, institutions, and experience to energize this effort. What is required is the vision and commitment of American governmental, university, research, and business leaders working alongside their international counterparts. The recommendations in this report, if implemented and sustained, will

help lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the next two decades and help ensure sustainable food and nutrition security for future generations to come. They will also guard the worlds natural resource base, make agriculture more resilient to climate change, and contribute to economic growth and social stability in regions of the world that are key to US interests. If the United States fails to form a strategy, or if attempts to meet future food demand would falter, progress toward reducing global poverty may halt, and Americas domestic and international interests may be put at risk. Hunger would sow more conflict and political unrest in parts of the world that are vitally important to US

interests. The number of those living in chronic hunger would increase. The United States could miss the opportunity to cultivate new markets in developing countries. The American farm beltone of the strongest parts of the economycould lose export opportunities and see its future prospects dim.THE CHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL AFFAIRS 5

U.S. agricultural innovation spills over globally key to resolve food security and extinction Bertini and Glickman, 13. Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, World Food Program,
United Nations. Dan Glickman, Former Secretary, US Department of Agriculture May 2013. Advancing Global Food Security: THE POWER OF SCIENCE, TRADE, AND BUSINESS. report issued by an independent Advisory group on global Agricultural development. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning. http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/2013_Advancing_Glob al_Food_Security.pdf - clawan In the 21st century the world faces the multiple challenges of feeding growing populations, alleviating poverty, protecting the environment, and responding to climate change. Left unchecked, these challenges will perpetuate hunger and malnutrition, slow economic growth, spur political instability, and threaten irreversible damage to the environment and human survival. Since 2009 the US government has taken steps to confront these challenges through agricultural development. For the first time since the Green Revolution, empowering the worlds poorest to improve their livelihoods through ag riculture is at the top of the international agenda. If these efforts are supported and expanded, it will be possible to reduce poverty and meet future food demand sustainably. For progress to continue, government, business, and civil society must continue to work together to chart a course to meet future food needs in a way that improves nutrition, supports economic development, increases resilience to extreme weather variability, and preserves the environment. The next phase of US leadership needs to recognize both the complex interactions of agriculture with health, resource limitations, and climate change and the importance of trade and business in fostering food security. Farmers and businesses in the United States and abroad need access to advanced innovations in order to produce more nutritious food with fewer resources and less environmental impact. Trade in agriculture and food commodities
needs to flow more freely between areas of surplus and deficit. And governments must focus on the policies and investments that will make it possible for companies to thrive in new markets and develop and broadly disseminate innovations to increase nutritious food production. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs launched a project in mid-2008 to provide new

thinking on how the US government could renew its leadership on global agricultural development to alleviate poverty, advance global food security, and spur economic growth and social stability. The projects landmark report, Renewing American Leadership in the Fight Against Global Hunger and Poverty, was
issued in early 2009 by a bipartisan group of interested Americans. It called on the United States to reinvigorate investment in agricultural systems in the developing world, with a focus on smallholder farmers, especially the women who farm most of the worlds small holdings. The report put forward specific recommendations for US action that, if implemented and sustained, would lift millions of people in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia from poverty. The recommendations of the 2009 Chicago Council reportto reenergize support for agricultural research, extension, education, and rural infrastructure and to reform development delivery mechanismsare still highly salient. But emerging

global issues necessitate a refresh of US priorities and strategies for achieving global food security and raising the incomes of smallholder farmers and rural populations, the majority of the worlds poor. The current administration and 113th Congress require the most up-todate analyses and recommended
options for action if the United States is to continue to champion and lead the cause of global agricultural development.

American ag leadership is key to global stability exports and tech spillover Pardey and Alston, 10. Philip G. Pardey is professor of science and technology policy in the
Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. Julian M. Alston is a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics of the University of California, Davis, where he teaches graduate and undergraduate classes in microeconomic theory and the analysis of agricultural markets and policies. January 2010. U.S. Agricultural Research in a Global Food Security Setting. A Report of the CSIS Task Force on Food Security. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research and

analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. http://csis.org/files/publication/100111_Pardey_USAgriRes_Web.pdf - clawan In the past half-century, agricultural science achieved a great deal. Since 1960, the worlds population has more than doubled, from 3.1
billion to 6.7 billion, and real per capita income has nearly tripled. Over the same period, total production of cereals grew faster than population, from 877 million metric tons in 1961 to more than 2,351 million metric tons in 2007, and this increase was largely owing to unprecedented increases in crop yields.1 The

fact

that the Malthusian nightmare has not been realized over the past 50 years is attributable in large part to improvements in agricultural productivity achieved through technological change enabled by investments in agricultural research and development (R&D). The United States has been pivotal to the crucial role of agricultural R&D in alleviating global hunger and addressing pervasive food security concerns. Public and private investments in U.S. agricultural R&D constitute a large share of total global R&D spending. Consequently, shifts in the amount and emphasis of agricultural R&D within the United States have measurable consequences for the pool of global scientific knowledge affecting agriculture worldwide. Moreover, as well as being directly useful to farmers around the world, many new ideas and innovations developed by U.S. scientists have been taken up at home and abroad by other scientists, spurring further rounds of innovation. Thus the global food-security consequences of U.S. agricultural R&D are realized in two important ways . First, U.S. agricultural R&D has fueled productivity growth in U.S. agriculture, which, given the importance of U.S. production in global food and feed staples such as corn, wheat, and soybeans, has been a significant element of growing food supplies globally. Second, R&D and technology spillovers from the United States to the rest of the world have had important implications for growth in supply of food and feed in the rest of world. Agricultural R&D is at a
crossroads. The close of the twentieth century marked changes in policy contexts, fundamental shifts in the scientific basis for agricultural R&D, and shifting funding patterns for agricultural R&D in developed countries. Even

though rates of return to agricultural research are demonstrably very high, we have seen a slowdown in spending growth and a diversion of funds away from farm productivity enhancement. Together these trends will contribute to a slowdown in farm productivity growth at a time when the market has, perhaps, begun to signal the beginning of the end of a half-century and more of global agricultural abundance. 1. Obtained from United Nations FAO, FAOSTAT online database,
found at http://faostat.fao.org. Accessed September 2009. u.s. agricultural research in a global food security setting Philip G. Pardey and Julian M. Alston2 | u.s. agricultural research in a global food security setting It is a crucial time for rethinking national policies and revitalizing multinational approaches for financing and conducting agricultural research.

American food exports are key to global food supplies but have recently been declining Pardey and Alston, 10. Philip G. Pardey is professor of science and technology policy in the
Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. Julian M. Alston is a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics of the University of California, Davis, where he teaches graduate and undergraduate classes in microeconomic theory and the analysis of agricultural markets and policies. January 2010. U.S. Agricultural Research in a Global Food Security Setting. A Report of the CSIS Task Force on Food Security. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. http://csis.org/files/publication/100111_Pardey_USAgriRes_Web.pdf - clawan Productivity growth in the United States and globally has been the main driver and has contributed enormously to growth in supply of food and fiber. In 2002, in aggregate terms, U.S. agriculture produced more than five times the quantity of agricultural output produced in 1910. The 1.82 percent per year increase in output over
19102002 was achieved with only a 0.36 percent per year increase in the total quantity of inputs. Consequently, in 2002 it required only 1.4 times the 1910 quantity of inputs to produce 5.3 times the 1910 quantity of agricultural output, a very significant increase in agricultural productivity. These productivity gains can be measured in various ways. Conventional measures of productivity express the quantity of output relative to the quantity of inputs. If output grows at the same pace as inputs, then productivity is unchanged: if the rate of growth in output exceeds the rate of growth in the use of inputs, then productivity growth is positive. Partial factor productivity measures express output relative to a particular input (like land or labor).3 Multifactor productivity measures express output relative to a more inclusive metric of all measurable inputs (including land, labor, and capital as well as energy, chemicals, and other 2. J.M. Alston, M.C. Marra, P.G. Pardey, and T.J. Wyatt, A Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D: Ex Pede Herculem? IFPRI Research Report No 113 (Washington D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute, 2000). 3. Crop yields represent a particular partial productivity measure wherein the physical output for a particular crop is expressed relative to land input. pardey and alston | 3 purchased inputs). Measures

of agricultural productivity growth for the United Statesbe

they crop yields, other partial factor productivity measures (for example, measures of land and labor productivity), or indexes of multifactor productivityshow

generally consistent patterns in terms of secular shifts, including indications of a recent slowdown in growth.4 The
twentieth-century pattern of agricultural productivity growth in the United States can be divided into three phases. Prior to the 1950s, U.S. land, labor, and multifactor productivity grew comparatively slowly. The average rates of productivity growth picked up considerably during the subsequent four decades, 1950 1990, averaging 4.08 percent per year for labor productivity, 1.96 percent per year for land productivity, and 2.12 percent per year for multifactor productivity. A third phase, beginning in 1990 (and in this instance running to 2002, the latest year for which Alston et al. (2010) report multifactor productivity estimates), saw a sharp downturn in the rates of growth of all three productivity measures.5 Notably, during the period 19902002 labor productivity and multifactor productivity grew at half, or less than half, the corresponding rate for the period 19501990. The

long-run evidence on U.S. crop yields and

productivity tells a consistent story: measurable but comparatively sluggish growth prior to 1950, historically rapid growth for the subsequent four decades 19501990, and then a substantial slowdown from 1990 forward in the rates of growth for all of the crop yield and productivity series detailed in this report. Paralleling productivity developments in the United States, the evidence of a slowdown in crop yields throughout the world is quite pervasive. In more than half of the countries growing each crop, yields
for rice, wheat, maize, and soybeans grew more slowly during 19902007 than during 19611990. More critically, the slowdown was more widespread among the most important producers (that is, the top ten producing countries worldwide) than among all producing countries.

US Ag Good Economy
Ag Industry key to jobs and economy Stabenow 2013, Feb 17, Debbie Stabenow, Senate agriculture Committee Chairwoman, American
Agriculture Supports 16 Million Jobs http://www.stabenow.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=251 WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, said today that American agriculture is supporting 16 million jobs and is one of few industries leading the economic recovery . Stabenow made the comments at the Committee's first hearing of the 112th Congress, where Members and witnesses examined agriculture's effect on the U.S. economy. Keith Creagh, Governor Rick Snyder's newly appointed Director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development, testified at the hearing on the importance of agriculture, the state's second-largest industry, to Michigan's economy. "Rarely have we seen a more positive outlook for the agricultural economy as a whole," Stabenow said. "This should come as no surprise to any of us: American farmers and ranchers produce the safest, most nutritious and most sustainable agricultural products in the world. In fact, one of the biggest success stories in our nation's economy is the strength of our farm exports. For the second year in a row, agricultural exports are projected to be over $100 billion ... Our agricultural exports will support over one million jobs this year alone -- and these jobs are not just on the farm but in towns and cities all across the country." Stabenow pointed to her state of Michigan, where agriculture is the second-largest industry, as an example of a state poised to continue strengthening an already robust sector. "Agriculture represents more than $70 billion for our economy each year, and represents one out of every four jobs in my state," she said.Keith Creagh, Director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development, provided a snapshot the agriculture economy from a state perspective, highlighting agriculture's role as a jobs creator and also identifying new opportunities for investment and growth."Michigan's agri-food industry is a robust and high tech industry that will undoubtedly serve as one of Michigan's, and the nation's, foundations to our long term, sustainable economic recovery," Creagh said. "At a time when 850,000 jobs were lost in Michigan, our agricultural economy experienced a decade of growth. It expanded at a rate of more than five times faster than the rate of the general economy between 2006 and 2007. Further, since 2007, we have seen a 27 percent increase, making agriculture a cornerstone in diversifying Michigan's economic future. As a result of our diverse soils, crops, fresh water, and climate we are well-positioned to continue this growth and expansion at all levels of production. Currently, we produce over 200 commodities on a commercial basis; and lead the nation in 18 of these." Creagh also thanked Stabenow for her leadership in agriculture and her commitment to strengthening Michigan's economy and workforce through continuing to work closely with state officials. Additional witnesses included Mr. Fred Yoder, a farmer from Plain City, Ohio and former president of the National Corn Growers Association; Dr. Joe Outlaw, an economist with Texas A&M; and Mr. Thomas M. Hoenig, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.Senator Stabenow added, "I want to thank all our witnesses today, especially Director Keith Creagh from my home state. Director Creagh I look forward to working with you and Governor Snyder to create Agriculture jobs in Michigan." 16 million jobs. That's an estimate of the total number of Americans who have a job because of American agriculture .

AT: CIR Solves Ag

Cap on Guest worker program cant solve for Ag- Plan Key Wall street Journal 6/5 2013, The Farm Worker Shortage U.S Agriculture needs more guest
workers than the Senate bill allows http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html The Senate begins floor debate on immigration reform next week, and our hope is that it can improve the Gang of Eight bill that emerged from the Judiciary Committee with the U.S. economy foremost in mind. One place to start is ending America's farm-worker shortage. Farm growers have reluctantly (and under Democratic pressure) endorsed the Gang of Eight's framework, flaws and all, because they desperately need more workers. Although there's currently no cap on agriculture visas, only 5% of the country's two million farm workers are employed under the current and very onerous H-2A visa program. One reason is because H-2A visas are only good for a year and don't allow workers to change jobs. The fast-twitch bureaucrats at the Labor Department also must certify that U.S. workers aren't available to do the job, so workers arrive late if they arrive at all.In 2010, farmers reported more than $320 million in losses because they didn't get the workers they needed. Illegal workers fill most of the gap, but increasingly the bigger companies are moving production to Latin America. Growers estimate that 80,000 acres of fruit and vegetable production have moved out of California alone because of the labor shortage.The problem is that in return for these improvements, labor unions demanded a cap on new guest workers of 337,000 over five years. That isn't likely to fill the needs of an industry in which labor shortages run as high as 20%, depending on the location and crop. The guest-worker flow ought to follow labor demand, not have an artificial cap that might still allow a shortage that would attract more future illegals. The Secretary of Agriculture would be able to lift the cap in "severe labor shortages," but much will depend on how the Secretary defines "severe." Is a shortage that results in several thousand acres of spoiled lettuce in California's San Joaquin Valley severe? Or must prices increase at the supermarket? The legislation also makes life difficult for employers who need labor year-round by requiring that guest workers return home for at least one-sixth of the duration of their visas. This can disrupt operations by taking away the most experienced workers at crucial times , even if they want to stay.Equally troublesome are the legislation's fixed wages, which unions demanded to ensure that pay for domestic workers doesn't fall with an influx of foreign labor. The wage scales vary by job classificationranging from $9.17 per hour for field hands to $11.30 for equipment operators and would automatically increase by 1.5% to 2.5% each year.Because the wage controls would apply only to employers who use guest workers, farmers would have an incentive to hire domestic workers exclusively. But because relatively few Americans want to do farm work, this would merely drive more farm production overseas. The definition of perverse would be an immigration reform that causes the U.S. to import more of its food supply. Most media attention on immigration has been on legalizing the 11 million workers already here, but more crucial for the future is creating an adequate flow of guest workers to meet the demands of a growing U.S. economy. Having conceded on a "path to citizenship" for the 11 million, Republicans should focus on creating guest-worker programs with enough visas and without bureaucratic controls. Let Democrats choose between satisfying Big Labor and legalizing 11 million Hispanics.

AT: Europe Solves Food Security

European policies fail too export-oriented GPF, 6/27/13. Global Policy Forum is an independent policy watchdog that monitors the work of the
United Nations and scrutinizes global policymaking. We promote accountability and citizen participation in decisions on peace and security, social justice and international law. EU Agricultural Reform Misses Opportunity. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/217-hunger/52432-euagricultural-reform-misses-opportunity.html According to the German NGOs Brot fr die Welt and WWF Germany, the preliminary agreement reached on the reform of the European Unions Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) remains far behind its formulated goals. In particular, it does not take into account the effect it has on economic development in countries of the global South, given that it leaves out both sustainability as well as justice. The EU continues to ignore any possible external implications of its agricultural policy, commented Stig Tanzmann, agricultural expert from Brot fr die Welt. Particularly disappointing is the fact that the EU was not even able to come to an agreement with regard to export subsidies, which have been going on for decades now, but whose cancellation is utterly overdue. The EUs milk quota will run out in 2015, at which point the EU will receive a lot of calls
demanding export subsidies to make up for the lost domestic revenues. Therefore, Tanzman worries that suc cessful milk producers in developing countries such as Zambia or Kenya will once again have to compete with cheap EU milk, which will marginalize local production. The

new agreement further fails to account for the damage being done by EU imports, which have equally detrimental implications. The
production of soy beans which are imported from South America into the European Union is taking up 30 million hectares of farmland. In turn, this land cannot be used by developing countries themselves in order to provide food security for their populations. Thus, the

CAP is also a matter of land grabbing. Moreover, the soy bean imports enable large-scale poultry exports from the EU to African countries, which amount to more than 450,000 tons a year. The new CAP regulations are still lacking a complaint mechanism for producers who are affected by cheap EU exports. However, instead of facing the problems caused by European agricultural policies, the new CAP simply purports a new green look, without changing its old export-oriented nature.

AT: Immigrants Hurt Economy

They have the economics wrong: Low skilled immigration stop outsourcing and increases US investment Cowen 5/26
(Tyler, American economist, professor at George Mason University, Do low wages for unskilled workers weaken the case for more immigration? Pg online at http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/do-low-wages-for-unskilled-workersweaken-the-case-for-more-immigration.html#sthash.zCtGomla.dpuf//sd) Here is a point which I think the anti-immigration forces are getting wrong, mostly on the side of economics. It can be pointed out that low-skilled (native) labor in the United States has not seen strong income gains for some time. You might then wonder whether it makes sense to bring more unskilled labor into the country. In my view the evidence (and here) suggests that the negative wage pressures on unskilled labor, to the extent they have international origins at all (as opposed to TGS or automation or political factors), come more from outsourcing and trade than from immigration. So if you limit low-skilled immigration, outsourcing likely will go up, as it would be harder to find cheap labor in the United States. The United States will lose the complementary jobs as well, such as the truck driver who brings cafeteria snacks to the call center. Conversely, if you increase low-skilled immigration, you will also get more investment in the United States and more complementary jobs as well and possibly some increasing returns from clustering and maybe more net tax revenue too. On top of that the individuals themselves have greater choice as to where to spend their lives and build their careers. Heres another way to put it. Either factor price equalization will go on or not, noting that capital flows are the more active marginal lever here and there is no serious talk of banning capital outflow. If FPE isnt going to happen much, no big deal either way. If FPE is going to happen, you still might want to have it happen with more of those jobs inside your country. Again, you may wish to counterbalance this against any political costs from having more unskilled labor in your country, as I mentioned earlier. But from an economic point of view, the case for accepting the immigration including low-skilled immigration still seems strong to me.

AT: Bee Alt Cause

No impact to bee collapse alternative pollinators solve PBS, 07. Nature from PBS, Silence of the Bees: Impact of CCD on US Agriculture.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/silence-of-the-bees/impact-of-ccd-on-us-agriculture/37/ -clawan Of course, nature has its own safeguards to keep crops pollinated. Honeybees arent our only pollinators. Other insects and birds pollinate fruits and vegetables as well. The problem with other natural pollinators picking up
the bees slack is that todays agricultural industry has simply grown too large for them to keep up. The leviathan that is U.S. agriculture creates a huge demand for pollination. Because honeybees are relatively mobile and can pollinate a generous number of crops, they have been the ideal recruits to meet our crop needs. But honeybees

dont perform such feats naturally without help lots of it. Commercial beekeepers keep colonies nourished and healthy and move their hives from state to state in semis, selling their pollination services to farmers at a premium. With the threat of CCD looming, researchers are starting to study how other pollinators like the larger bumble bees could step in for honeybees. The Dutch have figured out how to use bumblebees, says Pettis. Bumblebees share many similarities with honeybees.
Both are social nesters, although the bumblebees society is not as highly ordered as that of honeybees. Also, bumblebees make a new nest each spring by solitary queens, who hibernate through the winter. Honeybees remain in the old nest.

Illegal Immigration Advantage

Yes Illegal Immigration

Despite high border security, illegal immigration still increasing unsecure rural areas Potter, 13 (Mark Potter, NBC National News Correspondent, Despite safer border cities,
undocumented immigrants flow through rural areas, May 3 2013, NBC News, http://dailynightly.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/02/17708115-despite-safer-border-citiesundocumented-immigrants-flow-through-rural-areas?lite, //nikp)
As the national debate over comprehensive immigration reform plays out, the question looms: just how secure is the U.S. border with Mexico? The answer appears to be mixed, with definite improvements nationwide and a downward trend in illegal immigration in most places especially in the cities. But there

are some areas, in rural Arizona and Texas, where residents insist the border is neither secure nor safe. Gary Thrasher, a veterinarian and rancher in southern Arizona near Bisbee, says the rural border area where he works is actually less safe now than it was years ago, because of an increase in the number of armed drug and immigrant smugglers. When the federal government increased security in the border cities, he said, it had the negative effect of forcing the smugglers to move to the large rural areas. "The border statistically is securer than ever. That means nothing , he said. That's like saying we fixed this whole bucket, except for this hole down here. You know it's still not going to hold water." U.S. officials: look to
the numbers Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano frequently travels to the Southwest border and has made appearances before Congress where she has touted the recent improvements in border security and argued for passage of a comprehensive immigration bill. "Fewer people are trying to emigrate illegally into this country than in four decades, she testified before a U.S. Senate committee earlier this year. What I know is that apprehensions are low, because attempts are low. Drug seizures, contraband seizures, all the numbers that need to be up are up." In the year 2000, agents along the length of the Southwest border reported detaining 1,643,679 immigrants for allegedly entering the country without proper documentation. Twelve years later, in 2012, that number had plummeted to 356,873, a decrease of 78 percent. "San Diego and the Mexican border used to be the most lawless, violent places across the face of the earth with thousands of crossborder migrants on a given day, said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the former head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. We put in triple fencing and adequate Border Patrol and Coast Guard and it stopped." Ranchers: rural border areas not secure Critics of

the administration's position on border security, however, say that while the overall apprehension numbers are down, they don't fully reflect the reality in areas where smugglers and immigrants still routinely make the illegal crossing into the United States from Mexico. On a small ranch near the border in southwestern Arizona, a mother of several children spoke under the condition of anonymity. She fears what she described as an increase in drug and immigrant smugglers crossing her land by day and night. "You're still having to pack a gun everywhere with you and make sure your kids can't go outside to play unless you are watching them." she said. " The border is not secure . The Border Patrol doesn't have a very strong presence out here." Texas police: a rise in immigrant smuggling In the small town of San Juan, Texas, a few miles north of the Mexican border, Police Chief Juan Gonzalez toured some of the human stash houses his officers recently uncovered. They had been used to hide immigrants from all over the world who were smuggled across the border into the United States. Gonzalez says his department has never dealt with as many undocumented immigrants as it encounters now. "In the past three years we've seen an increase. And it's not a steady increase, it's a massive increase ," he said. "Too many people are getting through. We've got too many holes in the border and we don't have enough manpower to make sure we secure the border." About 75 miles north of the border, in Falfurrias, Texas, Benny Martinez, the chief deputy of the Brooks County Sheriff's Office, says his area is also deeply affected by a recent rise in illegal immigration. The trending is going up , he said. It hasnt gone down at all , not here. Last year, officials and ranchers there found the bodies of 129 immigrants who died in the harsh terrain, presumably after crossing the border illegally. Dozens are still unidentified and are buried in a local cemetery. Some of the metal markers on the graves read, "Unknown Female" and "Unknown Remains." One says, simply, "Bones." Martinez does not believe the U.S.-Mexican border is at all secure in South Texas, given

the rise in illegal immigration in Brooks County. "It's steady and I don't think it's going to go down, it's not going to happen
anytime soon," he said. Ranchers like Linda Vickers, who lives just north of a Border Patrol highway checkpoint near Falfurrias, said she regularly sees, and often photographs, illegal immigrants cutting across her land as they try to evade the agents. Im seeing groups of 10, groups of 20 and Im seeing them more often, she said. When asked about Obama administration claims that the border is more secure now, Vickers said that while it appears to be true elsewhere in the country, its not the case where she lives. In

the state of Texas, in the Rio Grande Valley, the border is not secure and I dont think youll find a person, a real person, to say its secure, she said. Border patrol: South Texas a problem area In South Texas, in the Rio Grande Valley sector, immigrant apprehensions rose 65 percent from the years 2011 to 2012 -- from 59,243 to 97,762, according to U.S. Border Patrol -- bucking the national trend of falling immigration numbers. This year, statistics reveal the Rio Grande Valley apprehension numbers have climbed even further, rising 55 percent compared to this time in 2012. Federal agents believe it reflects a recent increase in people fleeing the poverty, drug gangs and violence in Central America. Privately, some agents say that, despite their great success in making more apprehensions, thousands of immigrants crossing the border illegally in South Texas still slip past them. A majority of people involved in the security debate agree that most of the U.S. cities along the border are now
much safer than they used to be and have much lower crime rates, thanks to high fences, increased monitoring technology and thousands of Border Patrol and other federal agents deployed there. But McCaffrey says U.S.

officials need to do more for the rural areas.

Yes Illegal Immigration AT: Increased Border Security

Increases in Border Security have minimal effectsempiricsno studies prove impact of enforcement after recent increases in border presence Hanson, 6/24 (Gordon Hanson, professor in the economics department and School of International
Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California at San Diego, holds the Pacific Economic Cooperation Chair in International Economic Relations, director of the Center on Emerging and Pacific Economies at UCSD, specializes in international migration, trade and investment issues, and U.S. immigration policy to border security, Want tough border security? Hope for an awful economy, Interview by Dylan Matthews Transcript, The Washington Post, WonkBlog, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/24/want-tough-border-security-hopefor-an-awful-economy/, //nikp)
Dylan Matthews: An extreme fatalist would say that theres basically nothing that the U.S. can do to control the border, that as long as theres demand for jobs in the U.S., people will come. What do you make of that argument? Gordon Hanson: I think its a bit oversimplified. There

are two excellent analyses of the impact of border enforcement on migration, each using data from the 1980s and 1990s, one by Pia Orrenius and one by Christina Gathmann. This work found that increases in border enforcement do deter people from crossing the border, but the effect is small . Do those studies, conducted when we had 4,000 border agents, apply when we have 20,000 agents or 40,000? Its not at all clear . Whereas previous increases in border enforcement left big gaps along the border, the recent and coming surges could possibly eliminate those gaps, causing the effectiveness of border enforcement to rise. In general, Im skeptical about the efficacy of huge increases in border security. At the same time, we have to be careful about what we think we know. The impact of enforcement on the decision to migrate looks pretty weak but we dont yet have analyses after the recent massive increases in border presence . How much is technology changing this? Are drones making surveillance cheap enough that securing the whole border is finally feasible? The relatively cheap technology of video surveillance cameras has had a significant impact on enforcement, but my sense is that these tools work best in urban areas, where agents have the capability of rapidly responding to information about migrant location. The deployment of surveillance technology is partly behind the dramatic reduction in crossings in San Diego, El Paso and other border cities. Video technologies are relatively cheap. However, the problem is that when you increase surveillance in cities people just stop crossing in urban areas and cross in remote locations, instead. As I understand it, the current effectiveness of drones for border enforcement is limited. Part of the reason may be that to use drones in
a meaningful way the Border Patrol would have to rethink how it deploys agents, with agent locations and movements being dictated by information coming from drones. There still appears to be something of a disconnect between drone operations and the activities of agents on the ground. Using

drones properly could dramatically increase the effectiveness of the Border Patrol, but the cost of such a program could be enormous (given how expensive drones are to purchase and operate). Are there other countries that have gotten good at border
security, who the U.S. could learn from? The former Soviet Bloc was very good at controlling borders. Such a reference sounds tongue in cheek, but if were going to have 40,000 agents on the border, 700 miles of significant border barriers, and drones in constant circulation, how far are we from Soviet style border security? For the Soviet Bloc, border security had tremendous symbolic importance. The image of large outflows of emigrants seeking to escape the Soviet Union and its satellites would have been emblematic of the failure of those countries to be attractive places to live. I

would argue that our interest in stopping illegal immigration also has a significant symbolic component. An extra $30 billion a year, as proposed in the Senate deal unveiled this week, would take annual spending on border enforcement to around $50 billion. Its hard for me to believe that this level of spending passes any meaningful cost-benefit test .

Yes Illegal Immigration AT: DHS Border Security Statistics

DHS measures of illegal labor flows are based on false assumptions in order to meet a political threshold to pass CIR Hanson, 6/24 (Gordon Hanson, professor in the economics department and School of International
Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California at San Diego, holds the Pacific Economic Cooperation Chair in International Economic Relations, director of the Center on Emerging and Pacific Economies at UCSD, specializes in international migration, trade and investment issues, and U.S. immigration policy to border security, Want tough border security? Hope for an awful economy, Interview by Dylan Matthews Transcript, The Washington Post, WonkBlog, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/24/want-tough-border-security-hopefor-an-awful-economy/, //nikp) I understand you have some criticisms about how we actually measure border effectiveness . I was part of this National Academy of Sciences panel on estimating illegal border flows. Our charge was to address How should DHS go about measuring illegal border flows, and are existing data adequate to ascertain how many people are crossing the border illegally each year? Some of the panelists were scholars like me, whod been
studying immigration for many years. Others were statisticians with a deep understanding of data collection, surveys, and the statistical properties of administrative information.

No one on the panel was impressed by the way that DHS measures

illegal labor flows . We simply dont know how many undocumented migrants cross the border . Pressure on DHS pressure has led them to use essentially manufactured numbers on turn-backs and got-aways. The resulting effectiveness rates theyve produced arent terribly meaningful , due to double-counting of apprehensions and a host of other statistical problems. More importantly, DHS estimates of their effectiveness rate are at odds with results from migrant surveys that ask individuals about apprehensions. We should approach estimates of DHS effectiveness with a healthy dose of skepticism . That would seem to imply that there would be more stat-juking if we had a trigger mechanism, as in the Gang of Eight bill, where legalization provisions are tied to border security effectiveness. In the end, defining effectiveness will be primarily a political battle . It DHS is required to reach a true apprehension rate of 90 percent immigration reform would never be implemented. So, what Im guessing will happen is that DHS will define effectiveness measures that they can reach (or that politicians want them to reach ). DHS will likely shield information about their activities, as theyve done to date, complicating independent evaluation of their efforts. Any final things youd like to add before we wrap up? Before the current round of immigration reform got off the ground, it seemed that DHS was on the verge of opening up access to its data on border apprehensions and enforcement. Ive done a great deal of work DHS data on apprehensions and enforcement using their internal
data. My interest in working with DHS was in ultimately producing academic studies that could be published in scholarly journals. Two years ago, or so, I thought we were close to getting permission to publish the results of our work. However, the environment has changed entirely.

DHS wont let me or others whove used their internal data on apprehensions release our work for public view. Wed learn much more about the effectiveness of border enforcement if DHS would release its data in the public domain. They receive free evaluation of their efforts by the scientific community and would surely gain access to more reliable and more defensible indicators of enforcement effectiveness . But DHS is going in the other direction. They seem intent on shutting down any chance of data access . Theres language being put in the immigration reform legislation that prevents the DHS from putting too detailed information on border apprehensions or enforcement in the public domain. I believe this is a terrible mistake. If
we want to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of border enforcement, we need DHS to become more open about what it does.

Guest Workers Solve Illegal Immigration

Immigration is inevitable, a guest-worker program is necessary to accommodate economic benefits CIR insufficient to solve Nowrasteh, 13 - Alexander "Alex" Nowrasteh is an analyst of immigration policy currently working at the Center for Global Liberty and
Prosperity of the Cato Institute (Immigration plan does only half the job, 1/29/13, http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2013/01/29/immigration-plan-does-only-half-the-job) Heeding the Obama administrations call for immigration reform, a bipartisan group of eight senators Monday released a proposal they plan to introduce as legislation. They wisely included legalization for current undocumented immigrants, but their plan will likely come up short on a guest-worker program for legal migrant workers. While

legalization is a good step, lack of a comprehensive guestworker program only perpetuates the problem many immigration critics cite as their biggest concern: unauthorized immigration. Yet guest-worker measures have worked in this country before, so it is pure politics, rather than substance, that prevents officials from crafting one now. Unauthorized immigrants who are not violent or criminals should indeed be legalized. They came here for economic security, and many are on their way to achieving it. So many of their offspring, the so-called DREAMers, who were brought here as children, know nothing but the United States and speak only English. They are Americans in all the ways that count except a law that now says they arent. Its time for the law to accept them. Most unauthorized immigrants came from Mexico, Central America and Asia, where the benefits of moving here are incomes two to six times greater than in their homelands. The U.S. economy, struggling since the 2008 crisis, put a damper on unauthorized immigration, but gradually recovering housing and labor markets are beginning to attract people again. That is why a robust guest-worker program is needed: to accommodate future flows of migrants. After decades of unauthorized immigration motivated by economic gain, it is fantasy to expect it to stop after legalizing those unauthorized immigrants already here . Let us not forget that President Ronald Reagan tried an amnesty in 1986 which failed because it legalized the workers here but did not provide a viable pathway for future workers to come. What we need is a legal way for lower-skilled immigrants to enter the United States and a guest-worker visa program is the easiest avenue . So why doesnt the proposed immigration reform include a comprehensive guest-worker program? Surprisingly, the main issue is not opposition from conservative Republicans. It is unions and their supporters who do not want it. In the
2007 immigration reform push, an amendment that would have ended the guest-worker program after five years destroyed Republican support. The then-leaders of the AFL-CIO, the Laborers International Union of North America, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers and the Teamsters all wrote letters opposing guest workers and supporting the amendment. Teamsters President James P. Hoffa wrote that he opposed a guestworker program because it would *force+ workers to toil in a truly temporary status with a high risk of exploitation and abu se by those seeking cheap labor. At least unions now support immigration restrictions for different reasons than before. Samuel Gompers, the founder of the AFL, never saw an anti-immigration bill he did not like. He supported the Chinese Exclusion Act and the near-race-based quota acts of the 1920s that drastically curtailed immigration from anywhere except Northern and Western Europe. Gompers logic was simple. He thought unions can only organize when there is a limited supply of labor, especially immigrant labor. This thinking was even espoused by the likes of Csar Chavez, whose organizing efforts involved calling the Immigration and Naturalization Service to report unauthorized Mexican workers or forming a wet line (his language) on the Mexican border. Now unions say they oppose a guest-worker visa program to protect these workers from abuse. But unauthorized workers are going to come in any case, so preventing a guest-worker program can only place them in a black market where employer abuse, backed up by the threat of deportation, is far worse. If unions are honestly concerned about guest-worker abuse, the solution is making the visa portable and not tied to one employer. A World War I guest-worker visa let guest workers quit their jobs and be hired by approved employers. Guest workers simply had to tell the government about their new employer after they were hired not seek permission before switching jobs. The best labor protection is a workers ability to quit a job without legal sanction. If the government could create such a guest-worker visa program 100 years ago, there is no reason why it cannot be revived today. As

long as there is economic opportunity here, immigrants legal or not will come. An immigration bill that does not create a vehicle for legal migrants to enter the country is not real reform.

Increasing visas resolves illegal immigration empirics Anderson, 4/16 - Stuart Anderson, Contributor to Forbes magazine, I write about globalization, business, technology and
immigration. (Too Few Work Visas in New Immigration Bill, 4/16/13, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2013/04/16/toofew-work-visas-in-new-immigration-bill)

If the goal of the new immigration bill was to reduce illegal immigration , then the new legislation provides far too few visas to accomplish that objective. The lack of a legal visa category for the jobs most illegal immigrants fill is a core reason for illegal immigration. Unfortunately, according to the summary released by the
Senate bills sponsors, there wont be a chance a reasonable number of new temporary work visas will be issued until at least the year 2020. The bills summary states: Beginning April 1, 2015 . . . The annual cap on the maximum number of registered positions that may be approved each year are limited for the first four years. 20,000 for the first year; 35,000 the second year; 55,000 the third year and 75,000 the fourth year. Hundreds

of thousands of people attempt to enter the United States illegally each year seeking work. As a result, the numbers cited above will be too low, particularly as the economy improves. The lack of legal visas undermines the bills determination that America should achieve operational control of the border.
Whether the number will ever go above 75,000 is anyones guess, since the AFL-CIO achieved its goals in the bill of establishing a type of labor czar who will help determine how many workers are needed in America. F.A. Hayek wrote eloquently about the fatal conceit of governments acting as if they know information th at by its nature they cannot know. The bills summary describes the complicated formula under which it might be possible to go beyond 75,000 work visas in a year: For each year after the fourth year, the annual cap will be calculated according to a statistical formula that takes the following four factors into consideration: the rate of change in the number of new job openings in the economy; the inverse rate of change in the number of unemployed US workers; the percentage change the Bureau recommends the annual cap should increase or decrease; and the percentage difference between the number of W-visas requested in the prior fiscal year compared to the cap in the prior fiscal year. If you read the summary closely, youll notice the number can also go back down the ladder as well, so theres no guarantee that even 75,000 will endure as the annual cap. Another concern is the Department of Labor has administrative discretion under the new category, as it has with H-2B visas, a category for seasonal nonagricultural workers. DOL so overstepped its authority in restricting H-2B visas that a federal judge recently threw out its regulations. The

Hill

newspaper (April 11, 2013) reported on a letter sent to House members signed by the Associated Builders & Contractors (ABC), ImmigrationWorks USA, the International Franchise Association and the National Association of Home Builders advocating a large work visa category . The letter argued, In the early 2000s, when the economy was booming, several hundred thousand unauthorized workers entered the country every year to fill low-skilled jobs for which there were not enough willing and able Americans. If the new visa program is not ample enough, it will not succeed in replacing this illegal flow with a legal workforce. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is to provide a substantial number of new work visas so individuals can enter the United States legally. That is the one reform most likely to succeed , as we saw during the Bracero program when illegal entry dropped dramatically as legal entry increased. It is also the reform that appears least likely to be enacted.

Guest worker programs reduce illegal immigration Felde, 9 - Kitty Felde is KPCC's Washington, D.C. Correspondent. Before moving to the nation's capital, Kitty hosted KPCC's "Talk of the
City" from 1997-2006 (Study says guest worker program may help stop illegal immigration, August 17th, 2009, http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/08/17/4725/immigration-study) This fall, Congress is expected to tackle comprehensive immigration reform. A

Washington think tank says the best way to

stop illegal immigration is with a guest worker program . KPCCs Washington Correspondent Kitty Felde reports. The Cato Institute says tougher border enforcement would reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. workforce. But the libertarian think tank says it would also increase the value of the illegal immigrant workers that remain. Its supply-and-demand: fewer unskilled illegal immigrant workers available for some of the grimiest work means their pay goes up. And Cato estimates that as their pay went up, everyone elses income would go down by about half a percent. But Cato says if the U.S. adopted a guest worker program for low-skilled immigrants, it would hold down their pay and increase everyone elses by more than a percent. The Cato study says a guest worker program that offered temporary green cards to immigrant workers would eliminate smuggler fees and create higher immigrant productivity. The Cato Institute did not examine the economic impact of giving illegal immigrants permanent legal
status.

Guest Workers Solve Border Security

Emphasis on immigration trades off with security measures guest worker programs solve Alexander 13 (Robert Alexander, June 14th, 2013, graduate from West Texas A&M University, staff
writer for Texas Tribune U.S. Policy Toward Illegal Immigration and Border Security: Summary and Evaluation http://www.wtamu.edu/webres/File/Academics/College%20of%20Education%20and%20Social%20Scie nces/Department%20of%20Political%20Science%20and%20Criminal%20Justice/PBJ/2009/1n2/1n2_01A lexander.pdf) Payan asserts that a real solution to the border would require a political will that no one, from Washington to Mexico City, is willing to invest on this god-forsaken part of the globe that clamors for attention (p.xii). Regardless of the political realities that have thus far prevented genuine border security and immigration reform from being achieved, law and policy makers must realize the complex nature of the problem. Additionally, these officials must stop trying to use such a single, heavy-handed approach, which by itself, does little more than waste money and turn foreign opinion against us. Government officials must recognize that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are not criminals, but rather peaceful, hardworking people that contribute to our nation both economically and culturally. The United States is fully within its rights as a sovereign nation to secure its borders. However, focusing all of our attention and resources on the border can only go so far in resolving the problem. We must understand that the strong motivations that drive illegal immigration have not yet been stopped by increased border security. Even so, if such an approach were possible, it would not help either side. The United States needs to develop a comprehensive policy that recognizes the complexity of the issue. The legislation proposed by Representative Jackson Lee approaches the problem in an appropriate manner. We must take into account border security, economic needs that immigration can satisfy, the possibility of permanent residency for some and a temporary program for others, labor exploitation, and the enforcement of immigration and labor laws and the punishment of violators. Although such reform could not be guaranteed to work completely, it would likely be far more successful than the current policy and would be a much more balanced and rational approach. Through an approach that would limit the number of illegal crossings, the Border Patrol would be able to focus on the interdiction of drugs and the protection of our borders against terrorist threats. A more peaceful resolution of the immigration problem would benefit the United States by welcoming foreign workers who would contribute economically and culturally to this great nation. The border region with Mexico would achieve a level of stability and peace, and the United States could remain the center of diversity and economic opportunity.

Focus on immigrants trades off with security prioritization Barry 11 ( Tom, Septhember 13, 2011, Director for the TransBorder project at the Center for
International Policy in Wash. DC Border Security After 9/11: Wasteful Policy Fueling New Drug Wars http://www.alternet.org/story/152402/border_security_after_9_11%3A_wasteful_policy_fueling_new_ drug_wars?paging=off By mid-decade, the rash of new border security and related immigration enforcement initiatives had little or nothing to do with securing the US against terrorists. The Border Patrol's "Prevention through Deterrence" strategy took on new import as a national security strategy to deter domestic security threats. A new array of CBP and ICE programs including the 670-mile "secure fence," the planned $8 billion SBInet or "virtual fence," Operation Streamline and the expanded Criminal Alien Program - constituted the "Secure Border Initiative" (SBI),

which was launched in late 2005 by DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. In 2005, DHS described SBI as "a comprehensive multiyear
plan to secure America's borders and reduce illegal migration." DHS insisted that the new initiative would be based on a "risk-based decisionmaking process." Yet, in practice, DHS's

new border control and immigration enforcement programs were not focused on demonstrable homeland security threats. Both the increased border fortifications and the intensified enforcement under the SBI umbrella continued the Border Patrol practice of targeting illegal immigration and marijuana smuggling, which were shoehorned into the new homeland security rubric of "dangerous people and goods." Chertoff was a veteran federal prosecutor who had been attorney general John Ashcroft's chief
deputy in charge of Patriot Act prosecutions. In Chertoff's view, the deterrence logic of the criminal justice system - namely, criminalization and imprisonment - could also be applied to immigration enforcement at the border. Through Operation Streamline, launched in 2005, the Border Patrol began turning over illegal border crossers to the federal courts for prosecution and criminal incarceration. After serving their criminal consequences for immigration violations, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) US Marshals Service (USMS) and Bureau of Prisons then transfer the immigrants back to DHS. In turn, ICE directs the immigration consequences of illegal entry, including lengthy incarceration in ICE's own network of mostly privately-run detention centers and eventual deportation. This new practice of criminalizing immigration violations has vastly expanded the number of immigrants that DHS calls "criminal aliens." As conceived by Chertoff, the new determination to charge and imprison illegal border crossers was part of a revamped, stepped-up deterrent strategy, which the Obama administration has continued. Border Security Serves New Drug Wars When the immigrant crackdown took hold in 2005 and cries for border security mounted, there was little mention of the fears and factors that have propelled the border security bandwagon since 2009. In late March 2009, in response to rising alarm about drugrelated violence in Mexico, Napolitano announced the launch of DOJ's Southwest Border Initiative. This continuing initiative, described as a UScentered adjunct to the State Department's counternarcotics aid to Mexico through the Mrida Initiative, is loaded with border security language. Rather than deciding that the surge of drug-related violence in Mexico was another reason to re-evaluate the 40 years of failed drug control policies, the Obama administration has reaffirmed US support for the military-led drug war in Mexico. The administration has also made a major public display of its determination to increase and redeploy DHS and DOJ resources to bolster border security. The administration argues that border security and national security, as well as Mexico's security and stability, demand that we stay the course initiated by the Bush administration. Rather than seize the opportunity to end drug prohibition and the drug wars, Obama and Napolitano have reverted to the traditional practice of desperately trying to hold the line at the border against immigrant, drug and gun flows. For the Obama administration, border security encompasses a wide range of policy initiatives, including rigorously enforcing drug laws in the Southwest, involving US agencies and aid in foreign drug wars and flooding the criminal-justice system and prisons with drug users and so-called criminal aliens. In June 2009, the Obama administration released its National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy. ONDCP director Gil Kerlikowske contended that the "new plan, combined with the dedicated efforts of the Government of Mexico, creates a unique opportunity to make real headway on the drug threat." Similar pronouncements have echoed throughout the past four decades of the "war on drugs." Real headway, however, has forever eluded the US drug warriors, and is belied by the US government's own intelligence. In its National Drug Threat Assessment 2010 report, DOJ's National Drug Intelligence Center concluded that "the availability of illicit drugs in the United States is increasing." That's despite increasing drug seizures along the Southwest border, as the same DOJ drug intelligence report documents. The report states that "significantly more marijuana" - the most widely used illegal drug and the source of most of the income of Mexico's drug trafficking organizations - is "being smuggled into the United States from Mexico, as evidenced by the sharp rise in border seizures." The main measure of success for counternarcotics operations - namely drug seizures - is not closely connected with drug consumption patterns. In 2009, border agents seized nearly a half-million more kilos of marijuana than they did in 2005. The Border Patrol and ICE routinely emphasize that their operations are "risk-based." However, the public safety and personal health risks of marijuana consumption are minimal. More than 10 percent of the US population that is 12 years or older uses marijuana.19 Marijuana is deemed beneficial by the medical profession and is legal for medicinal use in many states. Yet the Border Patrol persists in citing massive annual marijuana seizures as a chief indicator of its border security achievements. Drug trafficking, dominated by illegal marijuana smuggling and distribution, is hardly benign. Drug prohibition policies combined with US promotion and support for drug wars have greatly contributed to the rise of organized crime in producing and transit countries. This criminalization of prohibited drugs and the militarization of counternarcotics campaigns breed horrific violence, not only among the major crime organizations, but also among gangs at the community and neighborhood levels. Concern about the drug war to our south has provided a new boost for those calling for total border security. Further contributing to the demands for heightened border security is alarm expressed by many border security hawks about the purported threat of narcoterrorism, a term normally used by scholars and analysts to describe forces that conflate drug trafficking and political ambitions. The steady decline of illegal immigrant flows across the southwest border since 2006 with Border Patrol apprehensions declining from 1.2 million in 2005 to 450,000 in 2010 - has undercut the immigration arguments of border security hawks.20 But as the resonance of immigration-focused arguments for border security has diminished, border security demands couched in threat assessments about spillover violence, narcoterrorism and the drug war have come to dominate border security advocacy. Even more loosely tied to the 9/11 impetus for border security has been the "failed state" argument for fortifying the border. Organized crime groups, which, while established to traffic drugs, have branched into an expanding array of other criminal and noncriminal operations, increasingly threaten the viability of governance in areas of Mexico and Central America, especially in Guatemala and Honduras. Citing US government threat assessments, many border security hawks contend that the United States is facing the prospect of having failed states as close neighbors and argue, therefore, that increased border security is needed to protect the country against the resulting crime and socioeconomic turmoil. The exact correlation and configuration of forces responsible for the drug-related and organized crime violence in Mexico is difficult to discern. However, on the border, it is clear that the border security buildup contributes to the violent competition among crime groups for control over the plazas for drug smuggling and other related crime. Increased border security on the US side means increased public insecurity on the Mexican side and makes border crossing increasingly fraught with risk and violence. Stephen Flynn, author of "America the Vulnerable: How Our Government is Failing to Protect Us from Terrorism," calls the resulting increased border violence the "hardened border paradox." Flynn concluded that "stepped-up enforcement along the Mexican border suggests that U.S. efforts aimed at hardening its borders can have the unintended consequence of creating the kind of environment that is conducive to terrorists and criminals," noting how the increasingly fortified border in the 1990's raised the costs of getting into the United States while also creating "a demand for those who are in the business of arranging illegal crossings." The illegality at the border in this new border security era usually refers to illegal border crossers

themselves, together with the coyotes (human smugglers/guides) and the organized crime bands that charge for illegal crossings. This border illegality has escalated to include bandits that prey on the border crossers and on Border Patrol agents who cross their paths. Tightened control has made illegal crossings more difficult and more expensive. It has also turned what were previously routine, nonviolent crossings into dangerous undertakings that regularly involve dealings with criminal organizations. An indirect and certainly unintended consequence of the US border security buildup has been the increasingly violent competition between criminal organizations and gangs as they both struggle to maintain markets and trafficking corridors. On the US side, the border security fallout is far less grave. Indeed, across the southwestern border, the buildup in border security infrastructure and personnel has injected new life into many border communities. Yet throughout the region, and throughout much of the country, the undue focus on the security of the border has skewed politics, fostered vitriol and split communities into ideological factions. Responding to the charges by border hawks that the Border Patrol's apprehension and drug seizure statistics don't adequately measure the state of border security, Napolitano announced in early May 2011 that DHS was formulating a "new comprehensive index that will more holistically represent what is happening at the border and allow us to measure progress." The new border security "metrics" will for the first time include measures of border area crime as well "indicators of the impact of illegal cross-border activity on the quality of life in the border region," such as property values, environmental impacts and traffic accidents. "Ultimately the success of our efforts along the border," said Napolitano, "must be measured in terms of the overall security and quality of life of the border region." The everchanging and expanding concept of border security will likely foster yet more demands for border security pork in the way of increased funding for border law enforcement and border infrastructure, regardless of what the new metrics show. The new index of border security represents a new concession to border hawks, and is yet another example of how DHS is moving further and further away from its own central mission securing the United States and serving as an adjunct national security apparatus. The farther away we are from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the more DHS is prone to Orwellian redefinitions, such as translating security as safety. It has done this effectively in immigration enforcement with its Secure Communities program. Translating border security as quality of life in the borderlands is another dangerous case of mission creep for a new federal bureaucracy that is itself in search of meaning. Ten Years Later A border security juggernaut swept across the Southwest borderland, leaving in its wake new fears, insecurities and alarm. As billions of dollars are spent to increase security at the border, fear and alarm about the insecurity of the border have deepened since 9/11, along with strident demands that the government do still more. Continuing down the same course of border security buildups, drug wars and immigration crackdowns will do nothing to increase security or safety. It will only keep border policy on the edge - teetering without direction or strategy. Without addressing border policy in conjunction with drug policy, the drugs we consume will continue to be the product of transborder organized crime and bloodletting south of the border. Without addressing immigration reform, we face a future of immigrant bashing, divided communities, stalled economies and more immigrant prisons rising up on the edges of our towns. Alarm about the rising federal budget deficit threatens an end to the customary large annual increases for border security and immigration enforcement, even as the failures and waste accompanying those increases become more apparent. We should welcome the new constraints on border security funding as an opportunity to allow reason and pragmatism to direct border policy instead of fear, politics and money. Like

the ill-considered occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the "global war against terrorism," the post-9/11 border-security buildup has drained our treasury while doing little to increase our security. The standard of success for our border policy should not be how completely sealed and secured our border is, but rather, how well it is regulated. New regulatory frameworks
for immigration and drug consumption are fundamental prerequisites for a more cost-effective border policy. Just as the Bush administration launched the "global war against terrorism" and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a burst of misguided patriotism, the administration also thrust us into a new era of "homeland" and border security with little reflection about costs and consequences. Without

a clear and steady focus on the actual security threats, "homeland" and border security have devolved into wars against immigrants and drugs. Instead of prioritizing intelligence and interagency communication - the failures of which made 9/11 possible - the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration, have mounted security-rationalized crackdowns on the border and in the interior of the "homeland." As a result, the criminal justice system is overwhelmed, our prisons are crowded with immigrants and the flagging "war on drugs" has been given new life at home and abroad. Absent necessary strategic reflection and reform, the rush to achieve border security has bred dangerous insecurities about immigration and the
integrity of our border.

Border Focus Trades Off

Currently the US is over-focusing on Mexico border securitylack of focus elsewhere AP, 6/26 (The Associated Press, "Mexico Raps US Immigration Bill on Border Security, June 26 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/mexico-raps-us-immigration-bill-border-security19487559#.UcuLvD6gks0, //nikp) The Mexican government objected on Tuesday to an immigration bill that appears headed for approval in the U.S. Senate, saying the initiative's heavy focus on border security is not consistent with the relationship between the two countries. Foreign Relations Secretary Jose Meade said that instead of expanding a border fence, as proposed in the bill, the United States should modernize border bridges to expedite commerce . " Fences do not unite ," Meade said while reading a statement to reporters during a news conference where he didn't take questions "Fences are not the solution to migration and are not consistent with a modern and secure border," he added. "They do not contribute to the regional development both countries seek to propel." It was the first time the Mexican government had addressed the U.S. immigration bill. The U.S. Senate could have a final vote Thursday or Friday on the bill, which could offer a chance at citizenship for millions living in the country illegally while also calling for beefing up border security. It would then go to the House, where conservative Republicans in the majority oppose citizenship for anyone living in the country illegally. The measure includes adding 20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents, doubling their number along the border with Mexico, and completing 700 miles of fencing. Meade acknowledged the bill might benefit several million Mexican migrants living in the United States, but said measures "that could affect ties between communities move away from the principles of shared responsibility and neighborliness."

Even if plan doesnt eliminate illegal immigration, it allows border security to focus efforts Stroube 10 [Jack, Cato-At-Liberty, May 12, Bracero Guest Worker Program Model for Immigration
Reform, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/29/to-control-the-border-first-reform-immigrationlaw/] We know from experience that expanding opportunities for legal immigration can dramatically reduce incentives for illegal immigration. 1950s, the federal government faced widespread illegal immigration across the Mexican In the border. In response, the government simultaneously beefed up enforcement while greatly expanding the number of workers allowed in the country through the Bracero guestworker program. The result: Apprehensions at the border dropped by 95 percent. (For documentation, see this excellent 2003 paper by Stuart Anderson, a Cato adjunct scholar and executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy.) If we want to get control of our border with Mexico, the smartest thing we could do would be to allow more workers to enter the United States legally under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform. Then we could focus our enforcement resources on a much smaller number of people who for whatever reason are still operating outside the law.

US-Mexico Border Key Terrorism

The U.SMexican border serves as a hotspot for international terrorism Murdock, 4/25 - Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps
Howard News Service, and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University (The Southern Border: Our Welcome Mat for Terrorists , 4/25/13, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346591/southern-border-our-welcome-matterrorists)

There are at least 7,518 reasons to get the U.S./Mexican border under control. That equals the number of aliens apprehended in fiscal year 2011 from the four nations the U.S. government labels state sponsors of terrorism and ten additional countries of interest. Since January 2010, those flying into America via these 14 nations
face enhanced screening; as the Transportation Security Administration announced, Effective aviation security must begin beyond our borders. U.S.

national security merits at least that much vigilance on our borders. The roaring immigration-reform debate this year largely addresses Hispanic aliens who illegally cross the border. Far more worrisome, however, are the thousands who break into America from countries where we have concerns, particularly about al-Qaeda affiliates, a top State Department official told CNN. These include Cubans, Iranians, Sudanese, and Syrians whose governments are federally designated state sponsors of terrorism. As indicated by the latest information in Table 34 of
Customs and Border Protections Immigration Yearbook 2011, 198 Sudanese were nabbed while penetrating the USA. Between FY 2002 and 2011, there were 1,207 such arrests. (These figures cover all U.S. borders, although, as Table 35 confirms, 96.3 percent of the overall detainee population intruded from Mexico.) Like other immigrants, most Sudanese seek better lives here. But some may be vectors for the same militant Islam that literally tore Sudan in two. In FY 2011, 108 Syrians were stopped at our borders; over ten years, the number is 1,353. Syria is a key supporter of Hezbollah, and Bashar Assads unstable regime reportedly has attacked its domestic opponents with chemical weapons. As for Iranians, 276 were caught in FY 2011, while 2,310 were captured over the previous ten years. Iran also backs Hezbollah, hates the Great Satan, and craves atomic weapons. The other ten countries of interest are Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, and: Afghanistan: The Talibans stronghold and current theater of Americas longest war. Afghans halted in FY 2011: 106. Prior ten fiscal years: 681. Nigeria: The land of underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab suffers under sharia law in its northern provinces. Respective data: 591, 4,525. Pakistan: Hideaway of the Pakistani Taliban and the late Osama bin Laden. 525, 10,682. Saudi Arabia: Generous benefactor of radical imams and militant mosques worldwide; birthplace of 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers. 123, 986. Somalia: Home of Indian Ocean pirates and al-Qaedas alShabaab franchise. In October 1993, Islamic terrorists there shot down two Black Hawk helicopters, killed 18 U.S. soldiers, and dragged several of their bodies through Mogadishus streets. 323, 1,524. At a Capitol Hill hearing last July, Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano conceded that terrorists enter the U.S. via the U.S./Mexican border from time to time. The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight last November published A Line in the Sand: Countering Crime, Violence, and Terror at the Southwest Border. As this study explained: The Congressional Research Service reports that between September 2001 and September 2012, there have been 59 homegrown violent jihadist plots within the United States. Of

growing concern and potentially a more violent threat to American citizens is the enhanced ability of Middle East terrorist organizations, aided by their relationships and growing presence in the Western Hemisphere, to exploit the Southwest border to enter the United States undetected. A Line in the Sand offers chilling portraits of some who treat the southern border as Americas welcome mat. On January 11, 2011, U.S. agents discovered Said Jaziri in a car trunk trying to enter near San Diego.
Said said that he had traveled from his native Tunisia to Tijuana and paid smugglers $5,000 to sneak him across the border. The French government previously convicted and deported Jaziri for assaulting a Muslim whom he considered insufficiently devout. In 2006, Jaziri advocated killing Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for creating what Jaziri called sacrilegious drawings of the Prophet Mohammed.

Somalias Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane told authorities in 2011 that he earned up to $75,000 per day smuggling East Africans into America. His clients included three al-Shabaab terrorists. As the House report
states: Dhakane cautioned that each of these individuals is ready to die for their cause and would fight against the United States if the jihad moved from overseas to the U.S. mainland. On June 4, 2010, Anthony Joseph Tracy (a.k.a. Yusuf Noor) was convicted of consp iring to slip aliens into America. Tracy told federal investigators that Cuban diplomats used his travel agency in Kenya Noor Services Ltd. to transfer 272 Somalis to Havana. They proceeded to Belize, through Mexico, and then trespassed into the U.S. Tracy, who converted to Islam in prison in the 1990s, claims he refused to assist al-Shabaab. But officials discovered an e-mail in which he casually wrote: i helped a lot of Somalis and most are good but there are some who are bad and i leave them to ALLAH . . .

Terrorists will smuggle WMDs through the U.S.-Mexican border systemic flaws bolster the opportunity Olson & Lee, 12 - Eric Olson serves as Associate Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars in Washington, DC. He oversees the Institutes work on U.S.-Mexico security cooperation and research on organized crime and drug trafficking between the U.S., Mexico, and Central America (The State of Security in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region, August, 2012, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Security_Olson_Lee.pdf)

During the months and years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the nations long and relatively porous and undefended borders, particularly the

U.S.-Mexico border, were drawn deeply into the national conversation about national security. Border security became part of the overall analysis and rethinking of U.S. national security vulnerabilities, which included transportation networks and other critical infrastructure security .
Ironically, the 9/11 terrorists did not enter the United States over the northern or southern border but entered legally on student or immigrant visas. Nevertheless, fear that U.S. borders could be vulnerable to terrorist incursions led to a number of important policy decisions. Significant fortification of the border with additional staff, equipment, and infrastructure to make access more difficult became the principal way policymakers sought to address perceived border vulnerabilities. Along the way, these concerns

were conflated with a growing call for restrictive immigration policy, and the so-called sealing of the border to keep out undocumented migrants, criminals and to halt exploding violence in Mexico from crossing into the United States.
Despite these concerns, various public announcements (testimony, speeches, and the like) on the part of federal government officials in various agencies state a common theme: no significant terrorist threat to the United States has materialized in Mexico nor penetrated the U.S.-Mexico border since 2001. The State Departments annual country reports on terrorism provide clear language to this effect. There was no evidence of ties between Mexican criminal organizations and terrorist groups, nor that the criminal organizations had aims of political or territorial control, aside from seeking to protect and expand the impunity with which they conduct their criminal activityThere was no indication that terrorist organizations used Mexico as a conduit for illicit activities. U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism 2010 One U.S. government agency charged with keeping terrorists from crossing into the United States isthe United States Border Patrol, a division of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The

U.S. Border Patrol specifically seeks to Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States.5 It would come as no surprise to anyone with a passing interest in border security that U.S. Border Patrol strategy, goals, objectives, and tactics are the subject of fierce public debate. Recently, the United States Government Accountability Office criticized the new U.S. Border Patrol Strategy in a report, Border Patrol Strategy: Progress and Challenges in Implementation and Assessment Efforts. As reported by GAO, the Border Patrol finds itself in a challenging period characterized by multiple transitions: Border Patrol officials stated that the 2012 Strategic Plan will rely on Border Patrol and federal, state, local, tribal,
and international partners working together to use a risk-based approach to secure the border, and include the key elements of Information, Integration, and Rapid Response to achieve objectives. These elements were similar to those in the 2004 Strategy and GAOs past work highlighted the progress and challenges the agency faced obtaining information necessary for border security; integrating security operations with partners; and mobilizing a rapid response to security threats. 6 In this context of ambiguity, institutional

challenges and an overall lack of good data, precise measures of terror activity in the U.S.-Mexico border region are difficult to come by. However, U.S. border security officials interviewed for this report stated that the primary terrorist-related concern at the border involve Aliens from Special Interest Countries (ASIC) , nationals from countries that are either designated state sponsors of terrorism (such as Iran) or countries where terrorist organizations are known to operate (such as Colombia or Pakistan). The ASIC designation does not necessarily imply the person is a
terrorist, but it does subject him/her to closer scrutiny by Customs and Border Protection officials than other aliens apprehended at or between the ports of entry. According to information from CBP, ASIC arrests by the Border Patrol increased 44 percent between Fiscal Year 2007, when 462 arrests were made, and Fiscal Year 2010, when 663 arrests were made. During Fiscal Year 2011 the number of arrests dropped to 380, a 43% decline when compared to 2010, and the trend lines through June, 2012 were down another 32%. The

majority of these arrests occur on the Southwest border, including 193 reported between January and June 2012 (see
Table 1 below). The data available seems to indicate that ASIC reportsincluding those made on the Southwest border are in decline. The authors of this report are unaware if any of these cases have resulted in specific terrorrelated investigations, although there was one publicly reported case involving a Somaliman in Texas that allegedly involved links to Al-Shabab. Nevertheless, public statements provided by the U.S. intelligence community and the Department of State suggest that risks are of a potential rather than actual nature (documented and verified). In its 2010 Terrorist Threat Assessment for Mexico, the Department of State notes that, There was no evidence of ties between Mexican criminal organizations and terrorist groups, nor that the criminal organizations had aims of political or territorial control, aside from seeking to protect and expand the impunity with which they conduct their criminal activity. According to the Department of Justice, however, the

threat of terrorism exists wherever criminals regularly exploit gaps in homeland security. Terrorists could conceivably attempt to enter the United States or smuggle weapons of mass destruction across the Southwest Border by utilizing routes and methods established by drug and alien smugglers.

Terrorists will target the U.S. via the Mexican border Shane, 10 - Scott Shane is an American journalist, currently employed by The New York Times, reporting principally about the United
States intelligence community (Cold War Nuclear Fears Now Apply to Terrorists, April 15th, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/world/16memo.html)

WASHINGTON The top secret National Intelligence Estimate did not mince words. The

United States faced an enemy with no scruples about employing any weapon or tactic, it said, and nuclear weapons smuggled across porous borders threatened to devastate American cities. Sleeper cells, the document warned, might already be inside the country. Or so the Central Intelligence Agency told President Harry S. Truman. The year was 1951. It has become conventional wisdom, repeated by President Obama at the nuclear summit meeting this week, that the cold war danger of huge strikes by thousands of nuclear missiles has given way to a new threat: terrorists killing tens of thousands of Americans with a stolen or homemade nuclear device. A broad range of security experts agree that nuclear terrorism may well be the most serious danger the United States faces today. But it is not new. In fact, almost from the invention of the atomic bomb, government officials were alarmed by the threat that compact nukes would be smuggled into the United States by Soviet agents and detonated. Officials regard the possibility of atomic sabotage as the gravest threat of subversion that this country, with its virtually unpatrolled borders, has ever faced, The New York Times reported in 1953, telling readers that the Eisenhower administration was preparing to alert the public to the danger from valise bombs. Hundreds of pages of declassified documents from the 1950s, obtained by The New York Times from the F.B.I. under the Freedom of Information Act, lay out a strikingly familiar story, in which Communist agents played the role of todays Al Qaeda. Then, as now,
investigators searched for agents they feared were in the United States awaiting orders to attack. Then, too, the government spent millions to install radiation detectors at airports and seaports despite doubts about their effectiveness. (In those days, false nuclear alarms were set off by radium watch dials, once hidden in a womans corset.) Nor

is the worry in recent years about nuclear material crossing the permeable Mexican border new. An F.B.I. memo from 1953 warned that a saboteur could easily pose as a Mexican wetback and get into the country without detection, presumably carrying an atomic weapon in his luggage. Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has written on nuclear history, said: The fear of a clandestine nuclear attack on American soil goes back to the very beginning of the nuclear era. Theres certainly nothing new here, even if they didnt call it terrorism back in the 50s.

Specifically, Al-Queda will target the border as a staging area for WMDs Zagorin, 4 not Edmund Zagorin I know, I wish it was too it didnt say ontology enough- **Adam Zagorin focuses on investigations
primarily involving national security and violations of securities laws. Zagorin has written reports for POGO on security risks surrounding the protection of U.S. diplomatic and other facilities abroad, links between a major U.S. military contractor and Iran, and enforcement issues at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Prior to joining POGO, he was a Senior Correspondent at TIME magazine in Washington, DC (Cold War Nuclear Fears Now Apply to Terrorists, April 15h, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/world/16memo.html)

A key al-Qaeda operative seized in Pakistan recently offered an alarming account of the group's potential plans to target the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction, senior U.S. security officials tell TIME. Sharif al-Masri, an Egyptian who was captured in late August near Pakistan's border with Iran and Afghanistan, has told his interrogators of "alQaeda's interest in moving nuclear materials from Europe to either the U.S. or Mexico," according to a report circulating among U.S. government officials. Masri also said al-Qaeda has considered plans to "smuggle nuclear materials to Mexico, then operatives would carry material into the U.S.," according to the report, parts of which were read to TIME. Masri says his family, seeking refuge from al-Qaeda hunters, is now in Iran. Masri's account, though unproved, has added to already heightened U.S. concerns about Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge met publicly with top Mexican officials last week to discuss border security and smuggling rings that could be used to slip al-Qaeda terrorists into the country. Weeks prior to Ridge's lightning visit, U.S. and Mexican intelligence conferred about reports from several al-Qaeda detainees indicating the potential use of Mexico as a staging area "to acquire endstage chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material ." U.S. officials have begun to keep a closer eye on heavytruck traffic across the border. The Mexicans will also focus on flight schools and aviation facilities on their side of the frontier. And another episode has some senior U.S. officials worried: the theft of a crop-duster aircraft south of San Diego, apparently by three men from southern Mexico who assaulted a watchman and then flew off in a southerly direction.

Terrorism likely by exploiting the US-Mexico border studies prove Murdock, 13 (Deroy Murdock, a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor, a nationally syndicated
columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War,

Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University, Senior Fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a Distinguished Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research; and an advisory board member of the Cato Institute Project on Social Security Choice, and a member of the American Council on Germany, the American-Swiss Foundation, and the Council on Foreign Relations, The Southern Border: Our Welcome Mat for Terrorists, April 25 2013, National Review Online, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346591/southern-border-our-welcome-mat-terrorists, //nikp)
At a Capitol Hill hearing last July, Homeland

Security secretary Janet Napolitano conceded that terrorists enter the U.S. via the U.S./Mexican border from time to time. The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight
last November published A Line in the Sand: Countering Crime, Violence, and Terror at the Southwest Border. As this study explained: The Congressional Research Service reports that between

September 2001 and September 2012, there have been 59 homegrown violent jihadist plots within the United States. Of growing concern and potentially a more violent threat to American citizens is the enhanced ability of Middle East terrorist organizations, aided by their relationships and growing presence in the Western Hemisphere, to exploit the Southwest border to enter the United States undetected. A Line in the Sand offers chilling portraits of some who treat the southern border as Americas welcome mat. On January 11, 2011, U.S. agents discovered Said Jaziri in a car trunk trying to enter near San Diego. Said said that he had traveled from his native Tunisia to Tijuana and paid smugglers $5,000 to sneak him across the border. The
French government previously convicted and deported Jaziri for assaulting a Muslim whom he considered insufficiently devout. In 2006, Jaziri advocated killing Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for creating what Jaziri called sacrilegious drawings of the Prophet Mohammed.

Somalias Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane told authorities in 2011 that he earned up to $75,000 per day smuggling East Africans into America. His clients included three al-Shabaab terrorists. As the House report states: Dhakane cautioned that each of these individuals is ready to die for their cause and would fight against the United States if the jihad moved from overseas to the U.S. mainland. On June 4, 2010, Anthony Joseph Tracy (a.k.a. Yusuf Noor) was convicted of conspiring to slip aliens into America. Tracy told federal
investigators that Cuban diplomats used his travel agency in Kenya Noor Services Ltd. to transfer 272 Somalis to Havana. They proceeded to Belize, through Mexico, and then trespassed into the U.S. Tracy, who converted to Islam in prison in the 1990s, claims he refused to assist alShabaab. But officials discovered an e-mail in which he casually wrote: i helped a lot of Somalis and most are good but there are some who are bad and i leave them to ALLAH . . . And

remember: These anecdotes and statistics involve individuals whom authorities intercepted. No details exist about aliens from these countries who successfully have infiltrated America.

Illegal Immigration Key Terrorism

Illegal immigration distracts focus from terrorism threats Barry 11 (Tom Barry, June 2011, Director for the TransBorder project at the Center for International
Policy in Wash. DC POLICY ON THE EDGE FAILURES OF BORDER SECURITY AND NEW DIRECTIONS FOR BORDERCONTROL http://www.ciponline.org/images/uploads/publications/Barry_IPR_Policy_Edge_Border_Control_0611.p df MB) MUDDLING OF IMMIGRANTS AND TERRORISTS In his book The Closing of the American Border, Edward Alden noted, The muddling of counterterrorism and immigration enforcement is the single biggest mistake weve made since 9/11. By mixing border control, immigration regulation and counterterrorism, DHS preempted the possibility of maintaining a sharp focus on foreign and domestic terrorism threats. While spending most of its resources on immigrant- and drug-related enforcement, DHS failed to mount the intelligence operations needed to track the rise of domestic terrorists and has not functioned as a much-needed clearinghouse for domestic and foreign counterterrorism intelligence. Not only has its counterterrorism mission suffered from this muddling, but by lumping together immigrants and prospective terrorists, DHS has played a central role in demonizing both legal and illegal immigrants. By doing so it must accept major responsibility for the
nations failure to address immigration and border issues fairly and reasonably. This muddling also accounts for the waste of federal homeland security resources and empowers border politicians like Texas Governor Rick Perry and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, together with allied border sheriffs, to mount their own border security operations and immigration crackdowns. Theres no denying that a prospective terrorist might attempt sneaking across the southwestern border. But it is unlikely, and has not yet happened. Terrorists, like those involved in the September 11 attacks, are much more likely to enter with visas as tourists, students or workers. Any

illegal border crossing by terrorists would be much more likely to occur on the vast largely unpatrolled northern border, where a large sum of cash could all but guarantee a safe crossing. A northern entry would also avoid the harsh conditions and the pervasive crime of the southwestern border. To regard the southwestern border as the frontline against terrorism, as the Border Patrol does, is folly. weapons that have penetrated the overseas frontlines of defense by U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies. As counterterrorism experts agree, good intelligence is the key to a successful anti-terrorism strategy.

Terrorism Impacts
Terrorist attack causes extinction- they have incentive, technology, and its inevitable WEF 12 (World Economic Forum, July 11, 2012, nonprofit organization made up of international
political leaders/intellectuals. http://reports.weforum.org/global-agenda-council2012/councils/nuclear-biological-chemical-weapons/ ) In addition, regional tensions in politically troubled areas can undermine legal norms and treaties, especially when the perception of a threat to national security becomes a justification for the pursuit of WMD capability. Concerns about secret nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea continue to raise questions about whether non-proliferation norms can hold, as they must, for the sake of global security. Current events in the Middle East provide a vivid illustration of the risks associated with WMD proliferation. Libya had given up chemical weapons, but
throughout 2011 there were uncertainties about the remnants of its arsenal. Syria may have the largest operational chemical stockpile in the region, and the regime could use it against its own population. In the event of civil war or other political breakdown, Syrias chemical weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists or be transferred to other countries. Dwarfing these potential crises is the Iranian nuclear problem, which is connected to the most strategic issues of our time: nuclear proliferation; the right of any state to enjoy nuclear energy; the risk of nuclear accidents; terrorism and religious fundamentalism; sectarian conflicts; and access to crucial oil and gas supplies. Whether triggered by Iran or another nation, a big crisis in the Persian Gulf has the potential to threaten the fragile global economic recovery by sharply elevating energy costs for weeks, months, or even longer. The Risks of Terrorism through WMD: After the end of the Cold War, the

use of WMD by terrorists emerged as a significant new threat and an important policy issue. Loose nukes, poorly monitored chemical stockpiles, technological diffusion, the complexities of global manufacture, and advances in science, could all be exploited for hostile purposes by groups or individuals operating outside the law. Thus far, the unfamiliarity of terrorists with WMD technology and logistics seems to be a barrier to their use, but the intent of some to overcome this impediment cannot be discounted. Before the sarin attack in Tokyo in 1995, its lead
biologist experimented with anthrax spores released against public targets, attempts which failed for technical reasons only. As another example, according to an intensive FBI investigation, a lone US military scientist launched the 2001 anthrax letter attacks, killing victims and creating mass havoc. Other terrorists groups, notably Al Qaeda, have declared their desire to acquire WMD technology and some have made attempts to do so. President Barack Obama has stated that the

single biggest threat to US security, in the short, medium and long term, is the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon. In the short and long term, the economic consequences of a terrorist nuclear attack would be calamitous. A study by the RAND corporation estimated that, if a nuclear weapon were detonated in a US port, the direct immediate economic costs to the global economy could reach US$ 1 trillion. Council members agreed that even if nuclear weapons remain out of the reach of terrorists, inexpensive and more technically feasible weapons may prove accessible. For example, a low-casualty radiological dirty bomb attack, or a biological or chemical event, could have disastrous consequences. Some analysts have asserted that the catastrophic use of such weapons is almost inevitable in the near future . The 2003 spread of the naturally-caused SARS virus, which originated in
China, demonstrated the calamitous international consequences that the intentional spread of a similarly dangerous disease might have. In recent months, US-funded projects intended to improve defences against the H5N1 bird flu have raised concerns about the vulnerability of laboratories conducting research on lethal emerging infectious diseases to accident or theft. Even apparently minor, or successfully contained, bioterrorist incidents can do great damage. Over the years, the 2001 anthrax letter attacks have cost billions in building decontamination, business relocation, lost working hours, opportunity costs, US mail shortfalls, compensatory law suits, and a lengthy criminal investigation. In the aftermath of the attacks, the US Government invested even more billions in biodefence initiatives to protect the public against similar terrorist microbial attacks.

Terrorist attacks disrupt the supply chain Meade and Molander 6 (Charles, and Roger, August 16th, 2006, reporter for the RAND corporation.
Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR391.pdf )

Economic Implications in the Weeks and Months After the Attack The early costs of the Long Beach scenario could exceed $1 trillion, driven by outlay for medical care, insurance claims, workers compensation, evacuation, and construction. The $50 billion to $100 billion for 9/11 puts this gure into perspective. In general, consequences would far outstrip the resources available to cope with them. In addition, over time, the economic eects of the catastrophe are likely to spread far beyond the initial attack, reaching a national and even international scale. Decisionmakers would face two particularly dicult challenges: keeping the global shipping supply chain operating and restoring orderly economic relationships. Keeping the Global Shipping Supply Chain Operating In the aftermath of the attack, dierent stakeholder groups aected might have diering interests. Consequently, their decisions might often be at odds. How to contend with such con- icting interests is the key challenge for policymakers. In terms of global shipping, the main tension might be between the political aim of preventing a future attack and the business interest in seeing that U.S. ports and the global shipping supply chain continue to operate. The only way to completely mitigate the risk of a second strike would be to close all U.S. ports and suspend all imports indenitely. This would be the national security communitys likely position. Yet in business terms, this position would be untenable. The loss of the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles alone, which handle 30 percent of U.S. shipping imports, would already be substantial. All U.S. ports combined carry out 7.5 percent of world trade activity. Accordingly, the business community would likely call for ports to stay open, or to reopen as early as possible. But harsh realities facing the nancial and real estate communities might prove a barrier. The Long Beach attack might cripple an insurance industry struggling to absorb massive losses from claims. Insurance would be in tremendously short supplyparticularly for terrorist and nuclear risks. Without it, ports and related infrastructure could not operate. Further complicating the issue is the high probability that people would ee port cities, severely depleting local labor supplies. Given these conditions, all U.S. ports would likely close indenitely or operate at a substantially reduced level following the attack. This would severely disrupt the availability of basic goods and petroleum throughout the country

Yes Nuclear Terrorism

Nuclear terrorism is very likely no barriers, no lack of motive, high risks, enormous consequences Goodspeed, 12 (Peter Goodspeed, Senior Reporter of International Affairs at the National Post,
Nuclear terror threat; A 'dirty bomb' could make cities uninhabitable, destroy global economy, March 24 2012, National Post, Full Comment, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/24/preventingdevastating-nuclear-terrorist-attack-aim-of-world-leaders-meeting/, //nikp)
Six months after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorists attacks on New York, Henry Kelly, then president

of the Federation of American

Scientists, warned U.S. leaders there may be worse to come. "Recent events make it necessary to take almost inconceivably evil acts seriously," he told members of the U.S. Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. In a calm, determined voice he described the threat posed by nuclear terrorism - a risk so grave it looms over a today summit of 53 world leaders that opens in Seoul, South Korea, Monday. Terrorists or a rogue state may some day acquire a nuclear weapon and threaten to kill millions of people in a single devastating blow, he said. But the greater risk comes from a malicious radiological attack or "dirty bomb" that uses common industrial or commercial nuclear material to create panic, threaten the health of thousands over a prolonged period, make entire cities uninhabitable, cause billions of dollars in damage and destroy the global economy. Mr. Kelly outlined what would happen if terrorists exploded a bomb, containing a single, 12 inch-long, piece of radioactive cobalt taken from a food irradiation plant, at the lower tip of Manhattan, near the former World Trade Center. "An area of approximately one-thousand square kilometres, extending over three states, would be contaminated," he said. "Over an area of about three hundred typical city blocks, there would be a one-in-ten risk of death from cancer for residents living in the contaminated area for forty years." "The entire borough of Manhattan would be so contaminated that anyone living there would have a one-in-a hundred chance of dying from cancer caused by the residual radiation. It would be decades before the city was inhabitable again, and demolition might be necessary." On Monday, the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit, the largest gathering of world leaders since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, aims to
create a global system that will deny terrorists access to nuclear materials through improved security, decreased use of potent materials, enhanced regulatory and export controls, increased intelligence sharing, expanded use of radiation detectors and improved disposal and recycling of nuclear material. A follow-up meeting to a nuclear summit, convened by U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington in 2010, the Seoul meeting is tightly focused on keeping nuclear weapons and radiological materials out of the hands of terrorists. It will deal only tangentially, in sideline discussions, with nuclear proliferation threats posed by countries such as Iran and North Korea. But the threat of devastating death and destruction will still dominate the talks. "We believe the

potential for nuclear

terrorism remains high ," said Page Stoutland, vice-president for nuclear security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington-based think-tank. "There are currently thousands of tons of nuclear materials in the world and those materials today are stored at hundreds of sites in over 30 countries." he said. "Some of those sites are well secured. Many are not, leaving weapons-usable nuclear materials vulnerable to theft or sale on the black market to terrorist organizations. "The elements of a perfect storm are in place: an ample supply of weapons-usable nuclear materials , an expansion of the knowledge and technical know-how to build a crude nuclear bomb accessible by the Internet or through rogue scientists and the determination of terrorists organizations to do it." The single greatest nuclear threat remains terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons. Scientists have estimated that, if detonated at New York's Grand Central Station, a ten-kiloton bomb (two-thirds the yield of the world's first nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima) would kill over 500,000 people immediately, injure hundreds of thousands more, permanently destroy most of Lower Manhattan and force the evacuation of all of New York City. Damage would be in the trillions of dollars. "A nuclear attack would be among the most difficult types of attacks for terrorists to accomplish," concludes a report prepared by Harvard University's Project on Managing the Atom. But, with the necessary fissile materials, "a capable and well organized terrorist group plausibly could make, deliver and detonate at least a crude nuclear bomb capable of incinerating the heart of any major city in the world." The amounts needed to build a

crude nuclear bomb are small. With an efficient implosion design, a baseball-sized lump of plutonium weighing as little as four kilograms or a
softball-sized lump of highly enriched uranium weighing 12 kilograms would be enough. To build a less efficient, but still devastating, gun-type bomb, terrorists would need 48 to 60 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. " There

is an immense difference between the difficulty of making safe, reliable weapons for use in a missile or combat aircraft and making crude, unsafe, unreliable weapons for delivery by truck," said Matthew Bunn, a professor at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. " With highly enriched uranium, a gun-type bomb - like the one that obliterated Hiroshima - is very plausibly within the capabilities of a sophisticated terrorist group," he said. With weapons-usable nuclear material stored in hundreds of buildings in dozens of countries, under security situations that range from very stringent to virtually nonexistent, the risk of terrorists acquiring bomb-making materials remains great. " Theft of only 0.01% of the world stockpile could cause a global catastrophe ," Mr. Bunn said. And terrorists have shown a definite interest in obtaining the materials needed to make both nuclear fusion and radioactive dirty bombs. Before he was killed last May, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda had spent a decade trying to obtain nuclear weapons and may already have experimented
with limited quantities of nuclear material. In 1998, as Russia reeled from an economic crisis, officials uncovered a conspiracy in which insiders at one of Russia's largest nuclear weapons facilities tried to steal 18.5 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Just last June, officials in Moldavia arrested six people for smuggling 4.4 grams of weapons-grade uranium as part of a plot to sell up to nine kilograms of highly enriched uranium on the black market for $31-million. The Russian ringleader of the group is still at large and, according to news reports, may still have as much as a kilogram of uranium. In 2007, a group of attackers came within a breath of stealing the ingredients for a nuclear bomb, when they launched a midnight raid on South Africa's Pelindaba nuclear research centre, just west of Pretoria. South Africa developed nuclear weapons in 1979 and became the only state in the world to voluntarily abandon their nuclear arsenal in 1991. But the country still stores enough weapons-grade material for 25 nuclear bombs at the Pelindaba site. On November 8, 2007, two teams of armed, well-trained men attacked Pelindaba from two different directions. They deactivated several layers of security, including a 10,000 volt electrical fence, and entered the facility's control centre, where they shot a security guard, who still managed to trip an alarm. The attackers fled before they were able to take any nuclear material. But they spent 45 minutes alone inside the nuclear centre and have never been caught. Existing which is

nuclear weapons stocks in countries like Pakistan, threatened by terrorism, corruption and jihadist radicals, or Russia, which still boasts the world's largest stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons, are always under threat. But it is radioactive material, the heart of any "dirty bomb," stored in thousands of nuclear power plants, research reactors, hospitals, laboratories, blood banks, factories and food processing plants around the world that may be most vulnerable to terrorists . "In the United States, a radioactive source is
lost, stolen or missing about once a day," said Charles Ferguson, current president of the Federation of American Scientists. Khammar Mrabit, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Office of Nuclear Security, said he investigates roughly 200 incidents of improperly secured nuclear material each year. " The

threat of malicious radiological attack is quite real, quite serious and deserves a vigorous response ," Mr. Kelly warned 10 years ago in the aftermath of Sept. 11. "We must face the brutal reality that no technological remedies can provide complete confidence that we are safe ," he said. "Determined malicious groups might still find a way to use radiological weapons when their only goal is killing innocent people. "

Yes nuclear terrorism experts they dont assume dirty bombs followed by US escalation Chibarirwe 7/7 Anthony Chibarirwe; IAEA Chief Warns of Threat of Nuclear Terrorism; July 7, 2013;
theTrumpet.com http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10787.19.0.0/world/terrorism/iaea-chief-warnsof-threat-of-nuclear-terrorism RMJ At a conference on enhancing global nuclear security efforts, the director general of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, warned of the possibility of terrorist attacks involving radioactive material. The conference, held at the organizations headquarters in Vienna last Monday, was attended by over 1,300 delegates from 120 countries and 20 international and regional organizations. Amanos chief concern was the potential use of a crude nuclear devicea dirty bomb, as its often called. Such a bomb may not necessarily be a weapon of mass destruction but rather of mass disruption. Experts believe dirty bombs are much more likely to be detonated than actual nuclear bombs because of the relative ease in obtaining radioactive materials . How serious is the threat of crude radioactive
bombs? To answer that question, Amano referred to a foiled smuggling and trafficking incident in Moldova two years ago. The smugglers had tried to avoid detection by using special radiation shields, showing a worrying level of knowledge. The case ended well, but unfortunately, said Amano, we cannot be sure if such cases are just the tip of the iceberg. Every

year, the IAEA receives hundreds of reports of thefts and unauthorized activities involving radioactive materials. While there hasnt yet been a

terrorist attack involving nuclear bombs or dirty bombs, Amano

cautioned: *T+his must not lull us into a false sense of security. If a dirty bomb is detonated in a major city, or sabotage occurs at a nuclear facility, the consequences could be devastating. The threat of nuclear terrorism is real, and the global nuclear security system needs to be strengthened in order to counter that threat. George Moore, a senior IAEA analyst
from 2007 to 2012, noted that many experts believe its only a matter of time before a dirty bomb or another type of radioactive dispersal device is used, with some expressing surprise that it hasnt happened already. The destruction and disruption that could be caused by dirty bombs can be seen in the fairly simple pressure cooker bombs that paralyzed Boston in April. As our article Death by a Thousand Cuts noted, the Boston bombing cost three lives as well as hundreds of millions of dollars. Makeshift radioactive bombs could be similarly costly. Cleaning up nuclear contamination could take months, and for some buildings, decontamination could be a greater challenge than to destroy and rebuild. As unpleasant as this reality is, the fact of the matter is that the

world remains vulnerable to nuclear terrorism, and the United States, Britain and Israel face the greatest risk. These nations have enemies determined to destroy them, or at least cripple them structurally or economically. Some of these foes are undeterred
by religion, morals or death. For some, what they perceive happening after death actually motivates them.

Terrorists can get nukes- they exploit security gaps and have incentive Brill and Luongo 12 (KENNETH C. BRILL and KENNETH N. LUONGO, March 15, 2012, Kenneth C. Brill
is a former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A.Kenneth N. Luongo is president of the Partnership for Global Security. Both are members of the Fissile Material Working Group, a nonpartisan nongovernmental organization. Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-clear-danger.html?_r=0 MB ) Terrorists exploit gaps in security. The current global regime for protecting the nuclear materials that terrorists desire for their ultimate weapon is far from seamless. It is based largely on unaccountable, voluntary arrangements that are inconsistent across borders. Its weak links make it dangerous and inadequate to prevent nuclear terrorism. Later this month in Seoul, the more than 50 world leaders who will gather for the
second Nuclear Security Summit need to seize the opportunity to start developing an accountable regime to prevent nuclear terrorism. There is

the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, not a Hollywood confection. President Obama, the leaders of 46 other nations, the heads of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, and numerous experts have called nuclear terrorism one of the most serious threats to global security and stability. It is also preventable with more aggressive action. At least four terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, have demonstrated interest in using a nuclear device. These groups operate in or near states with histories of questionable nuclear security practices. Terrorists
a consensus among international leaders that

do not need to steal a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to make an improvised nuclear device from highly enriched uranium or plutonium being used for civilian purposes. And there is a black market in such material. There have been 18 confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable nuclear material . In 2011, the Moldovan police broke up part of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one member is thought to remain at large with a kilogram of this material . A terrorist nuclear explosion could kill hundreds of thousands, create billions of dollars in damages and undermine the global economy. Former Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear terrorism would thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty and create a second death toll throughout the developing world. Surely after such an event, global leaders would produce a strong global system to ensure nuclear security. There is no reason to wait for a catastrophe to build such a system. The conventional wisdom is that domestic regulations, U.N. Security Council resolutions, G-8 initiatives, I.A.E.A. activities and other voluntary efforts will prevent nuclear terrorism. But existing global arrangements for nuclear security lack uniformity and coherence.

AT: Terrorism = Low Probability

Probability models for border security terror are flawed- default to magnitude Rosenblum et al 13 (February 21, 2013. Marc R. Rosenblum , Specialist in Immigration Policy ,
Jerome P. Bjelopera, Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism , Kristin M. Finklea , Specialist in Domestic Security, From the Congressional Research Service. Border Security: Understanding Threats at U.S. Borders http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42969.pdf MB) Understanding Border Threats The likelihood-times-consequences framework is a standard way to evaluate risk, but the use of such a framework to understand border threats presents unique challenges and
therefore remains somewhat controversial.95 Even where such models are well developed, as in industrial engineering and the insurance and finance industries for example,

risk projections are probabilistic and may have a high degree of uncertainty. Predicting the likelihood of border threats may be far more difficult. Moreover, traditional risk management approaches were designed as unilateral decision systems. Yet when it comes to border security, risk models must accommodate strategic adversaries:96 threat actors like terrorists , criminals, and unauthorized migrants, who may change their behavior in response to U.S. defenses, making likelihood even more difficult to predict. In addition, whereas traditional risk models are designed primarily to measure economic and physical consequences of certain events, the consequences of border threats may affect American society in much more complex ways; and the evaluation of such consequences is likewise more complex. The remainder of this report explores these
challenges, and then uses the likelihood-times-consequences approach to assess selected border threats. Estimating the Likelihood of Border Threats DHS defines likelihood as the chance of something happening, whether defined, measured or estimated objectively or subjectively, or in terms of general descriptors (such as rare, unlikely, likely, almost certain), frequencies, or probabilities.97 In general, there are two main approaches to estimating likelihood: based on observations of historical trends (past frequency), which may be used to calculate the probability that an event will occur, or based on analytic predictions about expected frequencies. Both approaches confront certain limits, however. How often a particular threat event has actually occurred within a given time period can be defined as its frequency. Over the long run, the frequency with which an event occurs may be used to estimate its probability, as scientists do, for example, in describing (based on previous observation) the probability that a category 5 hurricane will occur in a given year.98 For certain types of border threats, analysts may have historical data that allow them to describe such frequencies. In the case of unauthorized migration, for example, CBP and the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have used apprehensions of unauthorized migrants by the border patrol as a proxy to estimate unauthorized inflows.99 Analysts also use U.S. Census data to estimate the stock of unauthorized migrants within the United States.100 Apprehensions and survey data also may offer insight into illegal drug flows, in this case by analyzing drug seizures and data on the availability of illegal drugs within the United States.101 Yet deriving probabilities from historical observations is problematic. On a basic level, how exactly should illegal flows be counted? Historical frequencies may focus on illegal incidents the number of illegal crossingsor on quantities, such as the number of individual migrants, or pounds (or tons) of illegal drugs or contraband.

A given threat such as drug smuggling or illegal migration does not occur with equal frequency along all parts of the border, but varies between the Southwest versus the Northern and coastal borders, as well as among different portions of the Southwest border and by mode of entry (air, land, or sea). More importantly, measures of past frequencies are only of known
frequencies and not actual flows. For instance, while data from the National Seizure System indicate that over 1.7 million kilograms of illegal drugs were seized along the Southwest border in 2010,102 this is not indicative of the total amount of illicit drugs smuggled across the Southwest border and into the United States for that time period. Estimates drugs, unauthorized migrants, or some other illicit floware

of successful illegal inflowswhether of illegal just that: estimates. Learning from past history is even more problematic when it comes to rare events like attempted terrorist attacks. Probability models based on historical frequencies are poorly equipped to describe one-in-a-million chances , or to distinguish between, say, chances that are one-in-amillion versus one-in-a-billion or one-in-onehundred-thousand.103 Especially when combined with the fact that the stakes may be high, as in the case of terrorism, rare event probability models may not be sufficiently accurate to generate quantitative predictions about the probability of a future incident.104 Partly for this reason, the intelligence
community often describes likelihood in terms of qualitative ranges, such as remote, unlikely, probable, etc.105 More generally,

historical analysis is limited because past performance is no guarantee of future results. Changes to the underlying model may invalidate long-term probabilities. Scientists use long-term frequencies to calculate the

probability of severe weather, for example; but some people believe that rising temperatures and sea level may have altered climate dynamics so that probability models describing 500-year floods and 100-year storms may no longer be accurate. Similarly, some social scientists believe labor market and demographic changes in the United States and migration countries of origin, along with the decades-long escalation in U.S. enforcement, may have fundamentally altered regional immigration dynamics.

Even if threat of nuclear terrorism is low, a small risk outweighs everything Levi and Zenko, 12 (Michael Levi and Micah Zenko, fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations,
Nuclear terror threat goes 'POOF'; We're losing focus on a danger with unimaginable consequences. We can still stop it., October 29 2012, USA Today, Columnist, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/28/column-nuclear-terror-goes-poof/1664299/, //nikp)
Post-9/11 focus In the years that followed, Bush

pumped money and diplomatic muscle into efforts to secure nuclear weapons and materials around the world. Barack Obama, upon entering office, seized on nuclear terrorism as a priority , turbocharging previous initiatives and launching a series of Nuclear Security Summits to galvanize global efforts to prevent it. Yet if the recent debates are any indication, the cycle of shock
and trance is setting in again, as politicians and the public tire of worrying about the threat. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney referred to it obliquely Monday night when he claimed that Russia is abandoning Nunn-Lugar, a core U.S. program aimed at securing nuclear materials. Obama quickly asserted

that it would be "unacceptable" to allow Iran "to be able to provide nuclear technology to non-state actors" and then moved on. This is a far cry for the attention that nuclear terrorism received in the past. Crying 'wolf'? This can partly be explained by excessive hype about the possibility that terrorists might acquire nuclear arms , particularly prominent in the years after 9/11. With no attack in the years since, some might be tempted to recall the boy who cried wolf. That has made warnings about nuclear terrorism less powerful today. But one needn't believe that a nuclear attack is probable to conclude that it should be a top-tier priority. Nuclear terrorism, however unlikely , is one of the few prospects that could truly devastate the USA . An atomic bomb detonated in a crowded downtown area could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans promptly. On this scale, no other threat -- such as fears of a cyber Pearl Harbor or ongoing turmoil in the Middle East -- compares . Act now The good news is that there are still steps that the U.S. and the world can take to reduce the odds of a catastrophic attack. The United States should work with the thirty-four countries that still have weapons-useable nuclear materials to remove those whenever possible. It should help others reduce the risk that corrupt or extremist workers at nuclear facilities could divert any dangerous materials that remain. The next president should also broker a new agreement with Russia to build on the gains of the past 20 years in securing the former Soviet arsenal. The threat of nuclear terrorism has diminished markedly over the past decade, but it has not been eliminated . The next U.S. president will still face a vital challenge
that he cannot ignore. Michael Levi and Micah Zenko are fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations.

AT: Terrorists Dont Have Nukes

Reject their evidence- probability studies in the context of immigration are flawed Rosenblum et al 13 (February 21, 2013. Marc R. Rosenblum , Specialist in Immigration Policy ,
Jerome P. Bjelopera, Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism , Kristin M. Finklea , Specialist in Domestic Security, From the Congressional Research Service. Border Security: Understanding Threats at U.S. Borders http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42969.pdf MB) Likelihood as Expected Frequency An argument can be made that historical frequencyhow many terrorists traversed the U.S. border in 2010, for examplefails to capture the likelihood of certain border threats. Frequency only attempts to measure events that have occurred in the past. But how can the likelihood of a dreaded event such as the smuggling of WMD into the United States be evaluated if it has few precedents or is unprecedented? And even where a track record exists, as with unauthorized migration and illegal drugs and other
contraband, what can be done to increase the accuracy of estimated probabilities? The observations of past frequencies may be supplemented with analysis by subject field experts to make more informed predictions about the expected frequency of future events. With respect to the threat of terrorism, for example, federal law enforcement and intelligence analysts help estimate the likelihood of a terrorist attack. This involves many factors aside from historical frequency, such as probing and evaluating the motives of threat actors, their organizational structures, and their capabilities, as well as estimating the impact of broad social, political, or economic forces on these actors. Intelligence analysts and others may look at similar data to estimate the future likelihood of illegal drug flows and other contraband, and social scientists (as well as analysts) may examine market and social forces to model future migration flows. A key component in these processes is the development of indicators or milestones to warn of increased likelihood. For example, indicators may be used to evaluate whether a specific terrorist group is coming closer to realizing its plans to smuggle operatives into the United States. In such a scenario, milestones may include evidence of the groups efforts to recruit document forgers or specialists with experience smuggling people into the United States. One scholar has suggested that Warning seeks to turn a mysteryAre they going to attack?into a puzzle by identifying indicators along the path to war and then monitoring them.106 Ideally, as indicators are met (or not), the chances of an attack are reevaluated and updated. Analysts use established analytical processes to gauge likelihood as new information rolls in about the targets they study.10 Yet models

of illegal flows also are characterized by uncertainty, meaning that analysts never know precisely what data to look for. To be useful as a threat indicator, information must be valid relative to the threat being analyzedthat is, it must relate to the
actual evolution of the threat. Indicators also should be reliably and consistently observable, and the earlier they are visible in the evolution of a threat, the more valuable they are to decision makers. Likewise, an indicators persistence over time allows for its repeated measurement and reevaluation.108 Finally, the more visible and the more unique indicators are, the easier it is to use them. For example, the actual

attainment of a particular milestone by a terrorist groupsuch as the successful recruitment of a document forger may not be especially observable or visible to U.S. intelligence agencies. This makes it a poor indicator. In other words, effectively identifying a terrorist groups achievement of an indicator requires the capacity to witness it or obtain evidence of it.

AT: No Motive
Terrorists have shown strong interest in obtaining nuclear bombs unsecured nuclear materials increase likelihood of a terrorist bomb Goodspeed, 12 (Peter Goodspeed, Senior Reporter of International Affairs at the National Post,
Nuclear terror threat; A 'dirty bomb' could make cities uninhabitable, destroy global economy, March 24 2012, National Post, Full Comment, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/24/preventingdevastating-nuclear-terrorist-attack-aim-of-world-leaders-meeting/, //nikp)
And terrorists

have shown a definite interest in obtaining the materials needed to make both nuclear

fusion and radioactive dirty bombs. Before he was killed last May, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda had spent a decade trying to obtain nuclear weapons and may already have experimented with limited quantities of nuclear material. In 1998, as Russia reeled from an economic crisis, officials uncovered a conspiracy in which insiders at one of Russia's largest nuclear weapons facilities tried to steal 18.5 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Just last June, officials in Moldavia arrested six people for smuggling 4.4 grams of weapons-grade uranium as part of a plot to sell up to nine kilograms of highly enriched uranium on the black market for $31-million. The Russian ringleader of the group is still at large and, according to news reports, may still have as much as a kilogram of uranium. In 2007, a group of attackers came within a breath of stealing the ingredients for a nuclear bomb, when they launched a midnight raid on South Africa's Pelindaba nuclear research centre, just west of Pretoria. South Africa developed nuclear weapons in 1979 and became the only state in the world to voluntarily abandon their nuclear arsenal in 1991. But the country still stores enough weapons-grade material for 25 nuclear bombs at the Pelindaba site. On November 8, 2007, two teams of armed, well-trained men attacked Pelindaba from two different directions. They deactivated several layers of security, including a 10,000 volt electrical fence, and entered the facility's control centre, where they shot a security guard, who still managed to trip an alarm. The attackers fled before they were able to take any nuclear material. But they spent 45 minutes alone inside the nuclear centre and have never been caught. Existing nuclear weapons stocks in countries like Pakistan, which is threatened by terrorism, corruption and jihadist radicals, or Russia, which still boasts the world's largest stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons, are always under threat . But it is radioactive material, the heart of any "dirty bomb," stored in thousands of nuclear power plants, research reactors, hospitals, laboratories, blood banks, factories and food processing plants around the world that may be most vulnerable to terrorists. "In the United
States, a radioactive source is lost, stolen or missing about once a day," said Charles Ferguson, current president of the Federation of American Scientists. Khammar Mrabit, head of the

International Atomic Energy Agency's Office of Nuclear Security, said he investigates roughly 200 incidents of improperly secured nuclear material each year .

Terrorist organizations are still trying to obtain nuclear materials Dahl, 7/1 (Fredrik Dahl, Specialist Correspondent at Reuters UK, Governments warn about nuclear
terrorism threat, July 1 2013, Reuters UK Edition, World, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/01/uknuclear-security-idUKBRE96010G20130701, //nikp)
Holding up a small lead container that was used to try to traffic highly enriched uranium in Moldova two years ago, the U.N. nuclear chief said it showed a "worrying level of knowledge on the part of the smugglers". "This case ended well," he said, referring to the fact that the material was seized and arrests were made. But he added: "We cannot be sure if such cases are just the tip of the iceberg." Dirty bomb

Obtaining weapons-grade fissile material - highly enriched uranium or plutonium - poses the biggest challenge for militant groups, so it must be kept secure both at civilian and military facilities, experts say. An apple-sized amount of plutonium in a nuclear device and detonated in a highly populated area could instantly kill

or wound hundreds of thousands of people, according to the Nuclear Security Governance Experts Group (NSGEG) lobby group. But experts say a so-called "dirty bomb" is a more likely threat than a nuclear bomb. In a dirty bomb, conventional explosives are used to disperse radiation from a radioactive source, which can be found in hospitals or other places that are generally not very well protected. More than a hundred incidents of thefts and other unauthorised activities involving nuclear and radioactive material are reported to the IAEA every year, Amano said. "Some material goes missing and is never found," he said. US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said al Qaeda was still likely to be trying to obtain nuclear material for a weapon. "Despite the strides we have made in dismantling core al-Qaeda we should expect its adherents... to continue trying to achieve their nuclear ambitions," he said.

Yes US Retaliation
Obama will retaliate, even if he says he wont HotAir 10; New Obama policy: No nuke retaliation for bio or chemical attack? Apr 5 2010;
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/05/new-obama-policy-no-nuke-retaliation-for-bio-or-chemicalattack-mr-obama%E2%80%99s-new-strategy-is-bound-to-be-controversial-both-among-conservativeswho-have-warned-against-diluting-america/ Unless Ive misunderstood, we reserve the right to nuke the following, whether in self-defense or otherwise: (1) nuclear states, (2) non-nuclear states that are in violation of the NPT (i.e. Iran), (3) non-nuclear states that attack the U.S. with bioweapons, but only if they possess a stockpile large enough to pose a risk of a devastating strike. I hope Ive misunderstood that last one; the idea of Obama explaining to Americans that, yes, 50,000
people may be dead of smallpox but we cant nuke country X because they dont have a big enough stockpile of the virus yet is dark comedy gold. The idea here, of course, is deterrence comply with the NPT and you have nothing to fear but (a) no one, least of all Iran, thinks Barack Obamas going to use nuclear weapons against targets inside a non-nuclear state whether its following the NPT or not, and (b) everyone, including Iran, understands

that a devastating attack on the U.S. by whatever means will create such unbearable pressure on the president to retaliate that these rules will be revisited instantly. Its the nuclear equivalent of his interrogation protocol, essentially. America does not and will not torture captured terrorists as a matter of national policy but if the CIA really, truly believed that a bomb was about to go off somewhere, dont be surprised to see that policy politely ignored, to great public acclaim for Obama afterwards for having done what he needed to do to try to get the information. All this is, really, is a symbolic gesture of good faith to put pressure on Russia and China to reduce their own stockpiles. Why we think they can be trusted to do that,
especially when the United States is handing them a tactical advantage by reducing its own stockpiles unilaterally, is beyond me. But then its also beyond me why Obama would suspend development on any new forms of nuclear weapons, which the new policy also demands. New weapons, I assume, would be smaller and more precise, in the bunker-buster mold; theres certainly no pressing need for state-of-the-art 100megaton monsters when the

chief nuclear threat at the moment comes from small non-state groups like Al

Qaeda.

AT: CIR Solves Illegal Immigration

Immigration bill only solves a quarter of the immigration problem other action necessary Dinan, 13 (Stephen H. Dinan, graduate from Stanford University in human biology and master's in
East-West Psychology from California Institute of Integral Studies, author of Radical Spirit: Spiritual Writings from the Voices of Tomorrow and Sacred America: The Next Evolution of Our Country, created the Esalen Institute's Center for Theory & Research, a think tank, and a writer for The Washington Times, CBO: Bill hardly slows illegal immigration; Projected to cut flow only by 25%, June 19 2013, Newspaper, LexisNexis, //nikp) The Senate immigration bill will be a major boost to the federal budget but does relatively little to clamp down on illegal immigration - cutting the future flow by only about 25 percent - according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill, released Tuesday afternoon. Under the bill, which legalizes illegal
immigrants and invites in foreign workers, immigration will total 10.4 million more people over the next decade and 16.2 million by 2033. Those findings will give ammunition to both supporters and opponents of the bill, which the Senate is debating. On one hand, the boost in federal revenue over the next decade, which the CBO said will total $197 billion, will help quell concerns that taxpayers will be stuck with a large bill. But the

CBO's estimate that the bill solves only about a quarter of the illegal immigration problem will undercut the sponsors' claims that they are serious about border security and interior enforcement. The CBO said the bill does include stiffer enforcement and workplace checks, which will make a dent in illegal immigration. But the nonpartisan agency said it expects many guest workers will refuse to go home when their time is up, meaning that illegal immigration will continue . "Other aspects of the bill would probably increase the number of unauthorized residents - in particular, people overstaying their visas issued under the new programs for temporary workers," the agency said. "CBO estimates that, under the bill, the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to what would occur under current law." That works out to about 1.6 million fewer people in the U.S. in 2023 than would otherwise come, and about 2.5 million fewer people by 2033. About 7.7 million current illegal
immigrants will have obtained legal status by 2018, the CBO said. Current estimates say there are about 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., but not all of them arrived early enough to qualify for the bill's legalization and some others won't seek legal status.

AT: E-Verify Solves

E-Verify is not useful in the SQ Hanson, 6/24 (Gordon Hanson, professor in the economics department and School of International
Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California at San Diego, holds the Pacific Economic Cooperation Chair in International Economic Relations, director of the Center on Emerging and Pacific Economies at UCSD, specializes in international migration, trade and investment issues, and U.S. immigration policy to border security, Want tough border security? Hope for an awful economy, Interview by Dylan Matthews Transcript, The Washington Post, WonkBlog, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/24/want-tough-border-security-hopefor-an-awful-economy/, //nikp) The problem with E-Verify is that, given American sensitivities about privacy and civil rights, we make it hard for a program like E-Verify to work. We are unwilling to demand consistency across individuals in terms of birth certificates, drivers licenses, and other forms of identification. Inconsistencies make E Verify prone to high false negative rates (that is, finding that people are ineligible for legal employment when they in fact are eligible). If we are in a moment when hiring pressures arent that intense, employers will tolerate E-Verify. But if job growth picks up, E-Verify would become more of a hindrance, creating frustrations for employers and political opposition to intense monitoring of worksites. Also, E-Verify doesnt work for many occupations. It doesnt apply very well to housekeeping, yard care, home renovation, agricultural labor, and some construction jobs. What fraction of employment is accounted for by occupations that will be
outside of E-Verify? I dont have a hard and fast number, but Id be shocked if that share is less than about 35 percent of current employment of undocumented migrants. Large

establishments will have a hard time hiring illegal workers, which is already the case, but in other significant swathes of the economy, its going to be hard for E -Verify to make a dent.

AT: Alt Cause US-Canada Border

SQ solves US-Canada border security threat significant improvements being made now Neubauer, 12 (Chuck Neubauer, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, M.S. degree from the Medill
School of Journalism at Northwestern University, journalist at the Washington Times, Homeland Security unveils new Canadian border strategy, June 5 2012, The Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/5/homeland-security-unveils-new-canadian-borderstra/, //nikp) The Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday unveiled a new strategy for enhancing security along the U.S.-Canada border that seeks to deter and prevent terrorism, drug trafficking and illegal immigration while encouraging and safeguarding the flow of lawful trade and people. The Northern Border Strategy calls for Homeland Security "to improve information sharing and analysis" within the department and other government partners, and to enhance coordination with Canada. The department said it also will deploy technologies to aid joint security efforts and continue to update infrastructure to facilitate trade and travel. The strategy is the first departmentwide plan to guide its policies and operations along a border that Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in 2011 was "grossly underprotected" when it comes to terrorists, drug smugglers and other illegal activity. The new strategy says the 5,525-mile border with Canada is the "single-greatest security threat" for terrorists and other violent extremists to get into the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano said the
report provides "a unifying framework for ... enhancing the security and resiliency along our northern border while expediting legitimate travel and trade with Canada." Canada is the U.S.'s largest trading partner. "With communities and businesses that reach both sides of the border, the economies and security of the United States and Canada are inextricably linked," Ms. Napolitano said She noted that the U.S.-Canada border "presents unique security challenges based on geography, weather and the immense volume of trade and travel." She said 300,000 people and $1.5 billion in trade crosses the border every day. Rep. Candice S. Miller, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House subcommittee on border and maritime security, was "encouraged by the release" of the plan. Mrs. Miller said she had been calling on Homeland Security to focus on the unique challenges on the border by putting a stronger emphasis on sharing information, facilitating trade, and decreasing wait times for cargo and people who cross the border. She said that while she was "pleased" the

new strategy emphasizes a partnership with Canadian officials, "More work needs to be done to understand the security challenges and gaps." Other common threats along the border include illegal migration in both directions and the smuggling of illicit drugs. It notes that Canada is the primary source country for Ecstasy smuggled into the United States and is also a major source of high-potency marijuana. It also says cocaine is the largest-volume drug smuggled from the U.S. into Canada.

AT: Illegal Immigration Turn

Guest workers directly lead to a decrease in illegal immigrationBracero proves Nowrasteh 13 (Alex Nowrasteh is the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute; BA in
Economics @ George Mason and MSc in Economic History @ the London School of Economics Guest Workers Key to Reform Published on March 5th, 2013 http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/guest-workers-keyreform?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+(Ca to+Recent+Op-eds) ) Lshen If there is a model for a successful guest-worker program, however, the Bracero Program is it. Under Bracero, immigrants could work temporarily, but they had to leave the United States every season. American farms got the labor they demanded, immigrant workers made money, and agricultural production increased. The program was so successful that it was extended until 1964. It combined enforcement that funneled migrants into a legal system with an unlimited temporary migration system. Often, Border Patrol agents enrolled unauthorized immigrants they arrested in the Bracero Program and let them return to work this time lawfully. Mexican workers thinking of entering the United States illegally overwhelmingly chose the legal Bracero option instead . Throughout the 1950s, unauthorized immigration declined by 95 percent. If a Bracero-type guest-worker visa existed today, one that allowed migrants to switch jobs and work in nonagricultural areas, unauthorized immigration would dramatically decrease.

Illegal Immigration Bad Racist Stuff

Immigrants distract from other social services by leeching off of the innocent American Citizen and cheat us of our future CIS 2/8, 2013 (Legalizing illegal immigrants a bad idea http://www.cis.org/OpedsandArticles/DavidSeminara-Legalizing-illegal-immigrants-a-bad-idea%20 By David Seminara) Strain on social services. Legalizing millions of mostly poor people, many of whom have no job security or health insurance, will put a strain on already strapped social services agencies. A study by the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 57 percent of immigrant households (legal and illegal) used at least one welfare program in 2009. Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for most benefits, but once this group has legal status, they'll be eligible for the full range of benefits.

Immigrants lead to the collapse of the economy, IRS and eventually the destruction of America Heritage Foundation 6/14 (2013 Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A.
Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundatin http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/senate-immigration-bill-does-not-requirepayment-of-all-back-taxes All Research Reports Commentaries Factsheets Multimedia Testimonies Lectures Immigration Senate Immigration Bill Does Not Require Payment of All Back Taxes) The immigration bill, as it currently stands after passage by the Senate Judiciary Committee, does not specify how tax authorities are to collect back taxes from illegal immigrants before they are granted legal status if they have not previously filed tax returns. Instead, it states on page 952, in proposed section 245B: An alien may not file an application for registered provisional immigrant statusunless the applicant has satisfied any applicable Federal tax liabilitythe term applicable Federal tax liability means all Federal income taxes assessed in accordance with section 6203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. An applicant may demonstrate compliance with this paragraph by submitting appropriate documentation, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury.[2] This language may seem clear enough, but section 6203 of the tax code reveals the problem: The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of the assessment.[3] How is this assessment made? Section 6201 of the tax code provides guidance: The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following: (1) Taxes shown on return The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.[4] The tax code gives the Treasury Secretary broad authority to determine the correct tax liability of someone who has filed a tax return. If an illegal immigrant filed a tax return every year, then the immigration bill gives the necessary authority to the Treasury Secretary to collect the appropriate back taxes owed. However, the bill gives no instruction as to how the Secretary is to determine the tax liability of someone who has not filed a tax return. Many illegal immigrants work off the books for cash. They would not report that income to the IRS by filing a tax return. How the Secretary would collect back taxes on that unreported income is unclear. IRS Would Likely Eschew Enforcement The Treasury Secretary may have the authority to collect

taxes on reported income under existing laws, but without further instructions in the immigration bill, it is not possible to know how the Secretary would interpret that authority as it pertains to assessing back taxes, interest, and penalties owed by illegal immigrants who did not file tax returns. Presumably, these illegal immigrants would likely account for the vast majority of illegal immigrants seeking legal status. Most troubling, it is possible that the Treasury Secretary would waive the assessment process because of the difficulties illegal immigrants might face providing a full historical record of their income. If their employers paid them in cash, then the employer likely did not issue them a W-2 form and report their income to the IRS. The likelihood of the Secretary absolving these non-tax compliant individuals is high because, by waiving the requirement to pay back taxes, Treasury, the IRS, and illegal immigrants themselves would escape the seemingly unsolvable burden of determining how much back taxes illegal immigrants owe . The IRS is already terribly overburdened administering the existing federal tax system and implementing Obamacare . And the immigration bill leaves unaddressed whether the IRS would receive the necessary additional appropriations to carry out this latest daunting task. The IRS is also devoting a large amount of its resources determining how and why some employees of the agency used its considerable power to target certain conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny regarding their tax-exempt status. The IRSs unpardonable politicization in this case calls into question whether the agency can handle the politically sensitive issue of collecting back taxes owed by illegal immigrants. HatchRubio Amendment an Improvement but Falls Short Senators Orrin Hatch (RUT) and Marco Rubio (RFL) have proposed an amendment to the immigration bill that would make illegal immigrants responsible for proving to the Treasury Department and the IRS that they have paid their federal income and payroll tax liability before gaining legal status.[5] This moves the burden from the Treasury Department to those seeking legal status. It is a good start, but it falls short. The proposal does not detail how those illegal immigrants without income documentation could determine their back tax liability. Rather, it still leaves that determination wholly up to the discretion of the Treasury Secretary. It could also be interpreted as giving the Treasury Secretary the ability to negotiate with illegal immigrants to relieve them of some or even all of their tax burdens instead of ensuring that they pay their income and payroll tax liability, including interest and penalties, in full. Illegal Immigrants Could Still Be Eligible for Refundable Tax Credits Left unaddressed in the bill is whether illegal immigrants who do pay back taxes and attain legal status would be eligible to claim refundable tax creditsspecifically the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC)that could give them cash payments. Current law precludes them from claiming EITC payments, because taxpayers claiming the credit and its refundable portion must have a legitimate Social Security number. The immigration bill, however, should make clear that illegal immigrants cannot use their legal status once granted to claim the credit for previous years that they were in the U.S. illegally. The CTC is a bigger problem. The tax code does not require that taxpayers have a Social Security number to claim it. As a result, it is rife with fraud and abuse. Because it lacks the Social Security number requirement, illegal immigrants could claim it when they pay their back taxes . Congress should prohibit this in the immigration bill, since the CTC was always intended to help legal working families . Congress should also fix the loophole in the law that does not require a Social Security number to claim the CTC.[6] Basic Issue of Fairness The requirement to pay back taxes should be the same for illegal immigrants as it is for U.S. citizens. That is only fair, as citizens and immigrants in the country legally are responsible for paying these taxes. If they do not pay tax at the appropriate time and in the required amounts, the IRS and ultimately the courts will force them to pay what they legally owe and apply penalties and interest. Members of the Gang of Eight know that their bill does not really require payment of back taxes, but they have refused to fix the problemeven though many in the group indicate that they support such a requirement. They

have deemed the task too difficult.[7] There is little doubt that it is a tough issue, but that does not absolve the authors of such sweeping legislation from blame for writing a bill that does not meet a basic test of fairness.

US-Mexico Advantage

US-Mexico Relations Low

US-Mexico relations sour in the squo Immigration is the determining factor for relations Smith 13 (Molly J. Smith, Crokonite Borderlands Initiatives, Editor for AzCapitol times, the non-daily AP
newspaper of the year, Immigration reform poses challenges for farmers along two borders June 3, 2013 http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/06/03/immigration-reform-poses-challenges-for-farmersalong-mexico-canada-borders/\\CLans) We would ask people why they would put themselves in such danger when they could just do it legally, Moroney says. And they would say, It takes 15 years to get the permits We cant wait. There are no jobs at home. Were hungry, our family is suffering. In addition to immigration reform, the proposed 2013 Border Security Act calls for increased surveillance in high risk sectors along the southern border, defined as areas with over 30,000 apprehensions of individuals per year. The bill would appropriate $3 billion to increase the number of Border Patrol agents and expand the use of drones and surveillance equipment. Moroney would rather see a more welcoming relationship between the United States and Mexico, similar to the relationship that the U.S. has with Canada. According to U.S. census data, Mexico is the countrys third-largest trade partner behind Canada and China.
While President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper have worked together on a shared vision for security along the northern border, Moroney feels that international

relations between the United States and Mexico are sour. My personal view is that our own government is not looking at this whole situation in a rational way, Moroney says. Working with Mexico to bring about a little more economic parity for the poor people would seem to have been a better mission for Hillary Clinton than shuttling around the Middle East where we dont seem to have done a damn bit of good in my whole lifetime. Instead, Moroney says, the U.S. has poured its efforts into building up a wall to divide, rather than unite. When I was a kid, crossing the border meant firecrackers and when I was a bit older it meant being able to walk into a bar and buying a beer when you were 16 years old, Moroney says. To me, the border now Its a politically determined line that, much like a boundary between housing lots in a neighborhood, is related to land ownership and some history and culture differences. Essentially, the two sides of the border are the same piece of land, the same biological community.

US-Mexico relations are down Nieto moving towards Canada Clark 6/17 (Campbell, Foreign Affairs Reporter for The Globe and Mail, Mexico pushes for direct ties
with Canada, apart from U.S. influence June 17, 2013 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mexico-pushes-for-closer-direct-ties-with-canadaapart-from-us-influence/article12594783/\\CLans) New Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto wants ties with Canada to be a priority in the countrys foreign policy, rather than the on-again, off-again interest of two countries distracted by relations with the United States, Mexicos ambassador says. Ambassador Francisco Suarez Davila arrived in Ottawa a week ago with a mandate to pursue a new deepening of relations between the two countries not just for dealing with the U.S., but also as direct trading partners, and potential diplomatic allies on the world stage. I think I have arrived at a very opportune time. The political stars are aligned, Mr. Suarez said in an interview with The Globe and Mail. Thats the indication I have received from President Pena, to go beyond the rhetoric to really establish that Canada is a priority for Mexicos foreign policy. Its a real priority: Canada, itself, apart from the North American *regional dynamic+. It is a simple but important signal in Canada-Mexico relations: that the two countries should see each other as important for more than just what that means in dealing with the United States. They have been trade partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement since 1993, and from time to time expressed a desire for stronger ties. But the interest has blown hot and cold. Both countries perspectives on North America are, of course, dominated by relations with the U.S. Its a fact of life that we have this big elephant in between. Its there. But we dont at all like

the idea of an off and on approach, Mr. Suarez said. Sort of, you know, oh now Mexico is important, but until that time, no, its more important for us just to have a relationship with the United States.

US-Mexico relations low- policy trends have angered Nieto Latino News Today 6/26 (Latin America News Site, The Shortcomings and Failures of President
Obamas War on Drugs in Mexico June 26, 2013 http://latinonewstoday.com/the-shortcomings-andfailures-of-president-obamas-war-on-drugs-in-mexico/\\CLans) The drug war has continued to inflict a viscerally brutal devastation on Mexico throughout the last decade. Despite promises for improvements during his administrations tenure, United States President Barack Obama has maintained a series of disturbing policy trends, in addition to implementing a few new unsavory practices in the course of this foreign agenda debacle. Evidently, President Obama is not doing enough to satisfactorily resolve the war on drugs; instead, his administration is violently meddling in volatile international affairs. The primary outcome of the United States current tactics is simply more bloodshed. As Time Magazine has reported, Mexican drug cartel activity has resulted in over 60,000 homicides that were in connection with narcotic trades. If Obama wants to demonstrate seriousness regarding the issue, he would tackle the realm of drug supply and demand. One major way for his administration to address the massive illegal markets would be to issue
a federal decree for marijuana legalization. This would save American anti-drug forces approximately $10 billion each year, while simultaneously siphoning $30 billion of Mexican drug cartel profits on an annual basis. This initiative would allow the operations of both countries to focus on the substances that are more dangerous.

One primary way to eliminate demand is to provide funding for affordable rehabilitation services in areas that have rampant addiction troubles. Unfortunately, the United States national government has shown little interest in pursuing these common-sense policy changes. They have yet to issue a formal response to the passage of marijuana legalization efforts in the states of Colorado and Washington, but all official statements have expressed strict opposition to the newly signed laws. There is no indication within the Obama administration of a liberalized stance on the war on drugs, even though it is profoundly clear that the current positioning fosters institutionalized distrust between the two countries. Diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico have become increasingly strained under the budding regime of President Enrique Pea Nieto.

US relations with Mexico low now- pivoting towards Asia now Montealegre 13 (Oscar Montealegre, Contributor to the Diplomatic Courier, A Global Affairs
Magazine, U.S.-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor January 24, 2013 http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331\\CLans) In matters of foreign policy, Mexico is an afterthoughtour attention and resources are diverted to the Middle East or to grand strategies based on pivoting our geopolitical and economical capacity towards Asia.
With the U.S. economy performing at a snail-like pace, an emphasis on exports has re-emerged, but the bulk of the exporting narrative revolves around Asia.

This is unfortunate, because our neighbor to the south has quietly positioned itself to be the next jewel in the emerging markets portfolio. For example, Market Watch (a Wall Street Journal subsidiary) recently
published a bullish article on Mexico with the following headline: Mexico: Investors New China. The Economist published an opinion piece titled The Global Mexican: Mexico is open for business, highlighting Mexican companies that are investing locally and in the U.S. and arguing that Mexico is fertile ground for more investment, especially in the manufacturing sector. And according to The Financial Times, BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are no longer the flavor of the month; Mexico is now taking over that distinction. In

essence, immigration and the drug trade will no longer anchor the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico; instead, economics, finance, trade, and commerce will dictate the terms between the neighboring countries.

US relations with Mexico strained- Linkage now is key Montealegre 13 (Oscar Montealegre, Contributor to the Diplomatic Courier, A Global Affairs
Magazine, U.S.-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor January 24, 2013 http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331\\CLans) President Obama cannot respond by merely paying lip service to the Latino community . Latino voters have overwhelmingly backed President Obama for two elections now, but no favor is done with complete altruism. Surprisingly, during President Obamas first term, there were 30 percent more deportations than during George W. Bushs second term. Yet there is hope that President Obama will fix the broken system with a more humane approach, contrary to laws that are being pushed and backed by the Republican Party in Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. Some may askwhat does this have to do with Mexico, or even Latin America? It is all about messages, and in the next four years the President must use the available tools to solidify relationships with its partners, paving the road for more trade and commerce, which ultimately will further strengthen the U.S. economy . What
happens in the U.S. means a lot to many countries, and immigration is perhaps one of the most important matters in Mexico, Central, and South America. The

U.S. must first focus on re-branding its relationship with Mexico. President Obama and need to formulate a new agenda between the two countriesone that resonates with the 21st century, linking the two countries economically; where the U.S. can envision Mexico as a vibrant emerging market in its own backyard. Obstacles do exist, like the current Mexican drug war and political corruption. But dont India and China have corruption problems as well?
Mexican President Pea Nieto

Relations at a turning point- actions taken now determine the relationship of USMexico Reyes 13 (Raul A., Attorney and Columnist, Writer for NBC, Opinion: President Obama has the chance
to improve US/Mexico relations April 29, 2013 http://nbclatino.com/2013/04/29/opinion-presidentobama-has-the-chance-to-improve-usmexico-relations/\\CLans) Politically, Obama cannot afford to take Mexico for granted. Consider that Mexico has been fully engaged with Cuba since the revolution in 1959 (which was launched from Mexico). And although the U.S. has not recognized Venezuelas Nicolas Maduro as successor to Hugo Chavez, Mexico recognized his election on April 19. So Mexico is not an ally that automatically falls in lockstep with American interests. Perhaps with more attention from the Obama administration, Pea Nieto could be persuaded to be more supportive of U.S. policies for the region. True, there are legitimate reasons why Mexico has been viewed warily by past administrations. Mexico has historically been the largest source of our undocumented population. Border towns have long feared spillover violence from the drug cartels. But illegal immigration is at net zero, and the fears of violence on the U.S. side of the border have proved largely unfounded. Obama should take the lead in encouraging more communication and cooperation with Mexico. Already, Pea Nieto favors opening Mexicos energy sector to private investment, and he may even allow foreign investment in its state oil company. President Obama has the chance to turn a page in U.S./Mexico relations, and he should not miss it. Its time for a foreign policy with Mexico based on its potential, not on its problems.

Relations low now- disagreements on security and the economy Falk 13 (Jeff, Associate Director of National Media Relations at Rice University, More diplomacy and
political skill required in US-Mexico relations, Baker Institute expert says May 1, 2013 http://news.rice.edu/2013/05/01/more-diplomacy-and-political-skill-required-in-us-mexico-relationsbaker-institute-expert-says/ HOUSTON (May 1, 2013) As President Barack Obama prepares to visit Mexico and meet with still-new Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto tomorrow, the relationship between the two countries may be poised for a rocky time; more diplomacy and political skill will be required from Washington if the relationship is to work, according to
Tony Payan, a scholar for immigration studies at Rice Universitys Baker Institute for Public Policy. The two main issues to be discussed during

Obamas visit are security and the economy, Payan said. On

the surface, both countries appear to agree that these issues are central to the binational relationship. The agreement, however, ends there. The two countries do not see eye-to-eye on the order of priority, the level of importance or even the approach to each of these issues, particularly security. Payan said the underlying disagreements are the result of important shifts in the Mexican political landscape. What has changed in Mexico is at once simple and complex, he said. At a simple level, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) is back in power after 12 years out of office. Naturally, a different party in power implies a different approach to the binational agenda. At a more complex level, the PRIs return entails two important changes that Washington may not like but will have to digest. In addition to being a Baker Institute scholar, Payan is an associate
professor of political science at the University of Texas at El Paso and serves on the graduate faculty of the Universidad Autnoma de Jurez in Ciudad Jurez, Mexico. His area of study is international relations, with an emphasis on U.S. and Mexican foreign policy and U.S.-Mexico relations. He is the author of The Three U.S.-Mexico Border Wars: Drugs, Immigration and Homeland Security and other books.

AT: US-Mexico Relations High

Relations with Mexico improving but continued cooperative immigration policy is key ONeil 13 (Shannon K., senior fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR), a nonpartisan foreign-policy think tank and membership organization, director of the U.S.-Mexico Initiative at CFR, Mexico Makes It A Transformed Society, Economy, and Government March/April 2013 http://www.embassyofmexico.org/tweets/MexicoMakesItForeignAffairs.pdf\\CLans) Four tons of cocaine confiscated by U.S. authorities off the California coast; 35 bodies dumped by the side of a busy Veracruz highway in broad daylight; an attack by gunmen on a birthday party in Ciudad Jurez killing 14, many of them teenagers: tragedies like these, all of which occurred over the past two years and were extensively covered by the media, are common in Mexico today. Prominent Mexican news organizations and analysts have estimated that during the six-year term of Mexico's last president, Felipe
Caldern, over 60,000 people were killed in drug-related violence, and some researchers have put the number at tens of thousands more.

Mexico's crime rates are some of the worst in the Western Hemisphere. According to Latinobarmetro, an annual regionwide public opinion poll, over 40 percent of Mexicans say that they or a family member has been the victim of a crime at some point in the last year. Hidden behind the troubling headlines, however, is another, more hopeful Mexico -- one undergoing rapid and widespread social, political, and economic transformation. Yes, Mexico continues to struggle with grave security threats, but it is also fostering a globally competitive marketplace, a growing middle class, and an increasingly influential pro-democracy voter base. In addition, Mexico's ties with the United States are changing. Common interests in energy, manufacturing, and security, as well as an overlapping community formed by millions of binational families, have made Mexico's path forward increasingly important to its northern neighbor. For most of the past century, U.S.-Mexican relations were conducted at arm's length. That began to change, however, in the 1980s and, even more, after the 1994 North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) spurred greater bilateral economic engagement and cooperation. Mexico's democratic transition has further eased the wariness of some skeptics in Washington. Still, the

U.S.-Mexican relationship is far from perfect. New bilateral policies are required, especially to facilitate the movement of people and goods across the U.S.Mexican border. More important, the United States needs to start seeing Mexico as a partner instead of a problem.

Immigration Key US-Mexico Relations

Reform provides a boon for cooperation Stratfor 13 (May 2 , 2013; Evolving U.S. Mexico Relations and Obamas visit; http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/evolving-us-mexicond

relations-and-obamas-visit)

Though the passage of these reforms will similarly be determined solely by U.S. domestic political factors, their success would be a significant boon for bilateral relations with Mexico. Indeed, for Obama and Pena Nieto, the effects each feel of the other's policy decisions will be magnified by the unique demographic, geographic and economic ties binding their countries. Yet, the domestic environment and political calculations in each country will ultimately shape the effects of this period of political change. The U.S. political decision-making process is largely isolated from international influence, and the Pena Nieto administration likewise appears to be consolidating key policy areas under Mexican control at the expense of U.S. influence. Still, Mexico's steady emergence as an economic power in North America sets the stage for a bilateral relationship much more heavily focused on opportunities for economic cooperation.

Recent election makes plan even more critical to relations Garza 12 (Antonio Garza, 12/3/12; Antonio Garza is former U.S. ambassador to Mexico (2002-2009). He is counsel in the Mexico City
Office of White & Case and is chairman of Vianovo Ventures, a cross-border consultancy; A first step is to get rid of outdated perceptionson both sides, http://www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-be-us-mexican-relations)

For President Obama, its important to signal that his new team is completely schooled in the reality of todays Mexico and that they are prepared to take advantage of the moment to recast the relationship to the benefit of both countries. Delivering on immigration reform and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement are rare opportunities for a U.S. administration to fundamentally alter Mexicans perceptions of their northern partner. As Mexicos place in the world rises and the U.S. continues to recalibrate its foreign alliances, theres a unique opportunity to move the bilateral relationship to a more strategic levelbut it will take some work.

Plan boosts competitiveness You cant fight geography Leycegui 12 (Beatriz Leycegui, 12/3/12; Senior Fellow at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
in Geneva. She served as Mexicos undersecretary for foreign trade at Mexicos Ministry of Economy for five years (2006 -2011); Mexico and the United States cannot fight geography; http://www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-beus-mexican-relations)

The most important elements of the North American competitiveness agenda should include: expediting the work to create a twenty-first-century border (infrastructure, risk management, preclearance, customs cooperation); strengthen regulatory cooperation (mutual recognition of regulations); liberalization of strategic services (e.g. telecommunications, air, land and sea transportation), and the improvement in the enforcement of intellectual property laws. The TransPacific Partnership negotiations can be an opportunity to advance some of these issues. Mexico and the United States cannot fight geography. Why would Mexico forego the benefit of being next to the

most important economy of the world? Why would the United States ignore the possibility of further integrating with a country that has proven to be a partner in production more than a competitor?

Now is the best time to bolster partnerships with Mexico manufacturing and political standing Farnsworth 12 (Eric Farnsworth, 12/3/12; vice president of Americas Society/Council of the Americas in Washington DC.
From 1995 to 1998, he was senior adviser to the White House special envoy for the Americas; A joint economic agenda is now more achievable than before. http://www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-be-us-mexican-relations)

A joint economic agenda is now more achievable than before . The Hispanic community in the United States has found its voice politically, manufacturing is returning to the United States due to lower prices for natural gas, and, despite ongoing concerns about violence and the drugs trade, Mexico is doing well enough economically to entice investors back from China. Now is perhaps the best opportunity in recent memory to intensify economic collaboration. It should be the top bilateral priority.

Nieto administration reducing cooperation now plan reverses that cooperation is key Schaefer 13 (Agnes Gereben Schaefer, 5/29/13; Senior political scientist and professor at Pardee RAND graduate school; If
U.S.-Mexico Get Security Right, Other Good Policy Will Follow; http://www.rand.org/blog/2013/05/if-us-mexico-get-securityright-other-good-policy.html)

But while security will remain central to the U.S.-Mexico relationship, the two sides may well change how they handle it. The new Pea Nieto administration is re-evaluating Mexico's recent close cooperation on security. The new Mexican leader's overall security strategy is evolving, but he has embarked on some important reforms to defense institutions. Pea Nieto has called for a more centralized approach to security issues that would eliminate inefficiencies and redundancies across government agencies. He is also pushing to develop a new National Intelligence Agency similar to the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence set up after the 9/11 Commission to quarterback the U.S. intelligence community that would streamline Mexico's intelligence collection and analysis, which is now conducted by many disparate agencies. The most important unanswered question is how involved Pea Nieto and his Institutional Revolutionary Party want the U.S. to be in future efforts to decrease drug-related violence. Some Mexican leaders and commentators are calling for the U.S. to back off, and some are explicitly asking to roll back the cooperative mechanisms of the past several years. As Pea Nieto refines his national security strategy, he will need to navigate these domestic pressures and, ultimately, decide how much U.S. assistance he will consider, and in what form. Pea Nieto isn't the only one facing domestic pressures, of course. Obama could almost hear the heated debates in Congress on immigration reform and border security from Mexico City. So the two leaders emphasized economic cooperation at their summit not because security issues have gone away, but because the new rules of the game in this nascent relationship between Obama and Pea Nieto are evolving. Economic cooperation is of course also exceedingly important. The United States is still Mexico's largest trading partner. In 2011, U.S. trade with Mexico totaled $500 billion, and Mexico was the United States' second-largest goods export market in 2012. But let's not assume that economic issues will displace security issues at the top of the U.S-Mexico agenda. Because security issues are not

going away, the two sides need to tackle them as best they can . The Obama and Pea Nieto administrations should build on the unprecedented levels of cooperation developed over the past six years and if they get security right, they will be far better-positioned to broaden the relationship to focus on other issues such as economics, energy and the environment. If the two sides continue to invest together in security today, they may find themselves with far more opportunities for broader cooperation tomorrow.

Guest Worker Program Solves US-Mexico Relations

A guest worker program will revitalize bilateral US-Mexican relations spills over Bickerton 2k (Maria Elena Bickerton, J.D. @ University of Texas Law School; University of Texas @
Austin; Founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerson; Member of the Texas Law Review // Prospects for Bilateral Immigration Agreement With Mexico: Lessons from the Bracero Program; From the Texas Law Review Volume 79:895 Page 895-920) // L S This Note will examine the bilateral nature of the Bracero Program, and the various factors that made the program possible from 1942 until 1964. That is, what brought about the air of cooperation, what drove it away, and what was accomplished in the interim. Ultimately, this exam- ination will demonstrate that the economic and political conditions that exist today are similar to those that existed when the Bracero Program was established, providing hope that a new bilateral labor agreement between Mexico and the United States may be forthcoming. A bilateral immigration program could provide signicant advantages over bilateral immigration policy. First, the two countries could more effectively achieve their migration goals through a cooperative effort since the policies of either nation can inuence migration patterns. Additionally, cooperation and compromise in the area of irmnigration can improve overall relations between Mexico and the United States so that cooperation will continue in other elds, such as trade. However, differences in the sociopolitical atmosphere of the two countries
and weaknesses in the Bracero Program itself indicate that a new agreement would not and should not follow the Bracero model. Nonetheless, the failures in cooperation and the weaknesses of the earlier program can provide some of the best insight on how any future bilateral immigration program should be structured.

Guest Worker Program Solves AT: Alt-Causes

Guest worker programs overcome alt-causes to relations Bickerton 2k (Maria Elena Bickerton, J.D. @ University of Texas Law School; University of Texas @
Austin; Founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerson; Member of the Texas Law Review // Prospects for Bilateral Immigration Agreement With Mexico: Lessons from the Bracero Program; From the Texas Law Review Volume 79:895 Page 895-920) // L Shen
Over the next two decades, the U.S. government transported five million "braceros" 13 from Mexico, providing growers and ranchers in twenty-four states with an "endless army" of cheap labor. 14 Initially, the (now defunct) Farm Security Administration, which was part of the Department of Agriculture, conducted recruitment and contracting. 15 However, control slipped into the hands of the individual growers from 1948 until 1951. 16 In 1951, Congress enacted Public Law 78, granting, for the first time, specific statutory authority for the United States to negotiate an agreement with Mexico to import Mexican farmworkers under contract. l ? Under this authority, the U.S. government negotiated the 1951 Bracero accord, an agreement that reestablished the government-to-government contract system and set forth elaborate guarantees and benefits for the Mexican laborers. IS This accord served as the international framework for importing Mexican contract workers until the program's demise in 1964. 19 III. The 1942 Bilateral Agreement A. Political Circumstances in the Early 1940s 1. US. Relations

with Mexico.-Relations between the United States and Mexico were relatively cordial during this time period, despite the tensions of the previous decade. 20 In the 1930s, the Mexican government decided to nationalize the nation's oil industry. 21 This strained relations as powerful U. S. oil interests found their property expropriated by the Mexican government. 22 However, in November of 1941 an agreement settling the outstanding problems with the expropriation was reached, "finally placing the two governments on a firm basis of friendship and co- operation.

Immigration Key To Relations

Immigration agreements key to US-Mexico relations Shifter 13 (Michael, Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown
University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue, A More Ambitious Agenda February 2013 http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf\\CLans) No country has sent more of its people to the United States than Mexico. One of every 10 Mexican citizens now
lives in the United States, and more than 10 percent of the US population is of Mexican origin. Among foreign-born residents in the United States, one-quarter are from Mexico, as are 40 percent of non-US citizens and 60 percent of unauthorized residents. In light of these numbers, it is hardly surprising that immigration

is a central issue in both the United States and Mexicoalthough viewed through very different lenses. US citizens tend to see the main problem as the large number of undocumented immigrants, Mexican or otherwise, and continuing flows of unauthorized migrants.
Americans, rightly or wrongly, fear that undocumented immigrants compete with them for jobs, bring down wages, increase financial burdens on schools and social welfare programs, and contribute to crime rates. Mexicans

have different concerns, led by how their compatriots are treated in the United States, what their rights are and should be, and how the US government deals with the 6 to 7 million undocumented Mexicans within its border. It is no wonder that, for decades, immigration to the United States has been an unsettling factor in US-Mexico relations.

Immigration is the Most Important Issue in US-Mexico Relations Esmeralda Rodriguez-Scott, 6-30-02, Esmeralda Rodriguez-Scott is the head researcher at Center for
International Studies at the University of St. Thomas, Patterns of Mexican Migration to the US, http://www1.appstate.edu/~stefanov/proceedings/rodriguez.htm Mexican migration to the United States has been a major area of contention for U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations since the 1920s. Despite restrictive U.S. immigration law, Mexico continues to be the leading country of origin for legal and illegal migrant workers into the United States. Mexicos migration was initially
encouraged by the United States with the construction of the railroad system across borders and with the Bracero Accords in which Mexican workers were recruited to help ease labor force shortages in their economy that resulted due to a number of factors. However, in periods of adequate labor supply, U.S. immigration policies have reflected a restrictive approach, geared towards discouraging the flow of Mexican migrants into the U.S. with polices that include the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) with its various amendment. I will analyze the social, economic and political factors that explain Mexican migration patterns to the United States from the 1920s to present-day. The paper will incorporate the

major elements of the Mexico-United States bilateral relationship that have impacted Mexican migratory flow and incorporate U.S. immigration policies that have influenced Mexican migration patterns both legally and illegally. Understanding Mexican migration patterns is a timely project since it is now placed at the top of the list of policy priorities for both countries. Mexican migration to the United States has been a major area of contention for U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations since the 1900s.
Historically, there have been periods of shared interests in promoting migratory flows. Today, U.S. immigration legislation has become more restrictive, partly reflecting an American concern for the high level of Mexican immigration. Nevertheless, Mexico continues to be the leading country of origin for migrant workers, legally and illegally, into the United States. Mexico cannot easily be ignored for many reasons. Among those reasons is the unavoidable reality that both countries share the same 2,000-mile border. This close proximity makes each other susceptible to the consequences of domestic events: the issues of one affects the other. In addition, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has helped tie the countries further by making Mexico the U.S. second largest trading partner. The issue of Mexican immigration, its impact, and contributing factors had not been an issue of great concern in North America until the 1900s. It was only when events around the world affected the United States in which it found itself entering a war, sending its men to fight and quickly having to recruit individuals from other countries for the left behind jobs. Businessmen in various U.S. sectors found themselves in a difficult position. Women were the only answer to fulfill the increasing number of job vacancies that existed in manufacturing and agriculture sectors. On the other hand, American women were concerned about the care and education of their children. If women worked they would then have to incur the extra costs of daycare. In addition, hard hit sectors such as agriculture could no longer employ minors due to child labor laws established with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). FLSA legislation established minimum ages for employment in agriculture. Because of Mexicos close proximity, negotiations over a guest worker program occurred between U.S. President Roosevelt and Mexican President Avila Camacho in the 1940s. This guest worker program would permit migration of Mexicans into the United States under contracts in order to relieve needing sectors. This Mexican Farm Labor Program (MFLP) came to be known as the Bracero Program. However, this was not the first time that migration had been encouraged by the United States. Guest worker programs were the beginning to legal and illegal immigration, an issue that continues to be controversial between the U.S. and Mexico Immigration issues were not as important to deal with in presidential administrations and in Congress after the passing of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. However, President Jimmy Carters administration (1977-1980) knew the importance and potential that Mexico held as its next close neighbor and as one of the larger countries in Latin America. However, Congress did not do much to on his proposed immigration legislation during his administration. Both President Carter and Mexican President Lopez Portillo were inaugurated around the same time. Mexico was experiencing a time of stability with its newly discovered oil fields. GDP levels were on the rise again and the once overvalued peso was returning to more appropriate levels. Foreign capital was

flowing back into Mexico as a result of its positive comeback. At the same time Mexico was slowing gaining its independence politically and economically by restricting foreign investors capabilities and refusing to cut ties with countries that the U.S. did not want other to negotiations with (ex.Cuba). President

Carter first met with Mexican President Lopez Portillo before any other diplomat of any other country thus establishing his agenda in regards to bilateral negotiations with Mexico. The Carter administration wanted to develop their foreign policies in order to address Latin Americas integration into the world economy, secondly to address the increase of illegal immigrants, and U.S. interest to obtain oil from Mexico (Rosenblum 2000, 15). Mexico, on the other hand, wanted to ensure human rights protections for all legal and illegal Mexicans in the U.S., cease its dependence on the U.S. for economic and political issues, increase nationalism in Mexico and wanted U.S. bilateral policies to be sensitive and responsive to Mexicos position over issues in a manner that would "reflect the bilateral character" of their issues (Rosenblum 2000, 16). Basically, Mexico wanted to be consulted in the policy making process in regards to bilateral issues. Historically, Mexico had had no say in the majority of bilateral matters that had
concerned both countries and had no choice but to accept U.S. policies. Mexico had been too involved in its own domestic matters to hold talks with the U.S. regarding immigration policies. Mexican officials remained "silent, treating the legislation as an internal matter of the U.S. about which it would be inappropriate to comment" or what is called a "no policy" policy in which it would only comment as necessary to "protect the human rights of its nationals in the U.S. (Weintraub 1998, 1231). Rafael Fernandez de Castro (1998) also notes Mexicos non-engagement policy on migration from the end of the Bracero program in 1964 up until the 1980s. As the silent country, Mexicos

position on the issue of migration had been unclear. Yet it would not stop Mexicans from crossing the border. Mexican officials believed that by stopping Mexicans from transiting into the U.S. would mean taking away a constitutional guarantee provided by the Mexican constitution, the right to free transit. In addition, Mexico considered the Mexican migration process as a "straight forward supply-demand model" (Fernandez de Castro 1998, 30). This model dictates that as long as opportunities were available in the U.S. and labor was in surplus in Mexico, Mexicans would cross the border to jump at these opportunities and no one could do anything to avoid it. The change in their
attitude came with the help of Ascencio and IRCA. According to Weintraub (1998), credit can be given to U.S. Congress created Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development or commonly referred to the Ascencio Commission for establishing an environment or agenda in which Mexico could provide input on migration issues. This commission was established to "deal with the root causes of illegal immigration to the US" (Migration Review 1994). This Ascencio Commission was what first helped open dialogue between the two countries in order to better deal with migration issues. The passing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in 1986 also prompted Mexicans officials to change their attitude toward dealing with migration. Mexicans in Mexico and the United States placed pressure on Mexican government officials in Mexico and the U.S. to speak out on IRCA. Mexicans began to see an increase in U.S. hostility toward migrants. In addition, the Mexican government began to recognize the importance of migrants to their economy with the sending of migradollars. These remittances were and still are Mexicos safety valve. The free trade agreement of the 1994 with U.S. and Canada along with the growth of political pluralism increased pressure on Mexican government to approach U.S.-Mexico migration policy differently (Fernandez de Castro 1998). However, Mexican Presidents Salinas de Gotardi and Zedillo addressed the migrant issue differently in NAFTA. Mexican President Salinas de Gotardi optimistically viewed NAFTA as a means of retaining Mexicans in Mexico. He hoped that Mexicans would not find it necessary to migrate to the U.S. for employment opportunities and better wages that they desperately sought by crossing the dangerous river or deserts connecting the U.S. and Mexico. He strongly believed that NAFTA would keep Mexicans from migrating legally and illegally and leaving their families and friends in search of a better future. On the other hand, President Zedillo believed NAFTA was an opportunity to address, improve, and expand economic situations for migrant workers.

AT: Relations Resilient Economy

Even if Mexico and US are economically interdependent, sustained cooperation is key Shifter 13 (Michael, Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown
University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue, A More Ambitious Agenda February 2013 http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf\\CLans) Mexico and the United States are more closely tied to one another than any other sovereign nations in the world, and the pace of their economic and demographic integration is accelerating. For both, sustained cooperation on an array of bilateral, regional, and global issues is essential. They have no choice: No other country affects the lives of US citizens more than Mexico, and none affects the lives of Mexicans more than the United States. No two countries have more to gain from pursuing closer and more robust ties. A continued reinforcement and expansion of bilateral economic relations is fundamental for both countries. Much still must be done to improve cross-border
access to markets, investment capital, technology, human resources, and energy supplies. Even with its current economic problems, the United States $16 trillion economy is a vital destination for Mexican products and a critical source of capital and technology. And

there is room for it to contribute even more to Mexicos economic performance. For its part, the rising Mexican economy, which
some experts predict will emerge as the worlds fifth largest by midcentury, will inevitably become more and more central to the United States economic future. The

United States and Mexico would also benefit from working harder and smarter to resolve their differences and to address some crucial shared problems. Immigration and public security are the central priorities for the coming period.

AT: Relations Resilient Security

Nieto administration putting economic issues at the forefront security is taking a back seat Fosset 13 (Katelyn, writer for the Inter Press Service, an international journal focusing on global affairs,
In U.S.-Mexico Relations, a Shift from Security to Economy April 30, 2013 http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/04/in-u-s-mexico-relations-a-shift-from-security-to-economy\\Clans) WASHINGTON, Apr 30 2013 (IPS) - Ahead of President Barack Obamas trip to Mexico and Costa Rica, experts here are expecting that security will take a back seat to issues of economic cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico.
Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Credit: cc by 2.0 But some Washington advocacy groups are sounding alarms about shifting away too soon from critical security and rights concerns. A

lot of the focus is going to be on economics, President Obama told reporters Tuesday. Weve spent so much time on security issues between the United States and Mexico that sometimes I think we forget this is a massive trading partner responsible for huge amounts of commerce and huge numbers of jobs on both sides of the border. We want to see how we can deepen that, how we can improve that and maintain that economic dialogue over a long period of time, he continued. This shift is notable, as issues of security, law enforcement and combating crime formed the backbone of U.S.-Mexican relations
during the previous Mexican administration. Even before *former Mexican President Felipe+ Calderon took office, it was part of the discussion with the U.S., and the U.S. and Mexican administrations went on to develop a close and complex relationship on security matters, Eric Olson, associate director of the Latin America programme at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank, told IPS. President Obama is slated to meet with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto later this week before meeting with Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla. President Obama Wilson, an associate at the Mexico Institute, a think tank here, told IPS. The

having a visit [early in his second term] symbolises the importance of Mexico to the U.S., Chris United States is Mexicos largest trading

partner, and the two countries engaged in nearly 500 billion dollars worth of trade in 2012. Much of that trade is in what are known as
intermediate inputs, referring to semi-finished U.S. goods that are finalised with Mexican resources, a process seen as increasing the competitiveness of both countries. Remittances

sent home from Mexican immigrants living in the United States are also a substantial factor in the countries economic ties, totalling more than 20 billion dollars last year. The upcoming summits focus on economics squares with a narrative gaining traction in media coverage and academic circles in recent years that paints a picture of an economically booming Mexico. During the administration of Calderon, the perception of Mexico in the media was largely one of drugs and violence the headlines about Mexico were about drugs and trafficking, organised crime, gruesome violence, Wilson recalls. But the new [Mexican] administration has come in at a time when economic growth is pretty robust. They are trying their best to shift the narrative of Mexico by talking more about these economic issues: the reforms that are happening in Mexico that will promote growth, new investments coming into Mexico that will promote growth.

Coop Spillover LA
Immigration and coop with Mexico spills over to Latin America co-op Murphy 13 (David, Reporter for MSNBC, citing NBC Latin American Policy Analyst Jorge Castaneda,
Time is now for US-Latin American outreach March 13, 2013 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51163791/t/time-now-us-latin-americanoutreach/#.UeBDmEGTjps\\CLans) The U.S. relationship with Latin America has long been defined by cold war politics and a smattering of new economic opportunities...but times may be changing. Americas influence in Latin America is not what it used to be. But there are plenty of opportunities to change that, says NBC News Latin American Policy Analyst, Jorge Castaeda. After the death of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, President Obama said he would seek to begin a new era in U.S.Venezuelan relations. But the disappearance of Americas chief antagonist in the region could signal an overall warming of relations.
Castaeda, who also served as Mexicos foreign minister, said on The Daily Rundown Wednesday that the ball is now in President Obamas court. (The

U.S.) doesnt have an agenda with Latin America(but) the President has a great opportunity as his second term begins. Part of the reason for that opportunity is the chance for action on U.S. policy issues that are most meaningful to Latin American nations, namely immigration reform and gun control. If there is comprehensive immigration reformand there is some form of cooperation with sending countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and the Caribbean countries, that would have an enormous impact in part of Latin America, Castaeda said.

US-Mexico Good Economy/Terrorism

Mexican-American cooperation key to the economy and anti-terror efforts Selee and Wilson 12
Dec. 13, 2012 A New AgeNdA with Mexico Andrew Selee & Christopher Wilson Andrew Selee is Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute. He can be reached at Andrew.Selee@wilsoncenter.org. Christopher Wilson is an associate with the Mexico Institute. Christopher Wilson is an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, where he develops the Institutes research and programming on regional economic integration and U.S. -Mexico border affairs. He is the author of Working Together: Economic Ties between the United States and Mexico (Wilson Center, 2011). Chris is regularly consulted by national and international media outlets regarding U.S.-Mexico relations and has coauthored op-ed columns for the Wall Street Journal and Dallas Morning News. Chris previously served as a Mexico Analyst for th e U.S. Military and as a researcher at American Universitys Center for North American Studies. In Mexico, he worked with the international trade consultancy IQOM, Inteligencia Comercial, and with American students studying regional political and social issues. He completed his M.A. in International Affairs at American University, focusing on U.S. foreign policy and hemispheric relations.

Few countries will shape Americas future as much as Mexico. The two countries share a 2,000 mile border, and Mexico is the second largest destination for U.S. exports and third source of oil for the U.S. market. A quarter of all U.S. immigrants are from Mexico, and one in ten Americans are of Mexican descent. Joint security challenges, including both terrorist threats and the violent operations of drug cartels, have forced the two governments to work more closely than ever. Whats more, cooperation has now extended to a range of other global issues, from climate change to economic stability. Nonetheless, the landscape of U.S.-Mexico relations is changing. Illegal immigration is at the lowest level in four decades, and organized crime violence, which has driven much of the recent cooperation, is finally declining. Violence will remain a critical issue, but economic issuesbilateral and globalhave risen to the fore as both countries struggle to emerge from the global slowdown. Trade has increased dramatically, connecting the manufacturing base of the two countries as never before, so that gains in one country benefit the other. To keep pace with these changes, U.S. policymakers will need to deepen the agenda with Mexico to give greater emphasis to economic issues, including ways to spur job creation, and they will have opportunities to strengthen cooperation on global issues. Security cooperation will remain critical, and determined but nuanced followthrough to dismantle the operations of criminal groups on both sides of the border will be needed to continue the drop in violence. With less illegal immigration, it will be easier to address legal migration in new ways. However, economic issues are likely to dominate the bilateral agenda for the first time in over a decade. Strengthening economic tieS and creating JobS In most trading relationships, the U.S. simply buys or sells finished goods to another country. However, with its neighbors, Mexico and Canada, the U.S. actually co-manufactures products. Indeed, roughly 40 percent of all content in Mexican exports to the United States originates in the United States. The comparable figures with China, Brazil, and India are four, three, and two percent respectively. Only Canada, at 25 percent, is similar. With the economies of North America deeply linked, growth in one country benefits the others, and lowering the transaction costs of goods crossing the common borders among these three countries helps put money in the pockets of both workers and consumers. Improving border ports of entry is critical to achieving this and will require moderate investments in infrastructure and staffing, as well as the use of new risk management techniques and the expansion of pre-inspection and trusted shipper programs to speed up border crossing times. Transportation costs could be further lowered and competitiveness further strengthened by pursuing an Open Skies agreement and making permanent the cross-border trucking pilot program. While these are generally seen as border issues, the benefits accrue to all U.S. states that depend on exports and joint manufacturing with Mexico, including Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, New Hampshire, and Georgia, to name just a few. Mexico also has both abundant oil reserves and one of the largest stocks of shale gas in the world. The country will probably pursue a major energy reform over the next couple years that could spur oil and gas production, which has been declining over the past decade. If that happens, it is certain to detonate a cycle of investment in the Mexican economy, could significantly contribute to North American energy security, and may open a space for North American discussions about deepened energy Cooperation reinforcing Security cooperation Organized crime groups based in Mexico supply most of the cocaine, heroin, and

methamphetamines, and some of the marijuana, to U.S. consumers, who, in return, send six to nine billion dollars to Mexico each year that fuels the violence associated with this trade. The U.S. and Mexican governments have significantly improved intelligence sharing, which has helped weaken many of these criminal networks and disrupt some of their financial flows. At the same time, the congressionally funded Merida Initiative, which has provided $1.6 billion to Mexico for national and public security since 2008, has been successfully strengthening the Mexican governments capacity and rule of law institutions. These efforts appear to be yielding some success as violence has dropped noticeably since mid-2011. Going forward, the two countries will need to do more to disrupt the southbound flows of illegal money and weapons that supply the criminal groups, strengthen communities under the stress of violence, and improve the performance of police, prosecutors, and courts in Mexico. In many ways, Mexico has been successful at turning a national security threat into a public security threat, but the country now requires significant investment to create an effective and accountable criminal justice system and to slow the flow of illegal funds from the U.S. that undermine these efforts. As Mexicos security crisis begins to recede, the two 3 A New AgeNdA with Mexico countries will also have to do far more to strengthen the governments of Central America, which now face a rising tide of violence as organized crime groups move southward. Mexico is also a U.S. ally in deterring terrorist threats and promoting robust democracy in the Western Hemisphere, and there will be numerous opportunities to strengthen the already active collaboration as growing economic opportunities reshape the regions political and social landscape. managing LegaL migration fLowS Since 2007, the number of Mexican migrants illegally entering the United States has dropped to historically low levels, with a net outflow of unauthorized immigrants from the U.S. over the past three years. The drop is partially because of the weak U.S. economy, but it also has to do with more effective U.S. border enforcement and better economic opportunities in Mexico. This shift offers the potential for both countries to explore new approaches to migration for the first time in a decade. In the United States, policymakers have an opportunity to look specifically at how to reform the legal immigration system. Almost all sides agree that the current immigration system, originally developed in the 1960s, fails to address the realities of a twenty-first century economy. A renewed discussion on this issue could focus on how to restructure the U.S. visa system to bring in the kinds of workers and entrepreneurs the United States needs to compete globally in the future. This includes both high-skilled and lowerskilled workers, who fill important gaps in the U.S. economy. Policymakers should consider whether those already in the United States, who have set down roots and are contributing effectively to the economy and their communities, might also be able to apply through a restructured visa system Mexican policymakers, on the other hand, have huge opportunities to consolidate Mexicos burgeoning middle class in those communities where out-migration has been a feature of life so as to make sure that people no longer need to leave the country to get ahead. There are a number of ambitious efforts, including some led by Mexican migrants that can serve as models for this. Mexican policymakers could also facilitate U.S. reform efforts by indicating how they could help cooperate with a new U.S. visa system if the U.S. Congress moves forward on a legal immigration reform. addreSSing maJor gLobaL iSSueS with mexico Over the past few years, the U.S. and Mexican governments have expanded beyond the bilateral agenda to work closely together on global issues, from climate change to international trade and the economic crisis. The U.S. government should continue to take advantage of the opportunities this creates for joint problem-solving. Mexicos active participation in the G-20, which it hosted in 2012, and in the U.N. Framework on Climate Change, which it hosted in 2010, have helped spur this collaboration, and the recent accession of Mexico into the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations provides one obvious avenue to continue it. The two countries also coordinate more extensively than ever before on diplomatic issues, ranging from the breakdown of democratic order in Honduras to Irans nuclear ambitions. Mexico is likely to play an increasingly active role on global economic and environmental issues, areas where the country has significant experience, and through

cooperative efforts the U.S. can take advantage of Mexicos role as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds, and between North America and Latin America. The bilateral agenda will remain critically important and the increasingly deep integration of the two economies and societies means that efforts on trade, security, and migration will remain vital for the future of both countries. In addition, the maturation of the bilateral relationship means that it may one day resemble that between the United States and Canada, in which global issues can be as important as the strictly bilateral issues. A balanced and wide-ranging U.S.-Mexico agendaone that seeks creative and collaborative approaches on topics ranging from local gangs to global terrorist networks and from regional supply chains to international financepromises significant mutually beneficial results in the coming years.

US-Mexico Good Economy

Economic interdependence makes economic engagement most effective for cooperation Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnolgico
Autnomo de Mxico and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Caldern; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)

One of the most important strategic drivers in the relationship today is the economic relationship . While the other top issues on the bilateral agenda are primarily understood as problems to be solved, the economic relation is strong and growing. A greater focus on business, investment, and trade has the potential to reframe the entire U.S.-Mexico relationship , to create a discourse based as much on opportunity and mutual benefit as it is on risk and shared responsibility. Both countries economies depend on each other more than most citizens realize. Mexico is the United States second largest export market, and the U.S. is Mexicos largest. The two countries trade more than a billion dollars in goods each day, but as important as the volume of the trade is its quality. With a process known as production sharing, Mexico and the United States jointly manufacture goods, sending parts back and forth across the border as a final product is built. This integration of our manufacturing sectors means that to a large extent we will sink or swim together in todays fiercely competitive global economic environment.

Plan spills over to broader trade relations boosting BOTH the US and Mexican economies Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnolgico
Autnomo de Mxico and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Caldern; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)

Mexico is also at a crossroads where it may be able to stimulate investment in its energy sector and make it a major global producer of oil and shale gas, reversing a long-term decline in production. If Mexico can achieve this dramatic turnaround, it would revitalize the Mexican economy, serve as a motor for growth for the next two decades , and create enormous opportunities for cooperation in North America, where Canada and the United States are also major global producers. There is also strong potential for renewable energy in the border region, an area of abundant sunshine and wind. To take advantage of these economic opportunities, Mexico and the United States (and, in many cases, Canada) will need to work together to fix inefficient border crossings, simplify customs procedures, and harmonize production standards. Improving the basic infrastructurephysical and regulatory that link the two countries will eliminate an unnecessary drag on trade and help create the building blocks for greater mutually beneficial integration. In a time of budgetary constraints, strategic shifts to improve efficiency and security, such as the expanded use of trusted traveler and trusted shipper programs, may be the most cost-effective way to facilitate trade at the border.

Cooperation with Mexico bolsters their economies and strategic interests abroad Especially in Asia Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnolgico
Autnomo de Mxico and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Caldern; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior

Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)

For the United States, Mexico is a key partner in international affairs . Mexico works hard to protect the United States from terrorist threats and to weaken transnational organized crime groups. It is a middle income country, currently holds the presidency of the G-20, and is expected to grow steadily for many years to come. Jim ONeil of Goldman Sachs, for example, expects Mexico to have the seventh largest economy in the world by 2020. Mexico has long served as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds, and the U.S. can take advantage of this fact by working closely with Mexico on issues of common interest. Mexico, too, has much to gain from working in partnership with the United States. Despite significant success in its role as host of the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico has punched below its weight on foreign policy for several years. To increase international clout, Mexico must become even more active in international institutions, perhaps getting involved in UN peacekeeping operations, among other things. Mexico has an opportunity to reclaim its role as a regional leader by working with other hemispheric partners to help Central America fight transnational organized crime and strengthen the rule of law. The United States, with its strong capabilities and weighty voice, should support Mexicos desire to take on more leadership on the regional and global stages. Such a foreign policy partnership does not mean that Mexico must adopt U.S. positions; it just entails recognition that on many issues the countries have shared interests and objectives. A more active support of mutual goals, such as the consolidation of democracy in the Americas, could benefit both nations. The best forum for joint regional efforts may often be the Organization of American States. Mexico, the United States, and Canada have each begun to reorient their foreign policy to focus more attention on the Asia-Pacific region. The question now is whether they will pivot individually or do so as members of a North American strategic and economic partnership . In efforts to strengthen relationships with nations throughout Asia, grow trade, or push nations to respect their WTO obligations, the countries of North America are more competitive and convincing when working together. North American cooperation brings together three distinct and important voices: Canada, the consummate multilateralist; Mexico, a large and important growth market; and the United States, still the worlds top superpower. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an obvious place to begin to articulate and enact such a stance. The TPP has the potential to strengthen North Americas own integration while taking steps forward toward the strategic goals of both the United States and Mexico .

US-Mexico Good Terrorism

Empirics prove Co-op thwarts terrorism Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnolgico
Autnomo de Mxico and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Caldern; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)

At the same time, the United States faces a major challenge in ensuring the safety of its citizens against terrorist attacks, and it depends significantly on intelligence sharing and law enforcement cooperation from its two neighbors, Mexico and Canada. Indeed, this cooperation has been one of the untold stories of engagement between U.S. and Mexican federal agencies over the past decade, with the result that the U.S.-Mexico border has not yet been used for terrorist activities. However, continued vigilance and more sophisticated forms of cooperation will be needed to avoid the evolving threats from terrorist organizations .

Relations key to solve better border security laundry list Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnolgico
Autnomo de Mxico and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Caldern; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)

Indeed, one of the greatest opportunities for binational cooperation on security, which would help address both Mexican concerns about transnational organized crime and U.S. concerns about terrorism, would be to develop more sophisticated approaches to managing ports of entry at the border. By using risk management techniques and the latest technology, the two countries could develop more effective ways of detecting potential threats , ranging from drugs to firearms to bombs , and simultaneously facilitate commerce and the exchange of people across the border. While much attention has been focused on beefing up security between ports of entry, the reality is that most of the real threats to the two countries are at the ports of entry rather than between them. A new focus on these could be a win-win for both countries and for both security and trade.

Specifically in the context of nuclear terrorism- magnitude outweighs probability Tsoulfanidis 13 (Nicholas, Nuclear Technology Editor citing ROBERT A. MEYERS, RAMTECH LIMITED, Larkspur, CA, USA Editorial Board
RITA R. COLWELL, Distinguished University Professor, Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA ANDREAS FISCHLIN, Terrestrial Systems Ecology, ETH-Zentrum, Zurich, Switzerland DONALD A. GLASER, Glaser Lab, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Molecular & Cell Biology, Berkeley, CA, USA TIMOTHY L. KILLEEN, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, USA HAROLD W. KROTO, Francis Eppes Professor of Chemistry, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA AMORY B. LOVINS, Chairman & Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, USA LORD ROBERT MAY, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK DANIEL L. MCFADDEN, Director of Econometrics Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA THOMAS C. SCHELLING, 3105 Tydings Hall, Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA CHARLES H. TOWNES, 557 Birge, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA EMILIO AMBASZ, Emilio Ambasz & Associates, Inc., New York, NY, USA CLARE BRADSHAW, Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden TERRY COFFELT, Research Geneticist, Arid Land Agricultural Research Center, Maricopa, AZ, USA MEHRDAD EHSANI, Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA ALI EMADI, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL,

USA CHARLES A. S. HALL, College of Environmental Science & Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY, USA RIK LEEMANS, Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands KEITH LOVEGROVE, Department of Engineering (Bldg 32), The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia TIMOTHY D. SEARCHINGER, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA Nuclear Energy Selected Entries from the Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-5716-9.pdf\\CLans) Since the attacks in the USA on September 11, 2001, terrorisms threat against a countrys national security has come under increased scrutiny.

Although few terrorist organizations will implement acts of such devastation, it is considered by many experts that nuclear terrorism cannot be ruled out, and, because the devastation of a nuclear attack would be unmatched, the risks must be mitigated regardless of the low probability [3840]. To mitigate these
risks, one may increase security at the storage locations (strengthen nuclear safeguards), dispose of the nuclear materials in such a way that they are unavailable to the terrorists, strengthen methods to detect their misuse and transport once they have fallen into the wrong hands, and also develop methods through which illegal activity may be attributed to a particular national or subnational group. Rigorous nuclear

safeguards, which have been described previously, are only one layer in a defensive system against the use of nuclear materials by a subnational or terrorist organization. In addition to nuclear safeguards, the other layers of
mature protection system would include monitoring of nuclear material in transit, robust intelligence collection and analysis, consequence management, and a vigorous response capability to a nuclear emergency or event to mitigate it prior to a detonation. Each

of these layers relies on, at least in part, the ability to detect and characterize nuclear or radiological materials at various points in their life cycle. Nuclear smuggling is difcult to stop due to the small size of the materials required by the terrorist
to make a nuclear bomb; the weak radiation many of these materials emit; the large number of smuggling routes; the large amount of legitimate trafc crossing these borders every year; and the existence of established smuggling networks for other contraband, such as illegal drugs. A

recent analysis of 174 illicit radiological material trafcking incidents that have occurred since 1991 found little evidence of clear trends that can be used by nuclear security personnel [41]. It did note
that the incidents involved a variety of radionuclides; however, approximately 60% of the cases involved Cesium-137, which happens to be an attractive isotope for radiological dispersal devices.

US-Mexico Good Drug Trafficking

Increased cooperation is key to combating drug trafficking the Nieto administration is holding the reigns tight NYT 13 (April 30, 2013; Randal C. Archibold, Damien Cave, and Ginger Thompson; reporters reporting in Mexico City and
NYC; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/americas/friction-between-us-and-mexico-threatens-efforts-ondrugs.html?pagewanted=all)

MEXICO CITY In their joint fight against drug traffickers, the United States and Mexico have forged an unusually close relationship in recent years, with the Americans regularly conducting polygraph tests on elite Mexican security officials to root out anyone who had been corrupted. But shortly after Mexicos new president, Enrique Pea Nieto, took office in December, American agents got a clear message that the dynamics, with Washington holding the clear upper hand, were about to change. So do we get to polygraph you? one incoming Mexican official asked his American counterparts, alarming United States security officials who consider the vetting of the Mexicans central to tracking down drug kingpins. The Mexican government briefly stopped its vetted officials from cooperating in sensitive investigations. The Americans are waiting to see if Mexico allows polygraphs when assigning new members to units, a senior Obama administration official said. In another clash, American security officials were recently asked to leave an important intelligence center in Monterrey, where they had worked side by side with an array of Mexican military and police commanders collecting and analyzing tips and intelligence on drug gangs. The Mexicans, scoffing at the notion of Americans having so much contact with different agencies, questioned the value of the center and made clear that they would put tighter reins on the sharing of drug intelligence. There have long been political sensitivities in Mexico over allowing too much American involvement. But the recent policy changes have rattled American officials used to far fewer restrictions than they have faced in years. Asked about security cooperation with Mexico at a news conference on Tuesday, President Obama said: Weve made great strides in the coordination and cooperation between our two governments over the last several years. But my suspicion is, is that things can be improved .

US-Mexico coop is key to solve drug trafficking Gallaher & Schneider 13 (Carolyn Gallaher and Dan Schneider are professors in the School of International Service at American
University; 5/2/13; Obama, Pea Nieto must save a vital part of effort to fight drug trafficking; http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0502/Obama-Pena-Nieto-must-save-a-vital-part-of-effort-to-fight-drugtrafficking/(page)/2)

With President Obama visiting Mexicos new president, Enrique Pea Nieto, today, it s time to ask what the future holds for US-Mexican cooperation in reducing drug trafficking an effort known as the Mrida Initiative. The Mexican government is radically restructuring that cooperation. Instead of spreading the work across multiple ministries, which have been working with numerous US agencies, it is coordinating everything under the single roof of its Interior Ministry. We appreciate Mr. Pea Nietos desire to change course in the fight against cartels, but the far-reaching cooperative structures Mrida established should continue. We recently traveled to Mexico City, where we examined security cooperation between Mexico and the United States. After speaking with senior officials in several Mexican federal agencies, we can say that changes in cross-border cooperation are dramatic. Some context. In 2006, President-elect Felipe Caldern decided to make the fight against organized crime a central part of his presidency. He had good reason to do so. Drug-related violence was soaring and becoming more gruesome. Since then, more than 60,000 Mexicans have lost their lives to drug-related

violence. The violence is not, however, just a Mexican issue. American demand for drugs fuels the trade, and guns from the US are the cartels weapons of choice. In Chicago, the murder rate is on the rise, partly because of drug trafficking. In March 2007, President Caldern and President George W. Bush agreed to significantly increase cooperation in fighting drug trafficking. Under the resulting Mrida Initiative, the US pledged $1.4 billion in assistance over four years, a fraction of what Mexico spends on the effort. Initial funds were earmarked for hardware; later allotments were to help Mexico transform its judicial sector to be more transparent and accountable. Equally important, Mrida sparked the creation of multiple binational working groups. Fast forward to 2012. Despite the importance of organized crime as an issue in the Mexican presidential race, Pea Nietos administration has focused almost exclusively on the economy since the election. Its first major security announcement came a few days ago. Instead of Mexican agencies working directly with their counterparts in US agencies, all communication, intelligence sharing, and joint maneuvers will run through one ministry Interior. As a public relations strategy in Mexico, it makes sense to lower the volume on the cartels and drug violence. Mexicans are worn out after six years of constant media coverage of gruesome violence and Mr. Calderns war on those perpetrating it. However, violence continues, and broad bilateral cooperation can help to stop it . Indeed, during our research we have met US state prosecutors who exchanged information with their Mexican counterparts that led to arrests and prosecutions in both countries. We also heard positive assessments about coordination on cargo inspection. Officers in both countries have also used the US e-trace system, which tracks weapons found at crime scenes. Despite such progress, our discussions with senior Mexican officials suggest the future of bilateral cooperation is in doubt. Many newly appointed senior officials were shocked at the full extent of cooperation with the US during Calderns administration. Several officials used words like penetration and infiltration to describe US involvement words that suggest suspicion about US motives.

Cooperation will be instrumental in solving drug trade Gallaher & Schneider 13 (Carolyn Gallaher and Dan Schneider are professors in the School of International Service at American
University; 5/2/13; Obama, Pea Nieto must save a vital part of effort to fight drug trafficking; http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0502/Obama-Pena-Nieto-must-save-a-vital-part-of-effort-to-fight-drugtrafficking/(page)/2)

Pea Nietos administration says it will take its time crafting a new security strategy. It should consider three things while doing so. First, it should focus on violence reduction, targeting crimes that contribute to public insecurity, such as kidnapping and extortion. Second, it must complete longpromised judicial reform, especially at the federal level. The Mexican Congress needs to pass new criminal and procedural codes. Without them, the status quo wide-scale impunity continues. Third, Mexico should harness the cooperative structures of Mrida to achieve these goals. At their best, Mridas working groups put people on both sides of the border in touch with their counterparts, allowing for practical cooperation on security issues big and small. Presidents Obama and Pea Nieto should find a way to preserve these groups even as they refocus how they will be used.

US-Mexico Good Organized Crime

Cooperation key to prevent organized crime and end Mexican police overstretch Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnolgico
Autnomo de Mxico and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Caldern; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)

Moreover, the U.S. and Mexico can do much more to target violent transnational organized crime groups together . Given that law enforcement has a limited capacity, a more focused strategy with clear priorities could improve public safety while degrading criminal groups. One option would be to select the most violent groups and simultaneously dismantle their operations on both sides of the border , sending a signal that high levels of violence will lead to increased law enforcement pressure. A more focused strategy could also concentrate law enforcement capacity on punishing, and therefore preventing, the most violent and high-social-impact crimes, like mass killings or attacks on police. These do not require any new legislation , but do entail getting federal and state agencies to coordinate their support of Mexicos designated priorities. Much more could be done to expand intelligence cooperation between the two countries, and both governments should be as open as possible about the nature of their collaboration, which public opinion in Mexico strongly supports.

US-Mexico Good Energy Coop

Plan spills over to energy cooperation with Mexico Stratfor 13 (May 2 , 2013; Evolving U.S. Mexico Relations and Obamas visit; http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/evolving-us-mexicond

relations-and-obamas-visit)

Domestic political factors will determine the success of the pending overhauls. But the labor reform could improve bilateral commerce and investment with the United States, as would a successful liberalization of the country's energy sector in the coming years. Mexico is already the United States' third-largest trading partner, and economic coordination between the two countries has become a routine matter at the ministerial level, but there is still a need to ease bureaucratic trade and investment barriers.

US-Mexico Good Prolif

US-Mexican relations key to checking Latin America prolif Sotomayor 13 (Arturo C., Assistant Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the
Naval Postgraduate School, political scientist and international studies scholar, held fellowships at Ford Foundation, Fulbright-Garcia Robles Grant Program, International Studies Association, Tulane University, Institute for the Study of World Politics, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the Defense Threat Assessment Agency, BRAZIL AND MEXICO IN THE NONPROLIFERATION REGIME, February 26, 2013, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700.2013.769377\\CLans) This leads us to the third and final question: Which is the ideal country to help reinvigorate nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation discussions in the region? For decades, the leading Latin American partner was Mexico, the country that had chosen nuclear restraint and whose embrace of disarmament initiatives helped propel global and regional nonproliferation norms. If anything, the nonproliferation regime requires more than just solid norms and principles to work; it also needs norm entrepreneurs and leadership. As Australian National
University expert Maria Rost Rublee argues, nuclear threshold states that have chosen restraint play a significant role on this regard. Their commitment to a non-nuclear status provides a moral stance against nuclear weapons that lends itself to energetic support for global disarmament.84 Yet, Mexicos

support for the nonproliferation regime is slowly eroding, in part due to domestic politics and US influence. This, too, can undermine both regional and global disarmament efforts. Two dynamics are in operation in Mexico. First, the traditional role of the armed forces is being revised because of the governments offensive launch against drug cartels. Increasingly, internal security has become the main issue of concern, with nuclear proliferation occupying a secondary role. Recent survey polls conducted by one of Mexico Citys leading public research institutes show that Mexicans feel threatened by drug-trafficking and organized crime, global warming, AIDS, food shortages, and the global economic crisis, in that order.85 In a country that has just recently democratized,
politicians and diplomats alike feel compelled to follow their constituents wishes. In this context, the armed forces are being asked to perform policing missions, thus occupying a more active and present role in politics than in the past. Not surprisingly, Mexicos diplomatic corps pays increasing interest to promoting and establishing an international regime for small weapons and gun control, which, ironically, is inspired by the nonproliferation regime. At the same time, the

shadow of the Cuban Missile Crisis has vanished, as few Mexicans seem to remember the negative consequences of nuclear proliferation. Mexicos unconditional support for the nonproliferation regime is thus in question.

Realism consistent with prolif- US influence is key to securing any prolif threats Sotomayor 13 (Arturo C., Assistant Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the
Naval Postgraduate School, political scientist and international studies scholar, held fellowships at Ford Foundation, Fulbright-Garcia Robles Grant Program, International Studies Association, Tulane University, Institute for the Study of World Politics, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the Defense Threat Assessment Agency, BRAZIL AND MEXICO IN THE NONPROLIFERATION REGIME, February 26, 2013, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700.2013.769377\\CLans) To examine these variations of policies towards the nonproliferation regime, this article assesses several hypotheses regarding the opposition to, or support for, nonproliferation efforts, including resource constraints and economic interests, threat perceptions, and discrimination. It concludes that several of these structural hypotheses lack sufficient comprehensive utility to explain the divergent nonproliferation strategies of Brazil and Mexico. Instead,
the main argument focuses on two, mutually reinforcing explanatory variables: US influence (systemic politics) and domestic politics. Together, they account for the variation in terms of support/opposition to the nonproliferation regime. Specifically, Washingtons

nonproliferation policies towards Latin America alienated countries with advanced nuclear development programs, such as Brazil, demonstrating how US foreign policy plays a key role in shaping policy preferences in Latin America. This is consistent with structural approaches to international relations*such as

realism*which argue that major powers have an important independent effect on the behavior of states in the international system, including the structure of alliances and the balancing of coalitions, including in the developing world.3 As noted realist and Harvard University professor Stephen Walt argues, weak states are also likely to be especially sensitive to proximate power. Where great powers have both global interests and global capabilities, weak states will be concerned primarily with events in their immediate vicinity. 4 The reality is that at the international level, Latin Americas security complex is largely shaped, although not fully determined, by the US sphere of influence, which
includes power, statecraft, and a unique geography in the Western Hemisphere.5

Even one Latin American nuke causes rapid regional proliferation Trinkunas, 11. Harold Trinkunas is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of National
Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Latin America: Nuclear Capabilities, Intentions and Threat Perceptions. Florida International University 9-1-2011 http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=whemsac clawan
Latin America has been a hotbed of liberal international institution building, ranging from the Organization of American States through various regional economic forums and pacts such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) and MERCOSUR, and new initiatives such as UNASUR and the South American Defense Council. The international regime prohibiting the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons in South America is particularly robust, resting on the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco that initiated the process of creating a nuclear weapons free zone in the region.19 However, there are also a number of failed or ineffective international regimes in the diplomatic history of the region, and the

acquisition of nuclear weapons however unlikely it seems at present would represent a realist shock to the system that would undoubtedly cause some regional powers to reconsider their adherence to a nuclear weapons-free regime. Nuclear
weapons acquisition by a South American State would lead its neighbors to reconsider their own security, much as realist or neorealist international relations theory describes, and decide whether they should conciliate the new nuclear weapons State or balance against it. Some

would consider strengthening military and other capabilities or react by fostering alliances to balance threats, particularly when the State acquiring nuclear weapons is perceived as having offensive intentions. 20
Stephen Walt argues that States do not just pay attention to relative capabilities when making calculations of threat, but also the identity and nature of other powers, particularly whether their intentions are offensive or benign. When

it comes to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Argentina, Brazil or Venezuela, clearly, the perceptions of States in the region as to the intentions of these countries in acquiring the weapons would play a significant part in determining their reactions.

Venezuelan prolif likely deliberate attempts and Iranian alliance Trinkunas, 11. Harold Trinkunas is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of National
Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Latin America: Nuclear Capabilities, Intentions and Threat Perceptions. Florida International University 9-1-2011 http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=whemsac clawan
Even though it lacks almost any capability to develop nuclear technology at this time, assessing Venezuelas future as a nuclear proliferation risk is difficult because of its leaders periodic declarations of a desire to develop a nuclear power program have not been matched with improving capabilities. In the 2005, Venezuela began discussions with its MERCOSUR partners, Argentina and Brazil, about acquiring nuclear power reactors, although these negotiations were unproductive.9 Since then, it

has sought actively to further collaboration with Russia on the development of a nuclear energy program, signing a nuclear cooperation agreement in 2008. There have also been discussions of possible cooperation with Belarus and France in the area of nuclear technology.10 Perhaps paving the way for its own future activities, Venezuela has taken positions on proliferation issues that run directly against the mainstream of international public opinion, pursuing a highly publicized rapprochement with Iran, a potential nuclear supplier, and supporting both Irans right to pursue nuclear technology without constraints and North Koreas periodic missile tests. It has also opposed international sanctions over nuclear issues on both powers.11 Venezuelas stated concern of a U.S. invasion has led it to

officially orient its Armed Forces towards a policy of prolonged popular war and asymmetric warfare. This has translated into changes in doctrine and educational programs, and the creation of a militia. 12

Mexico Key Drug Trade

Mexico drug trade key country in trafficking- USs importer Manwaring 11 (General Douglas MacArthur Chair and Prof of Military Strategy @ U.S. Army War
College, Ret U.S. Army Colonel, Adjunct Professor of International Politics @ Dickinson College, FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE IN CHILE: ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFICKING THREATS March 21, 2011 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA560442\\CLans) Nevertheless, the main drug-producing countries in Latin America must not only face the challenges derived from the production control, but also all of the problems resulting from a complex process that involves traffic of arms, organized crime, money laundering, and corruption, among many others. Therefore, in some Latin American countries, especially in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, this problem has surpassed the capacities of the police organisms and the governments have had to use their Armed Forces. This phenomenon also appears currently in Mexico. Although is not a country that produces cocaine, its proximity to the United States - the largest consumer of illicit drugs has transformed it into the main route of operation trafficking drugs northward. Therefore, it faces the greatest impact of negative effects that the drug trade has to offer disrupting their government and society

Mexico is key to cocaine shipment and production Manwaring 11 (General Douglas MacArthur Chair and Prof of Military Strategy @ U.S. Army War
College, Ret U.S. Army Colonel, Adjunct Professor of International Politics @ Dickinson College, FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE IN CHILE: ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFICKING THREATS March 21, 2011 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA560442\\CLans)
The third prominent trend in Latin America in the last decades has been the proliferation of smaller trafficking organizations due to the fall of the Colombian Cocaine Cartels. 28 The

structure of cocaine trade in Colombia effectively changed in 1995 and ended the dominance of the most powerful cartels of Medellin and Cali. This appeared to be the end of Colombias role in cocaine trafficking. However, the proliferation of a number of minor trafficking organizations quickly emerged assuming a lower, less violent profile in Latin American society and politics in an effort to avoid detection and arrest. According to Bagley, this is the cockroach effect defined as the displacement of criminal networks from one city/state/region to another within a given country or from one country to another in search of safer heavens and more pliable state authorities 29 These phenomena caused another effects in the region: 1) The cocaine cultivation began to diminish in Colombia, but it subsequently increased in Peru and Bolivia while traffickers in both countries also increased their own capacity to produce cocaine. 30 This is almost exactly like an inverse process that happened in the 1980s when the United States carried out
programs for cocaine eradication in Bolivia - during the government of President Victor Paz administration - and when President Alberto Fujimori leaded his own hard operations against the drug trafficking in Peru. 2) Neighboring

countries to the production centers (Colombia, Peru and Bolivia) were added in the transit chain, such as Mexico, Central America, Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, among others. In addition to the increase in levels of internal illicit drug consumption, these countries also became bridges for distribution of cocaine destined for the United States and
Europe. According to the 2010 World Drug Report, the main concern for the United Nations is the impact of cocaine trafficking on transit countries in Americas where the drug traffickers become powerful enough to take on the state through violent confrontation or high-level corruption. The 2010 World Drug Report affirms that the region worst affected is the Northern Triangle of Central America: Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, where drug-related violence

has posed a serious challenge to governance. 3) Mexican organized crime groups have become progressively more involved in the cocaine trade that originates in the Andes. They also have effectively displaced Colombias cartels with smaller, successor Colombian criminal groups or cartelitos (small cartels) as the primary traffickers of South American-refined cocaine through Mexican territory into the United States. 31 Mexico continues to be the primary transshipment country for United States-bound cocaine from South America, with an estimated 90% of annual cocaine movements toward the US stopping in Mexico. 32

The global flows of cocaine in Figure 2 represents that cocaine is mainly transported from Colombia to Mexico or Central America by sea and then by land to the United States and Canada. The shipments from Peru and Bolivia are more common for Europe than for the United States

Drugs Impacts
Narcotics cause Latin America instability, civil wars, and destruction of US-Latin America ties Messing and Hazelwood 12 (F. Andy Messing is the Executive Director of the National Defense
Council Foundation, Bruce Hazelwood wa a member of the Milgroup at the U.S. Embassy, US Drug Control Policy and International Operations 2012 http://ndcf.dyndns.org/ndcf/Publications/US_Drug_Control_Policy_and_Int_Ops.htm#_Toc449503510\ \CLans)
Presently, many drug producing countries are beset with guerrilla war. Therefore, in order for our overseas drug control programs to be successful U.S. planners and field operators should have a full understanding of narco-guerrilla warfare and related activities. The following generic

. As will be demonstrated, of the three major players in a narco-guerrilla situation (the traffickers, the guerrillas, and the government), it is the drug traffickers who are the most adept at manipulating the other two. As a starting
outline of the Three Phases of Narco-Guerrilla Warfare represents a typical progression and details the levels of involvement of the narco organization, the insurgent forces and the likely responses of the foreign government

point, it can be said that countries with narco-guerrilla problems did not see both the drug and insurgent activities begin simultaneously. Each organization clearly had a separate birth and a separate agenda. On the other hand, the guerrillas see themselves - as liberators of the oppressed, defenders of social justice and fighters against corruption. In sharp contrast, the drug organization is a business representing free enterprise at its extremes. The

insurgents' goals are to challenge the government's legitimacy and ability to provide security to the rural population, always searching for the moral high ground. Their long term objective is to collapse the government. In sharp contrast, the drug trafficker's goals are to gain control by using their immense financial advantages and propensity for violence to corrupt and intimidate at all levels of society. Their long-term objective is to incorporate the government. The government's goal is to maintain itself in power. Most narcoguerrilla situations can usually be divided into three phases. PHASE 1: Phase One is the incipient stage. Here the conflict is generated because of the grave social, economic and political imbalance. The governmental forces are set on maintaining the status quo and the opposition guerrilla forces are dedicated to change. The insurgents

will usually opt for a Maoist type strategy based in the rural areas where the government's control is the weakest. Their plans are to work from the countryside into the metropolitan
areas. Neither side is preoccupied with funding sources as both envision an opportunity for early victory, in spite of rhetoric to the contrary. It is during this phase that the military and organizational structure of both the government and the guerrillas are defined. Both sides believe
they are reaching for the moral high ground in an attempt to get support from the masses. During this early stage, activities by the drug traffickers are covert and large scale narco actions are limited. Both drug dealings and insurgent battlefield preparations are on going but largely

. Because the guerrillas are ideologically motivated and as yet possess limited armed capability, they have no need or desire to be identified with the criminal narco dealers.
unrelated military officials begin to see the drug business as a way to augment their low income. They conveniently rationalize that the drug problem is one of external use and not their internal responsibility. Therefore, the lucrative drug trade is allowed to operate and flourish

Therefore, both elements operate and pursue their goals on separate

paths. During this phase, the government, with its untrained policy and military forces, views the guerrillas as bandits who can easily be eliminated by increasing its repressive activities in the affected areas usually outside of the country's capital. At the same time, some ruling civilian and

. This

lack of government concern and understanding allows the drug operators as well as guerrilla forces to develop their essential underground infrastructure and their operational apparatus.
obstacles in the path of the program designed to stop the drug trade. PHASE II By Phase II, the government and guerrillas both realize that the conflict may be protracted. Each side tries to extend their combat power to get the advantage.

By the latter part of Phase I, two important facts

start to become evident: Through police actions the narco/guerrilla connection is dearly exposed. This results in the government finally having to admit that separating the two is difficult. That as efforts become more aggressive, corrupt government officials begin to actively throw

Accordingly, the

costs in terms of "money, resources, manpower and political risks escalate. Money becomes central in the conflict, whether it is denying it or making it. As the moral reasoning of the war blurs and the "end justifies the means" rational emerges within elements of the fighting factions, the lure of easy money takes hold. Narcotics activity quickly emerges as a
leading moneymaker with the drug dealers taking the driver's seat. The principle objective of the narcos at this point is to export increasingly large quantities of the product for sale abroad. Key

government and guerrilla leaders will use the military structure of their organizations to facilitate the trafficker's goal in the name of maximizing the profits for "the cause." Narco business elements make informal alliances with key leaders on both sides. In the case of the guerrillas, the overwhelming
majority of drug profits are initially directed to the insurgent's formal structure; however, the first incidents of major skimming occur. On the government side, informal organizational structures are developed to distribute drug profits and formal discipline starts breaking down.

Inflation of the price for drug protection services; graft and corruption are becoming routine. During
Phase lithe guerrillas expand their bases and build up their fighting forces for the introduction of coordinated small unit combat activities. Their increasing need for supplies and equipment make them more vulnerable and dependent on narco involvement.

Deals are made for the protection of clandestine airfields and safe passage, and in the process money changes hand. The guerrilla leadership uses the money to buy weapons, ammunition and other war materials. This drug income, coupled with insurgent "battlefield acquisition" from the government forces, allows the insurgents to expand their area of control and further challenge the government's authority and ability to maintain law, order and security. The guerrillas help justify their association with the narcos as a way of assisting the campesino drug farmer rise above the

subsistence level. Therefore they use the government's attempts to conduct manual and aerial eradication of drug plants as rallying cries to incite the former to protest. Using this "window of opportunity'. The guerrillas establish more control

and introduce their dedicated cadres to the civilian population. The insurgents condition the farmers to believe that growing drugs is not wrong, and that the government, its military forces and the U.S. supporters are the enemy. Many become vulnerable to insurgent political propaganda and indoctrination and are slowly incorporated into the guerrilla masses with some becoming full time combatants. Throughout Phase II, a sharp
increase in drug production and trafficking occurs. Towns within the harvest areas actually start to grow and thrive off of the narco dollars. This further complicates the government's problems, because if state sponsored eradication and interdiction programs are successful, the results will lower the standard of living and possibly serve to drive more people into the hands of the guerrillas. However, any

success of the government's anti-drug programs is unlikely due to the "widespread corruption of government officials by the narco dollars, which guarantees a half-hearted effort at best to implement programs designed to suppress the drug
trade. As the war between the insurgents and government forces intensifies, the balance of real campesino farmers vs. new entrepreneurs begins to change. Given the constant increase in drug demand, the narcotics growing areas start to attract entrepreneurs from economically
depressed urban cities. Many of the original farmers, who only wanted peace and quiet, move into the safer government controlled towns. This makes it even easier for the new drug growers to flood into the drug growing areas. This displacement further serves to consolidate the narco's power and causes an increase in drug related activities. In many cases, the narco organization will even go so far as to provide crop growing assistance such as fertilizer and farming technique advice to drug growers. Under these deteriorating circumstances, crop substitution is presented by the government as an option. However, the reality is no harvest can compete financially with drug cultivation. In addition, programs that encourage growing other crops soon find that the lines of communication (roads, the important accesses from the field to the market) are controlled by guerrillas and often closed. Developing alternatives such as local processing plants are tried, but prove difficult to maintain because of guerrilla attacks. Air lifting commodities is considered as a course of action but soon proves to be expensive and not cost effective.

In

the end, the

government perceives that it has no option but to declare the area an emergency and turn major authority over to the army. This serves to further escalate the level of violence. Quickly, existing divisions between host country drug police and the military units deepen. Each has their role: the police fighting drug dealers, the army waging their war in the countryside against the guerrillas. Both are competing for resources and greater operating authority.
The army's point of view is that the guerrillas pose the most dangerous threat to national security, mostly because of existing civilian and military drug involvement and as sociated corruption, the idea of directing all available resources at winning the guerrilla war is given serious consideration by government officials in the capital. This serves to demonstrate bow fully involved government officials have become in assisting and protecting the narcotics traffickers.

It is during

Phase II that the drug

dealers begin to gain significant amounts of control and influence over the government, its armed forces and the guerrilla movement.
leaves the isolated rural towns vulnerable to further guerrilla penetration

Both the insurgents and the government consider the narco element as a necessary evil to be used in order to better their

individual or group financial position and increase their power base. In most cases, countries with rural civil defense forces will see the people in drug growing areas transfer ring their attention from fighting insurgents to providing protection for drug operations. This change of focus

. It is at the end of Phase II that narco front personnel, in a move to increase their power and security, will campaign and possibly be elected to official office. Other members of the drug organization will gain sensitive positions in the government by official appointments to seek to influence the government through front groups like drug growers' unions. Laundered

narco dollars are used to purchase or establish legitimate corporations which are as important to the long-term survivability of the drug organization as the drug trafficking itself. This eventually results in an economy that becomes quite dependent on drug activities to keep the country afloat. PHASE III In Phase III, both
the governmental and guerrilla factions are in the process of becoming shells. Real power is being effectively transferred to leading narco elements. Every part of the society has yielded, to one degree or another, to the drug organization within their territory. Narco

elements turn inward to domestic markets to squeeze out every last peso and firm up local control of the population. Cross-pollination of domestic and international drug elements occurs. Throughout each phase, the insurgents have tried to
control more of the drug system. At the same time, police and military forces have demanded more from the drug dealers for protection. The drug lords switch back and forth between the coups as it suits their purposes. It

is this technique of keeping both elements off balance and dependent on the drug trade that the narcos have mastered. They play each against the other as if they were musical instruments. Both are maintained at a safe arm's length, their roles increased and decreased as it suits the drug dealers. If this situation is left unchecked the drug organizations will succeed in their attempt to dominate the country's institutions. By this late stage the narcos clearly wield more power than the guerrilla apparatus. Although both have mastered clandestine operations and the ability to survive in challenging environments; by this point, the reach of the drug dealer's money, weapons and infrastructure is much longer than that of the guerrillas. In some cases there will even be
increased involvement by the drug organizations in promoting guerrilla and government negotiations, mainly because they view continued guerrilla instability as a potential threat to their control. As

the threatened government wakes up and tries to apply serious pressure, the narco organization responds violently with brutal acts of revenge. Some government
officials will then plead for compromise; they will propose that the government and drug organizations coexist. If this idea is accepted it will be a sure win for the drug dealers. Only

if some brave high government official declares all out war can the country and its institutions be saved. It is then that the country's moral warriors (civilian, military and police) step out to defy the
odds. It is with these individuals that responsibility for success is placed. Recognizing the drug dealer's strategy, and after several successful attacks, a special protection package will have to be developed around these key people. The

critical need to strengthen the judicial system, which does not work well against normal criminal acts, much less those involving drugs, is quickly realized. It is at this late stage that the narco-guerrilla war has entered its most critical phase, a war of will and sustainment. The first to quit loses.

Drug trade leads to US narcoguerilla wars Messing and Hazelwood 12 (F. Andy Messing is the Executive Director of the National Defense
Council Foundation, Bruce Hazelwood wa a member of the Milgroup at the U.S. Embassy, US Drug Control Policy and International Operations 2012 http://ndcf.dyndns.org/ndcf/Publications/US_Drug_Control_Policy_and_Int_Ops.htm#_Toc449503510\ \CLans) Almost automatically when Americans think about insurgent and narcotic warfare we mentally refer back to Third World Latin, Asian and African countries. Most Americans can not bring themselves to believe that this country's social, political and economic conditions could deteriorate to a level where narco-guerrilla warfare could emerge as a feature of U.S. society. But the fact is that Americans have a long history of violent resistance and for the last two decades they have also become increasingly more involved in the drug trade. Both of these factors are precursors to narcoguerrilla warfare.
To fully appreciate this danger requires an understanding of how social, economic and political events affect the possibilities that a narcoguerrilla conflict could emerge. One should look at Washington, D.C., New York City, Detroit or other critical urban areas nationwide. History has shown that in addition to having a segment of the nation's population willing to resist, narco-guerrilla warfare is to require that certain other critical elements be present. The

existence of violent clandestine political movements, economic depression in both rural and urban areas, existence of a narco infrastructure, a violent underground criminal organization and economic instability are all preconditions to a narco-guerrilla situation. The trend of U.S.
citizens becoming increasingly more involved in the drug trade will skyrocket in the 1990's, and not only because of an increase in domestic demand or population expansion. Several external factors will effect this dramatic rise in the percentage of Americans that become involved in the narcotics trade. To start with' the early 1990's will be the years that the infamous foreign drug barons will choose a strategy to significantly lower their previous high visibility profile. Now, they will opt for a plan that includes decentralizing (cellular organization) their drug operations and the creation of an expanded network of mini drug lords. This will

have the benefit of making it more difficult for any outside penetration and will make the loss of their drugs, capture of their personnel and destruction of their
processing sites less probable. Next, in order to farther shield themselves from the continuing judicial onslaught and camouflage their connection with drug dealers,

the drug kingpins will become more amenable to sharing their immense drug profits with foreign middlemen. Wisely, they will adopt a business attitude of we will harvest and process the merchandise, someone else will traffic and distribute it. All of these adjustments will be made in order to preserve their most valuable drug market--the United States. From this process will emerge the first American drug barons. Prior to 1980, most American citizens were not mentally conditioned to accept drug dealers and related activities as a way of life.
Then for the past ten years, the United States has been protected from widespread insurgent and narco-criminal actions primarily because of this country's relative economic well being. An additional factor preventing the drug trade's cancerous growth during that period was the fact that foreign drug lords wanted to maintain control of the entire narcotics apparatus by installing their own resident managers at the major drug entry and distribution points throughout the U.S. It was the nation's previous psychological barriers to drug dealings, the country's economic well-being and the foreign drug lord's micro-management style, that has kept the American entrepreneur on the fringe of the drug trade and was an additional obstacle to any serious narco-guerrilla development. Many government officials and noted academicians would say that the United States could never succumb to any type of narco-guerrilla conflict. On the other hand, some

drug and insurgent warfare experts would declare that (he U-S. is already involved in a limited ad hoc narcoguerrilla conflict. Whether we are or not
could possibly be better determined by reviewing the aforementioned Three Phases of Narco-guerrilla Warfare.

Extinction James Pinkerton 03, fellow at the New America Foundation, , Freedom and Survival, p.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2003/freedom_and_survival Historically, the only way that the slow bureaucratic creep of government is reversed is through revolution or war. And that could happen. But there's a problem: the

next American revolution won't be fought with muskets. It could well be waged with proliferated wonder-weapons. That is, about the time that American yeopersons decide to resist the encroachment of the United Nations, or the European Unionor the United States governmentthe level of destructive power in a future conflict could remove the choice expressed by Patrick Henry in his ringing cry, "Give me liberty, or give me death." The next big war could kill everybody , free and unfree alike.

Drug trafficking kills Mexican econ Beittel 12 (June, Analyst of Latin America, Congressional Research Service, Mexicos Drug Trafficking
Organizations: Source and Scope of the Rising Violence April 15, 2012 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41576.pdf\\CLans)
As the violence in Mexico has sharply increased over the past several years, it has also shifted locations. Drug

trafficking-related violence once highly concentrated near Mexicos northern border with the United States shifted geographically in 2011 and 2012 moving from northwestern and north-central Mexico to northeastern and central Mexico.130 As it has spread to new locations, the fear of violence has closed businesses and had an impact on tourism . American investors in Mexico have grown concerned about the violence and businesses have sent home dependents or closed operations altogether in some cities. Small and medium-sized businesses have been particularly hard hit, without the resources to hire private security firms and provide for employee safety as have the larger businesses and multinational corporations.131 In 2011, the Mexican government published a report indicating that foreign direct investment (FDI) has continued to pour into some of the most violent states at levels exceeding the investment
prior to 2006, but others argue that job-creating investment was moving into safer cities where drug traffickingrelated violence was lower

Drug trafficking prevents economic growth Sterling 12 (Eric E, Former Assistant Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, The War On Drugs
Hurts Businesses and Investors March 1, 2013 http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/03/01/thewar-on-drugs-hurts-businesses-and-investors/2/\\CLans) The drug war is weakening state institutions, infiltrating judicial systems and undermining rule of law, all of which is bad for business, Csar Zamora, Nicaraguan businessman and vice president of the Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America (AACCLA) told the Christian Science Monitor on February 16, 2012. A criminal cancer is spreading through the global economy, taking its nutrition from the world-wide illegal drug business.
In many countries, your travel agent, your lawyer, your banker or your telephone installer is as likely as an assassin or brothel manager to be working for a criminal organization. Almost everywhere, narco-dollars corrupt government

officials and business

agencies and fuel criminal opportunities. The global illegal drug economy is not capable of precise measurement, but according to the latest report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the retail market in illegal opiates is $68 billion (mostly heroin) and in cocaine, $85 billion. Their last valuation of the cannabis market was $142 billion in 2005. Excluding the significant markets in methamphetamine, Ecstasy, psychedelics and other drugs, this is a criminal retail market in the range of $300 billion annually.
Most of the markup is at the retail level. This enormous market is evidence that our efforts to stop the drug supply create the incentives that have grown a global criminal infrastructure of countless drug prohibition enterprises. In 1984, 1986 and 1988, Congress injected t he U.S. anti-drug effort with legal steroids. As counsel to the House Crime Subcommittee during the war on drugs, I helped write many of those laws. But those laws, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in enforcement, have not protected business from the consequences of drug pr ohibition. This is in large part because neither Congress nor the business community have ever thought systematically about the drug business, drug enforcement and the economy. In the early 1980s, I helped Congress investigate how drug money laundering was compromising legal casino gambling as the drug business responded to the Bank Secrecy Act. Congress heard, but did not understand, how our drug laws hurt a sector of American business. Congress pushed currency transaction reporting, for example. The 8,000 reports filed in 1985 have grown to over 14,800,000 in FY2011. What had been a minor inconvenience is now a major responsibility that costs banks hundreds of millions of dollars annually

Despite this burden, the great untaxed

profits of illegal drug sales worldwide have enabled local drug trafficking gangs to transform into global criminal organizations. Drug prohibition enterprises corrupt bank officers
and tellers, accountants, lawyers, financial advisors, real estate brokers, securities dealers, freight forwarders, shipping companies, airline employees, etc. to ship and pay for drugs, and to launder their receipts and profits. In one example, in March 2010, corruption was exposed in the Wachovia unit of Wells Fargo Bank, now the fifth largest U.S. bank by deposits. Wachovia was forced to disgorge $110 million and was fined $50 million for failing to internally police $378 billion in transactions with casas de cambio in Mexico that laundered drug profits.

Businesses cannot count on the integrity of their agents or counterparts in such environments, and Wachovias shareholders paid an enormous price. All over the world, drug organizations depend upon corrupting border guards, customs inspectors, police, prosecutors, judges, legislators, cabinet ministers, military officers, intelligence agents, financial regulators, and presidents and prime ministers. Businesses cannot count on the integrity of government officials in such environments. Illegal drug
organizations rely upon violence for conflict resolution, security, employee management, management succession, and influencing policy makers. Over the last two years, countless business leaders and their families have fled drug violence in Monterey, Mexicos once-safe commercial capital, as the country has been rocked by some 50,000 killings related to control of the drug trade.

Violence is pervasive, law enforcement is largely ineffective, and impunity for using violence is rampant
crime and drugs led to a dramatic expansion of the population with a criminal record. Those records are accessible by nearly every employer

. Not only in Mexico, but in Central America, the Caribbean, Colombia, West Africa, and parts of Asia where the prohibition-fueled drug trade is extant, business personnel are frequently in danger. Domestically, there are additional consequences. In the 1980s,

Americas crime rates were near historic highs. Congress took for granted that we needed to fight drugs with long sent ences. Now crime rates are profoundly lower, but most analysts conclude long prison sentences have not been a major factor. T he political dynamic of being tough on

. Yet, few

analysts have calculated the full impact of

expanded criminal punishment that has reduced opportunities for education, job training, employment, credit, marriage, and ultimately, American productivity and consumer buying power.
Today, tens of millions of Americans would-be consumers because they have been convicted of a drug offense, arent earning what they could earn without a record. Our prison population, estimated as high as 2.3 million persons, is out of the car market. Ford and GM should calculate how many cars they could sell in the U.S. if our imprisonment rates were close to those of their European or Japanese competitors (instead of 7-to-10 times higher). How many cars could they sell if tens of millions of Americans did not have a conviction-suppressed income?

A reduced average household income and credit capacity suppresses sales of goods and services for almost every American business. While most of those offenses were instances of youthful bad judgment, the consequences for the economy last for decades. The business community needs a complete economic analysis of the impact of drug policy. In the 1980s, war on drugs policies were not on the radar of business or investors at all. Today, the intensity of
global competition and the fragility of our domestic economy require management and investors to fully understand how American drug policy plays with their profits. Every

investor should analyze how much the costs of drug policy shrink return on

investment.

Latin America drug trade leads to terrorism Manwaring 11 (General Douglas MacArthur Chair and Prof of Military Strategy @ U.S. Army War
College, Ret U.S. Army Colonel, Adjunct Professor of International Politics @ Dickinson College, FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE IN CHILE: ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFICKING THREATS March 21, 2011 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA560442\\CLans) In the last four decades, every continent in the world has faced by nonconventional threats . Latin America has also been a continent that is facing many of them, and all the countries of the region, including Chile, are nowadays trying to find solutions to a variety of phenomena. One of the largest threats, the illicit drug trade, has permanently been on the agenda of the Americas like a multi-faceted threat that jeopardizes the security and the sovereignty of the states. One of the most significant trends in Latin America is related to the close connection existing between illicit drug trafficking, transnational organized crimes, and illicit trafficking in weapons. Undoubtedly, illicit drugs continue to cause a health menace to humanity and market activities generate the most income to drug mafias, through illegal transactions. It is a
recognized fact that drug controls by the authority have generated a criminal market of macroeconomic dimensions that uses violence and corruption to mediate between consumers and suppliers. 23 The

Organization of American States is aware of the threat of armed violence to citizens is a rising phenomenon in many parts of the Americas. The linkage of illicit manufacturing, sale and distribution of firearms, munitions and even explosive material with drug trafficking, terrorism, transnational organized crime, and other criminal enterprises has been well established, and the magnitude of the problem is significant.24 Remnant items of past conflicts and easy money coming from illegal drug transactions make easy the access to illegal firearms, ammunition and even explosives ; all those which are going
to be used for cartels or traffickers to protect illegal organizations.

Narco-Guerilla warfare leads to terrorism and creates failed states Manwaring 11 (General Douglas MacArthur Chair and Prof of Military Strategy @ U.S. Army War
College, Ret U.S. Army Colonel, Adjunct Professor of International Politics @ Dickinson College, FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE IN CHILE: ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFICKING THREATS March 21, 2011 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA560442\\CLans) The fourth prominent trend is related to those armed groups which at first simply protected the illicit drugs trade, but they normally became paramilitary groups linked to insurgency and narcoterrorism .
The Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia FARC) got involved with cocaine production and refining in the early 1980s, primarily as guards of the coca cartels refining operations and rural landing strips in the Colombian hinterlands. 39 The

large economic profit they obtain from the illicit businesses allows them to count on resources to try to influence the highest authorities of the State. Terror, murders and kidnappings are the other alternatives to directly influence the state organization. But overall, the large number of their members, their fighting equipment, the high-technology weapon systems, and adequate training could provide them sufficient military capabilities to fight against the regular Armed Forces of the State. This high level of influence,

over all powers of the state and their military capabilities to fight against regular forces of the State, constitutes

the uppermost risk for any Nation-State. Analyzing the Colombian conflict in 2002, President Uribe modernized the Colombian military, especially its
intelligence community, allowing them to develop 18 special operations against high-value targets and to reduce the criminal capacity of the terrorist organization, as well as, its command and control structures. It is for this reason that these narcoterrorist

groups have sought safety across borders to evade the state effective actions, establishing safe-havens where they plan and execute terrorist acts. 40 Regarding to the Colombian Insurgency, Dr. Manwaring offers this description: The narcoinsurgent-paramilitary alliance utilizes a mix of aggressive, widespread, and violent politicalpsychological, economic-commercial, and military-terrorist strategy and tactics primarily to control human (but also physical) terrain in Colombia and other countries in which it operates. The generalized result of the intimidating and destabilizing activities of this alliance of violent non-state actors is a steadily increasing level of manpower, wealth, and power that most nation-states of the world can only envy.

Failed states cause multiple scenarios for extinction

TI 7 (Transnational Institute A report prepared by: The African Studies Centre, Leiden, The
Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, The Peace Studies Group (CES, University of Coimbra), and The Peace Research Center- CIP/FUHEM, Madrid Failed and Collapsed States in the International System, April)
In the malign scenario of global developments the number of collapsed states would grow significantly. This would mean that several more countries in the world could not be held to account for respecting international agreements in 33 various fields, be it commercial transactions, debt repayment, the possession and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the use of the national territory for criminal or terrorist activities. The increase could have a knock-on effect, first in neighbouring

in failed states would immediately lead to an increase in international migration, which countries which, having similar politicoeconomic structures, could suffer increased destabilization and collapse as well. Developments in West Africa during the last decade may serve as an example.

Increased international migration would, secondly, have serious implications for the Western world. In Europe it would put social relations between the population and immigrant communities under further pressure, polarizing politics. An increase in collapsed states would also endanger the security of Western states and societies. Health

conditions could deteriorate as contagious diseases like Ebola or Sars would spread because of a lack of measures taken in collapsed areas. Weapons of mass destruction could come into the hands of various sorts of political entities, be they terrorist groups, political factions in control of part of a collapsed state or an aggressive political elite still in control of a national territory and intent on expansion. Not only North Korea
springs to mind; one could very well imagine such states in (North) Africa. Since the multilateral system of control of such weapons would have ended in part because of the decision of the United States to try and check their spread through unilateral action - a system that would inherently be more unstable than a multilateral, negotiated regime - one

could be faced with an arms race that would sooner

or later result in the actual use of these weapons . In the malign scenario, relations between the US and Europe would also further deteriorate, in questions of a military nature as well as trade relations, thus undercutting any possible consensus on stemming the growth of collapsed states and the introduction of stable multilateral regimes towards matters like terrorism, nuclear weapons and international migration. Disagreement is already rife on a host of issues in these fields. At worst, even the Western members of the Westphalian system - especially those bordering on countries in the former Third World, i.e. the European states - could be faced with direct attacks on their national security

Latin American drug trade is the primary funding mechanism for the terrorism
Steinitz, 2002 (Mark, director of Office of Analysis for Terrorism, Narcotics and Crime - U.S. Department of States Bureau of Intelligence
and Resarch, intelligence analyst @ DEA. M.A. in political science/national security from Georgetown University., The Terrorism and Drug Connection in Latin Americas Andean Region, http://www.revistainterforum.com/english/pdf_en/pp_steinitz.pdf, Policy Papers on the Americas Volume XIII, Study 5 )

Drug Money Fuels Colombias Terrorism In 1998, the Colombian government estimated that money from the drug trade was the single greatest source of income for the countrys terrorist groups, on both the left and the right . That year, they reportedly earned a total of U.S.$551 million from drug links, U.S.$311 million from extortion, and U.S.$236 million from kidnapping.32 In the case of the FARCs income that year, the government estimated that 48 percent came from drug sources, 36 percent from extortion, 8 percent from kidnapping, 6 percent from cattle rustling, and the remainder

from bank robbery and other illegal activities.33 The size of the groups war chest explains why it has been able to pay its new recruits three times more than the Colombian army pays its new soldiers.34 The FARC had an estimated 7,000 active members organized into 60 fronts in 1995; by 2000, it had 15,00020,000 in more than 70 fronts. Although it holds no major cities, the group operates throughout Colombia and is thought to control about one-third of the nations territory.

Drug Production Bad Bio-D

Cocaine production causes the destruction of key hotspots Science Daily 11 (Science and Environmental News Source, Article Cites Research from Stony Brook
University Cocaine Production Increases Destruction of Colombias Rainforests 1/29/11 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128144723.htm) Scientists from Stony Brook University are reporting new evidence that cultivating coca bushes, the source of cocaine, is speeding up destruction of rainforests in Colombia and threatening the region's "hotspots" of plant and animal diversity. The findings, which they say underscore the need for establishing larger protected areas to help
preserve biodiversity, appear in ACS' journal Environmental Science & Technology. Dr. Liliana M. Dvalos, professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook, and her colleagues note that the

pace of deforestation in Colombia has accelerated over the past 20 years, even as population growth has slowed and the economy has shifted from agriculture to other revenue sources. This increase in deforestation overlaps with an increase in the cultivation of coca for cocaine production, and the country accounted for 75 per cent of the world's coca in 2000. Earlier reports found that direct deforestation from coca was surprisingly small, with as little as 150 km2 of forests replaced by coca each year by 2005. Since rainforests contain about 10 percent of the world's plant and animal species -- some of which become the basis of new medicines -deforestation represents a serious threat to global biodiversity. With studies suggesting that coca cultivation contributes indirectly to deforestation, the scientists set out to further document this impact. Their analysis of data from 2002-2007 on the effects of coca cultivation on deforestation of rainforests in Colombia identified several factors that boosted the likelihood that rainforests would be destroyed. In southern Colombia, a forest close to newly developed coca farms, for instance, was likely to be cut, as was land in areas
where much of the farmland was devoted to coca. This is the first time the indirect impact on deforestation from cultivation destined for the global cocaine market has been quantified across South America's biodiversity hotpots.

Biodiversity in specific hotspots checks extinction. Key to ag, medicine, and ecosystems Mittermeier 11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30 years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book Biodiversity Hotspots F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at: http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)

Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is irreversible. Human activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a thousand or more times the natural
background

rate

(Pimm et al. 1995). What are the consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity for

future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earths species (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer (Novotny et al. 2002). As

species vanish, so too does the health security of every human. Earths species are a vast genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen
cures waiting to be discovered. Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all commercial medicines even more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared to burning down the worlds libraries without knowing the content of 90% or more of the books. With

loss of species, we lose the ultimate source of our crops and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience, the inspiration for manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems that support humans and all life on Earth
(McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency, and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and moral costs inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake, and wild plants and animals are integral to the

fabric of all the worlds cultures (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earths natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earths climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009). In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?

Extinction is a global

phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to
it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget perhaps 90% originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally exible funds available in the hundreds of millions annually be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of reducing biodiversity loss. The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question. Given the choice, where

should action toward reducing the loss of biodiversity be implemented rst ? The eld of conservation planning addresses this question and revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability
(Margules and Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region if the species and ecosystems that are highly threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several areas can share the same species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because the unique species they contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in certain areas, these areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact. Myers seminal paper (Myers1988) was the rst application of the principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. Myers

described ten tropical forest hotspots on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat loss, albeit
without quantitative criteria for the designation of hotspot status. A subsequent analysis added eight additional hotspots, including four from Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked with Myers in a rst systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics ( > 0.5% of the worlds total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts culminated in an

extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientic publication (Myers et al.2000) that introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of both the better-dened criteria and new data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on
new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redened several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufcient data either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another region the East Melanesian Islands which rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the less than 30% of original vegetation remaining criterion to a genuine hotspot.

Drug Cultivation leads to environmental degredation- Soil erotion Armstead 92 (Technical Program Officer, Bureau of International Narcotics Matters, Department of State, Washington, D.C., United
States of America, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1992-01-01_2_page002.html, UNDC)

The more severe environmental degradation to tropical forests by illicit narcotics cultivators largely results from the rapid and damaging techniques used to clear the land. Even today, the most widely used forest removal method is manual clearing, commonly known as "slash- and-burn" agriculture, where trees are rapidly felled and destroyed by fire leaving no vegetative matter to stabilize or replenish the soils. Frequently, fields are utilized for only a few years until the initial nutrient sources are depleted. The effects are further exacerbated when the narcotics crops are cultivated on steepsloped fragile mountain environments where soil is thin and the potential for a high degree of soil erosion is great. Other land-clearing techniques, including both the use of petrol and diesel -fuelled machinery, destabilize the soils and accelerate the rates of soil loss. Chemicals used by many growers at all stages of illicit drug cultivation and production likewise have a substantial negative impact upon tropical ecosystems and on human population . Growers of illicit crops, in order to clear and maintain

their fields, frequently use high levels of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Cocaine and heroin processors each year dump millions of tonnes of toxic chemical substances and waste by-products of the extraction process indiscriminately onto the land and into countless small streams, rivers and water bodies. These hazardous chemical wastes perilously impact upon land as well as water life forms . Ecological experts note that many of the affected tributaries are now almost entirely devoid of many species of plant and animal life. Contaminated water used to irrigate food crops not only compounds the environmental damage but poses a substantial public health hazard.

Drug production in Latin America leads to extinction Armstead 92 (Technical Program Officer, Bureau of International Narcotics Matters, Department of State, Washington, D.C., United
States of America, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1992-01-01_2_page002.html, UNDC)

Scientists have repeatedly warned of the dire consequences of tropical deforestation. By the same logic, the environmental damage from illicit narcotics cultivation and production will likewise produce landscape degradation and flooding, and be followed by declining agricultural and fishing productivity, and by malnutrition and disease. Humanity cannot afford the loss of species (genetic) diversity, increases in soil erosion and soil sterility, and the vast destruction of forests and watershed necessary to grow coca, opium poppy and cannabis. Moreover, the international community can no longer tolerate the relentless contamination of soils, water and air from poisonous chemicals used for the processing of narcotics, pesticides, and smoke from the burning down of forests. Whatever the costs, the benefits of curtailing the irreversible desecration of these fragile forest ecosystems are certainly greater. In addition to the established programmes designed to decrease the supply and demand of illicit drugs, there is an immediate need for international bodies to undertake a multifunctional international approach in order to repress the continued wholesale destruction of large areas of the tropical environment by the cultivators and processors of illicit narcotics.

Narco-farmers destroy the rainforest and go unnoticed by scientists- worst kind of deforestation Armstead 92 (Technical Program Officer, Bureau of International Narcotics Matters, Department of State, Washington, D.C., United
States of America, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1992-01-01_2_page002.html, UNDC)

Experts attribute deforestation and water pollution in the tropics to population pressures, shifting cultivation patterns, and the extraction of economic resources. Typically, rain forests are cleared to permit the creation of new roads, farmlands and ranchlands; the construction of dams and large-scale hydrological projects; mining and smelting operations; the gathering of fuel wood; and logging for domestic and export purposes. One significant contributor to the forest removal and water and soil pollution in these regions, however, whose impact has gone virtually unnoticed by scientists and journalists, has been the cultivation of illicit narcotic crops - cannabis, coca and opium poppy. Cultivation of illicit narcotics not only accounts for an increasing share of tropical deforestation, it is also the cause of some of the most severe environmental damage. Growers commonly plant their illicit crops in fragile forest environments in remote areas. Moreover, in some areas the illicit cultivators are often recent migrants from urban centres or other economic pursuits who have moved into the growing regions to take advantage of quick profits. Unlike an indigenous peasant farmer who often has a culturally instilled sense of respect for his land and the environment, narcotics cultivators often have no emotional ties to either farming or the land. Thus, the clearing and cultivation methods

of these "opportunistic" illicit drug growers are usually more devastating than those of a true agrarian.

Cocinea production causes deforestation, soil erosion, landslides, floods, and hundreds of deaths Armstead 92 (Technical Program Officer, Bureau of International Narcotics Matters, Department of State, Washington, D.C., United
States of America, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1992-01-01_2_page002.html, UNDC)

Cultivators of illicit coca fields, in their relentless pursuit of fertile growing soils, have recklessly exposed the thin tropical forest soils to increased run-off and erosion. Evidence of the excessive deforestation became painfully apparent during devastating November 1987 floods in central Peru. Torrential rains caused major landslides, blocked roads, and impoverished and killed scores of lowland residents. Postflood inspection of the Huallaga watershed revealed extensive new sedimentation along rivers and streams throughout the region. The Lima press, calling the deluge "the worst flooding in Peru's history", attributed the damage to "indiscriminate upland deforestation".

AT: Drones Solve Drugs

Drones only solve for a minor portion of security Fox News 5/31 (Fox News Latino, Venezuela Launches Iran-Built Drones To Patrol Drug Trafficking
May 31, 2013 http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/05/31/venezuela-launches-iran-builtdrones-to-patrol-drug-trafficking/)CL The Department of Homeland Security hopes that the drones will be able to spot semi-submersible submarines and nighttime fast boat trips used by drug traffickers to transport cocaine and other drugs from Central America to Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and other Caribbean islands. Statistics show that the U.S. has apprehended five semisubmersibles in the region, but this is only a small number of those authorities believe travel through Caribbean waters. "The DHS already uses drones along the US-Mexico border in drug and migrant interdiction functions," according to the security website Insight Crime. "To date, the craft have had a minor impact on border security, contributing to the capture of less than two percent of the undocumented migrants apprehended on the U.S.' southwestern border in the 2011 fiscal year." The site adds that drones are a costly endeavor that requires a crew of up to 20 ground members in a supporting role. It also said Coast Guard helicopters can do the same job with far fewer people and no runway.

LA Democracy Good Instability

Democracy solves Latin America instability Blanco 10 (Luis, School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, Income Inequality and Political
Instability in Latin America, April 2010, http://www.luismrodriguez.com/home/files/0206publishedpcclas.pdf\\CLans) This analysis suggests that focusing on policies that promote more political stability in the Latin American region will increase investment, which consequently will be beneficial for growth. Although it has been argued that
inequality increases political instability, this analysis does not show this type of relationship for the Latin American region. In this analysis,

ethnic and revolutionary wars were robustly associated with lower investment. To avoid ethnic wars in the Latin America region it is necessary to implement policies that include different ethnic groups in the political process. Education programs that target marginalized ethnic groups can certainly bring up more stability in the region. Focusing on educational policy is important since there seems to be an unequal distribution of education closely related to ethnicity. The promotion of democratic institutions that incorporate ethnic minorities in the political process can also contribute to decreasing ethnic wars in the Latin American region. Programs that promote more inclusion of marginalized ethnic groups will pay off in
terms of stability for the Latin American region. Educational programs can also be used as a tool to diminish the probability of experiencing a revolutionary war in Latin American countries. It has been suggested that greater emphasis must be put on primary and secondary school and that the quality of education must be raised in Latin America (De Ferranti et al., 2004). In fact, it is argued that there is an intergenerational transmission of poverty (ITP) that tends to increase violence and to decrease social cohesion in the region (Moran, 2003). Parents with little schooling, who would begin childbearing early, will not be able to provide to their children the resources required for good academic performance. Therefore, these children will have little schooling as well, and this will lead to higher inequality and marginalization. Breaking

the vicious cycle of ITP will allow for the inclusion of marginalized groups in the economic and political institutions, which would be reflected on greater stability. Democracy, as suggested by Blanco and Grier (2009) is one of the main factors explaining instability in the region. For this reason, policymakers in Latin America should focus on promoting democratic institutions if they want to improve the stability of the political environment and promote capital accumulation.

Latin American Instability Impact

Latin America instability causes extinction (old card) Manwaring 5,
(General Douglas MacArthur Chair and Prof of Military Strategy @ U.S. Army War College, Ret U.S. Army Colonel, Adjunct Professor of International Politics @ Dickinson College (Max G, October, Venezuelas Hugo Chavez, Bolivarian Socialism, and Asymmetric Warfare, Strategic Studies Institute, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB628.pdf) President Chvez

also understands that the process leading to state failure is the most dangerous longterm security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee ows. They can
host evil networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafcking, or some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of coercion and persuasion can spawn further

human rights

violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafcking in women and body parts, trafcking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconned and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conict. Perus Sendero Luminoso calls violent
and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure armed propaganda. Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities business incentives. Chvez

considers these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and operational objectives, state
and nonstate actors strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regimes credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. Chvezs

intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments ability and right to govern. In
that context, he understands that popular perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability and the threat of subverting or destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtuallyanyone can take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence, failing and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new peoples democracies. In

connection with the creation of new peoples democracies, one can rest assured that Chvez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given opportunity . And, of course, the longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states and peoples democracies persist, the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.

Yes LA Prolif
Risk of Latin American prolif is high Trinkunas 10 (Harold A., Associate Professor and Deputy Director for Academic Affairs, CCMR for the
Naval Postgraduate School, ASSESSING POTENTIAL NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION NETWORKS IN LATIN AMERICA: 20062016, July 29, 2010 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700601071926\\CLans) Under the present circumstances, why consider nuclear proliferation in Latin America at all? The answer lies in the capabilities and intentions of important regional actors with regard to nuclear technology. In the Argentine and Brazilian cases, their (near) nuclear reversal does not mean that they have abandoned their civilian nuclear programs. Both countries have mastered nuclear technologies to an extent that makes them relatively autonomous from traditional suppliers in the developed world. Essentially, they have achieved a similar set of technological achievement in the nuclear arena that Iran has declared that it is currently pursuing. In the arena of intentions, both President Nestor Kirchner of Argentina and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil are
nationalist political leaders sympathetic to the pursuit of sovereignty, technological and energy autonomy, and an independent foreign policy. This means that they

are unlikely to be sympathetic to international efforts to restrict the proliferation of civilian nuclear technology. However, this does not translate into a desire to acquire their own indigenous nuclear weapons. Both
Argentina and Brazil have a strong interest in maintaining a benign regional security environment, particularly in the case of Argentina, which lacks the resources to invest in military programs. The

regional wild card when it comes to the proliferation of nuclear technology is Venezuela. Its president, Hugo Chavez, has strongly defended Irans nuclear program and North Koreas missile development efforts, and he is friendly with the current leadership of Argentina and Brazil. Chavez also has said that he considers the United States the principal threat to the Bolivarian revolution, and he has expressed the desire to acquire the means to deter external intervention. Access to great oil wealth has
allowed him to pursue rearmament. However, despite some speculation in the U.S. media and blogosphere about the possibility of a nucleararmed Venezuela, it is unlikely that the South American republic will be able to master nuclear technology, let alone weaponize it, in the next 1020 years, nor is it in the interest of Argentina and Brazil to help it do so.

Latin America prolif at crossroads now- instability could spark prolif Trinkunas 10 (Harold A., Associate Professor and Deputy Director for Academic Affairs, CCMR for the
Naval Postgraduate School, ASSESSING POTENTIAL NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION NETWORKS IN LATIN AMERICA: 20062016, July 29, 2010 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700601071926\\CLans) Currently three key actors are relevant in considering future proliferation networks in Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela. Argentina and Brazil are critical because of their relatively advanced nuclear capabilities. These make them potential participants in a proliferation network, although the probability seems low. Venezuela lacks any capability but has declared the intention to acquire a civilian nuclear power program. Its leadership also has repeatedly stated that it considers the United States the principal external threat to the security of the Bolivarian revolution, which has led some outside observers to raise the possibility that Venezuela may be interested in more than
civilian nuclear power. For the foreseeable future, Argentina and Brazil are committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology within the region, and they are unlikely to resume efforts to acquire nuclear weapons without some revolutionary change in the international system that would lead them to perceive an existential threat to the state. The initial rationale for abandoning the pursuit of nuclear weapons in Argentina and Brazil, the safeguarding of democracy, is fading as their regimes have consolidated. However,

the developing security community in the Southern Cone, the resolution of all territorial disputes between the major regional powers (Argentina, Brazil, Chile), and ongoing mutual confidence-building measures mean that any territorial defense or deterrence rationales for nuclear weapons acquisition have faded as well. However, this does not
mean that they will not expand their own domestic civilian programs or export their nuclear know-how to other states, particularly those seeking nuclear power programs. In both countries, left-center governments with strong nationalist credentials have sought to rekindle their civilian nuclear programs. President

da Silva of Brazil has spoken of greatly expanding his countrys use of

nuclear power, including building numerous new reactors.14 Brazils ongoing struggle with the IAEA over the inspection
of its enrichment facilities, which Brazil has blocked, arguing that it is protecting industrial secrets, has raised eyebrows as well.15 Argentina has exported nuclear technology four times in its history, and given that it could earn more than 09 July 2013 $500 million from a new sale, the incentive to do so again is clear. In both cases, rising energy costs have been used to justify the expansion of civilian nuclear power programs. Another important consideration is that

for these strongly nationalist governments, nuclear power is a symbol of modernity, technological autonomy, and sovereignty. However, this has to be balanced against the reality that the
Argentine and Brazilian nuclear programs are plagued with cost overruns and delays. In the Argentine case in particular, repeated economic crises during the 1990s and 2000s have led to a seriously under-resourced nuclear program.16 Assessing Venezuela as a proliferation risk is more difficult because the only evidence is its leaders November 2005 declaration of a desire to develop a nuclear power program. However,

President Chavezs record of achieving his declared intentions is strong, which is why one must take the announcement seriously. Venezuelas recent accession to MERCOSUR is only the most recent example of a long-held goal that
seemed farfetched when he first took office in 1999. In fact, Venezuela began discussions with its MERCOSUR partners, Argentina and Brazil, about acquiring nuclear power reactors.17 Perhaps paving the way for its own future activities, Venezuela has taken positions on proliferation issues that run directly against the mainstream of international public opinion, supporting both Irans right to pursue nuclear technology without constraints and North Koreas July 2006 large-scale missile tests.18 Venezuela

also has pursued a highly publicized rapprochement with Iran, a potential nuclear supplier. 19 Venezuelas stated concern of a U.S. invasion has led it to officially orient its armed forces toward asymmetric defense of the state. This has translated into changes in doctrine and educational programs and the creation of a militia, although few changes within the organization of the armed forces are evident.20 Certainly, nuclear forces would be the ultimate deterrent against outside intervention. Taken
together, these factors have led some outside observers to claim that Venezuela is a potential nuclear proliferation risk, but if we evaluate the domestic and international political context, it seems unlikely that this will happen. At the international level, Argentina and Brazil have reacted very cautiously to the Venezuelan nuclear proposal. On the one hand, they would like the business for economic reasons, but on the other they are concerned about Chavezs ambitions. Venezuelas fervent support for Bolivias nationalization of natural gas assets owned by Brazil and Argentina has demonstrated that the interests of these countries do not always run in concert. As members of the NPT and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Argentina and Brazil are likely to insist on strong international safeguards on any nuclear technology sold to Caracas.21 However, neither

the Kirchner nor da Silva administrations are likely to oppose Venezuelas nuclear ambitions publicly, both because they are vulnerable domestically on their left flank, where Hugo Chavez has numerous sympathizers, and because internationally they still have common economic interests with Venezuela that make them vulnerable to political retaliation from Chavez.

Prolif Impact
Prolif escalates and causes nuclear war Kroenig 9 (Matthew, Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University, was on the Council
on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow in the Department of Defense, former strategist in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, was awarded the Secretary of Defenses Award for Outstanding Achievement, Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Co-Chair of the Councils Term Member Advisory Committee, has had fellowships from the Council on Foreign Relations, the National Science Foundation, the Belfer Center for Science and International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, and the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, Beyond Optimism and Pessimism: The Differential Effects of Nuclear Proliferation, November 2009, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Beyond-Optimism-and-Pessimism.pdf\\CLans) Triggers Regional Instability Nuclear proliferation can embolden new nuclear states, triggering regional instability that could potentially threaten the interests of power-projecting states and even entrap them in regional disputes. New nuclear weapon states may be more aggressive and this newfound assertiveness can result in regional instability. I define regional instability as a heightened frequency (but not necessarily the
intensity) of militarized interstate disputes among states in a given geographical region. The threat that regional instability poses to powerprojecting states is different from the concern about international instability expressed by the proliferation pessimists. Pessimists assume that international instability is bad in and of itself and they may be right. But, power-projecting states have a different concern. They worry that

nuclear proliferation will set off regional instability and that, because they have the ability to project power over the new nuclear weapon state, they will be compelled to intervene in a costly conflict. Power-projecting states could feel the need to act as a mediator between nuclear-armed disputants,
provide conventional military assistance to one of the parties in the dispute, or because they have the ability to put boots on the ground in the new nuclear state, potentially

be drawn into the fighting themselves. There is direct evidence that nuclear weapons can weapon states are more likely to engage in conflict than nonnuclear weapon states. Michael I lorowit2 extends this analysis to show that aggressiveness is most
contribute to regional instability. Robert Rauchhaus has demonstrated that nuclear pronounced in new nuclear states that have less experience with nuclear diplomacy.4 These related findings are not due to the fact that dispute-prone states are more likely to acquire nuclear weapons; the scholars carefully control for a states selection into nuclear status. Rather, the findings demonstrate that nuclear

weapons increase the frequency with which their possessors participate in militarized disputes. Qualitative studies have also provided supporting evidence of nuclear weapons potentially destabilizing effects. Research on internal decision-making in Pakistan reveals that Pakistani
foreign policvmakers may have been emboldened by the acquisition of nuclear weapons, encouraging them to initiate militarized disputes against India.

Proliferation optimists counter that nuclear proliferation should increase regional stability, but the most recent empirical investigations undermine the stronger versions of the optimism argument.3 While nuclear-armed states may be less likely to experience full-scale war providing some support for the optimist position,
the preponderance of evidence suggests that nuclear-armed states are more likely ro engage in other types of militarized disputes. This is true whether only one state or all of the contentious actors in a region possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, for the sake of argument, even if nuclear proliferation does have stabilizing effects as optimists argue,

as long as regional conflict among nuclear-armed states is possible, the basic argument presented here still holds. This is because power-projecting states may still feel compelled to intervene in the conflicts that do occur. These are conflicts that they perhaps could have avoided had
nuclear weapons been absent. There is direct evidence that regional conflicts involving nuclear powers can encourage power-projecting states to become involved in nuclear disputes. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was reluctant to aid Israel in the 1973
Yom Kippur War until Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir threatened that, without U.S. assistance, she might be forced to use nuclear weapons against the Arab armies. In response, Kissinger reversed his decision and provided emergency aid to the Israeli Defense Forces. The Soviet Union also considered a military intervention to help its Arab proxies in the Kippur War, causing the United States to go on nuclear alert, and leading leaders in both Moscow a nd Washington to consider the very real possibility that a conflict involving a regional nuclear power could spiral into a

expectation that powerful states will intervene in conflicts involving a nuclear-armed state is so firmly ingrained in the strategic thinking of national leaders that small nuclear powers actually incorporate it into their strategic doctrines.
superpower war. Similarly, in 1999 and 2(X)2, the United States became caught in diplomatic initiatives to prevent nuclear war in crises between the nuclear- armed countries of India and Pakistan. South Africas nuclear doctrine envisioned, in the event of an immi nent security threat, the detonation of a nuclear weapon, not against the threatening party, but over the Atlantic Ocean in a n attempt to jolt the United States into intervening on South Africas behalf. Israels nuclear doctrine was also constructed alon g similar lines. While the Israelis are notoriously silent about the existence and purpose of their nuclear arsenal, Francis Perrin, a French official who assisted in the development of Israels nuclear program in the 1950s and I 960s, explained that Israels arsenal was originally aimed against the Americans, not to launch against America., but to say If you dont want to help us in a critical situation, we will require you to help us. Otherwise, we will use our nuclear bombs. Similarly, Pakistans surprise raid on Indian-controlled Kargil in 1999 was motivated partly by the expectation that Pakistan would be able to retain any territory it was able to seize quickly, because Pakistani officials calculated that the United States would never allow an extended conflict in nuclear South Asia

Indeed, the

. For these reasons,

power-projecting States worry about the effect of nuclear proliferation on regional

stability.

U.S. officials feared that nuclear proliferation in Israel could embolden Israel against its Arab enemies, or entice Arab states to launch a preventive military strike on Israels nuclear arsenal. In a 1963 NIE on Israels nascent n uclear program, the consensus view of

the IT.S. intelligence community was that if Israel acquired nuclear weapons, Israels poli cy coward its neighbors would become more rather than less tough.. .it would seek to exploit the psychological advantage of i ts nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs. President Kennedy concurred. In a letter to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, Kennedy wrote that Israel should abandon its nuclear program because Israels development of such (nuclear) weapons would dangerously threaten the stability of the area. Similarly, in the case of Chinas nuclear

program, U.S. officials believed that a nuclear-armed China would be more willing to take risks in military probing operations because of an overoptimistic assessment of its psychological advantage. More recently, U.S. officials have continued to fear the effect of nuclear proliferation on regional stability. In a 1986 Top Secret CIA Assessment, U.S. intelligence analysts predicted that a nuclear North Korea would h ave a free band to conduct paramilitary operations without provoking a response.

Similarly, a U.S. expert testified

before Congress in 2006 that A

nuclear arsenal in the hands of Irans current theocratic regime will be a source of both regional and global instability. U.S. officials assessed that regional instability set off by nuclear proliferation could compel them to intervene directly in regional conflicts. In the early I 960s, U.S.
officials speculated that Israel could potentially leverage its nuclear arsenal to compel the United States to intervene on its behalf in Middle Eastern crises.4 Similarly, in 1965, Henry Rowen, an official in the Department of Defense, assessed that if India acquired nuclear weapons, it could lead to a conflict in South Asia with a fair chance of spreading and involving the United States.4 Ar the time of writing, U.S. defense strategists are planning for the possibility that the

United States may be compelled to intervene in regional conficts involving a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea and their neighbors. Leaders in power-projecting states also fear that regional instability set off by nuclear proliferation could entrap power-projecting states in a great power war.
Other power- projecting states, facing a mirror-image situation, may feel compelled to intervene in a crisis ro secure their own interests, entangling multiple great powers in a regional conflict. In a 1963 NIE, U.S. intelligence analysts assessed that the impact of (nuclear proliferation in the Middle East) will be the possibility that hostilities ari sing out of existing or future controversies could escalate into a confrontation in volving the major powers. President Johnson believed that a nuclear Israel meant increased Soviet involvement in the Middle East and perhaps superpower war. If historical experience provides a guide, U.S. strategists at the time of writing are undoubtedly concerned by the possibility that China may feel compelled to intervene in any conflict involving a nuclear-

. Power-projecting states, other than the United States, are also threatened by the possibility that nuclear proliferation will generate regional instability that could potentially require their intervention.
armed North Korea, making the Korean Peninsula another dangerous flash-point in the uncertain Sino-American strategic relationship During the Cold War Soviet intelligence estimated that a South African bomb, would lead to a sharp escalation of instability and tension in southern Africa. The Soviet Union also assessed that nuclear proliferation in Israel could trigger regional instability that could lead to a broader war. For exampl e, the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs notified the Soviet embassies in Egypt and Israel, The establishment of nuclear weapons productio n in Israel will make the situation.. .even more unstable, and is liable to trigger a serious conflict that can spill over the bord ers of the region. More recently, South Korean officials believed that they could become entangled in regional instability s et off by nuclear proliferation in neighboring North Korea. In the mid-I 990s, Seoul prepared military forces for participation in a possible second Korean Var as North Koreas nuclear program advanced

proliferation word.

in Iran could be a spark (that )

. In 2006, a Turkish analyst argued that nuclear may be enough to explode the entire region in almost every meaning of the

Otherization Advantage

Otherization Advantage 1AC

We begin this advantage with an introduction to our vision of the status quo. As Americans, we conceal ourselves from global conflict, war, genocide, and violence behind our television screens we look through one lens to develop a scholarship and Truth of what is actually occurring. In this process we subjugate what we are told we integrate and process this information into our perspectives of the world Specifically, the U.S.-Mexican border serves to constitute Mexicans as the, dirty, foreign Other through a politics of fear mobilization is key iek, 07 - Slavoj iek is a Slovene philosopher and cultural critic. He is a senior researcher at the Institute for Sociology and
Philosophy, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and a professor of philosophy and psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School (Censorship Today: Violence, or ........ Ecology as a New Opium for the Masses, Nov. 26, 2007, http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm) Last but not least, new forms of apartheid, new Walls and slums. On September 11th, 2001, the Twin Towers were hit; twelve years earlier, on November 9th, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. November 9th announced the "happy '90s," the Francis Fukuyama dream of the "end of history," the belief that liberal democracy had, in principle, won, that the search is over, that the advent of a global, liberal world community lurks just around the corner, that the obstacles to this ultra-Hollywood happy ending are merely empirical and contingent (local pockets of resistance where the leaders did not yet grasp that their time is over). In contrast to it,

9/11 is the main symbol of the forthcoming era in which new walls are emerging everywhere, between Israel and the West Bank, around the European Union, on the U.S.-Mexico border . So what if the new proletarian position is that of the inhabitants of slums in the new megalopolises? The explosive growth of slums in the last decades, especially in the Third World megalopolises from Mexico City and other Latin American capitals through Africa (Lagos, Chad) to India, China, Philippines and Indonesia, is perhaps the crucial geopolitical event of our times. It is effectively surprising how many features of slum dwellers fit the good old Marxist determination of the proletarian revolutionary subject: they are "free" in
the double meaning of the word even more than the classic proletariat ("freed" from all substantial ties; dwelling in a free space, outside the police regulations of the state); they are a large collective, forcibly thrown together, "thrown" into a situation where they have to invent some mode of being-together, and simultaneously deprived of any support in traditional ways of life, in inherited religious or ethnic life-forms. While today's society

is often characterized as the society of total control, slums are the territories within a state boundaries from which the state (partially, at least) withdrew its control, territories which function as white spots,
blanks, in the official map of a state territory. Although they are de facto included into a state by the links of black economy, organized crime, religious groups, etc., the state

control is nonetheless suspended there, they are domains outside the rule of law. In the map of Berlin from the times of the now defunct GDR, the are of West Berlin was left blank, a weird hole in the detailed structure
of the big city; when Christa Wolf, the well-known East German half-dissident writer, took her small daughter to the East Berlin's high TV tower, from which one had a nice view over the prohibited West Berlin, the small girl shouted gladly: "Look, mother, it is not white over there, there are houses with people like here!" - as if discovering a prohibited slum Zone... This deprived of everything, situated in a non-proletarized urban environment,

is why the "de-structured" masses, poor and constitute one of the principal horizons of the

politics to come . If the principal task of the emancipatory politics of the XIXth century was to break the monopoly of the bourgeois
liberals by way of politicizing the working class, and if the task of the XXth century was to politically awaken the immense rural population of Asia and Africa, the

principal task of the XXIth century is to politicize - organize and discipline - the "de-structured masses" biggest achievement is the politicization (inclusion into the political life, social mobilization) of slum dwellers; in other countries, they mostly persist in apolitical inertia. It was this political mobilization of the slum dwellers which saved him against the US-sponsored coup: to the surprise of everyone, Chavez included,
of slum-dwellers. Hugo Chavez's slum dwellers massively descended to the affluent city center, tipping the balance of power to his advantage. How do these four antagonisms relate to each other? There is a qualitative difference between the gap that separates the Excluded from the Included and the other three antagonisms, which designate three domains of what Hardt and Negri call "commons," the shared substance of our

social being

whose privatization is a violent act which should also be resisted with violent means, if necessary: the

commons of culture, the immediately socialized forms of "cognitive" capital , primarily language, our means of communication and education (if Bill Gates were to be allowed monopoly, we would have reached the absurd situation in which a private individual would have literally owned the software texture our basic network of communication), but also the shared infrastructure of public transport, electricity, post, etc.; the commons of external nature threatened by pollution and exploitation (from oil to forests and natural habitat itself); the commons of internal nature (the biogenetic inheritance of humanity). What

all these struggles share is the awareness of the destructive potentials, up to the self-annihilation of humanity itself, if the capitalist logic of
enclosing these commons is allowed a free run. It is this reference to "commons" which justifies the resuscitation of the notion of Communism or, to quote Alain Badiou: The communist hypothesis remains the good one, I do not see any other. If we have to abandon this hypothesis, then it is no longer worth doing anything at all in the field of collective action. Without the horizon of communism, without this Idea, there is nothing in the historical and political becoming of any interest to a philosopher. Let everyone bother about his own affairs, and let us stop talking about it. In this case, the rat-man is right, as is, by the way, the case with some ex-communists who are either avid of their rents or who lost courage. However, to hold on to the Idea, to the existence of this hypothesis, does not mean that we should retain its first form of presentation which was centered on property and State. In fact, what is imposed on us as a task, even as a philosophical obligation, is to help a new mode of existence of the hypothesis to deploy itself. So where do we stand today with regard to communism? The first step is to admit that the solution is not to limit the market and private property by direct interventions of the State and state ownership. The

domain of State itself is also in its own way "private": private in the precise Kantian sense of the "private use of Reason" in State administrative and ideological apparatuses: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men. The private use of one's reason, on the other hand, may often be very narrowly restricted without
particularly hindering the progress of enlightenment. By public use of one's reason I understand the use which a person makes of it as a scholar before the reading public. Private use I call that which one may make of it in a particular civil post or office which is entrusted to him. What one should add here, moving beyond Kant, is that there is a

privileged social group which, on account of its lacking a determinate place in the "private" order of social hierarchy, directly stands for universality: it is only the reference to those Excluded, to those who dwell in the blanks of the State space, that enables true universality . There is
nothing more "private" than a State community which perceives the Excluded as a threat and worries how to keep the Excluded at a proper distance. In other words, in the series of the four antagonisms, the one between the Included and the Excluded is the crucial one, the point of reference for the others; without it, all others lose their subversive edge: ecology turns into a "problem of sustainable development," intellectual property into a "complex legal challenge," biogenetics into an "ethical" issue. One can sincerely fight for ecology, defend a broader notion of intellectual property, oppose the copyrighting of genes, while not questioning the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded - even more, one can even formulate some of these struggles in the terms of the Included threatened by the polluting Excluded. In

this way, we get no true universality, only "private" concerns in the Kantian sense of the term. Corporations like Whole Foods and
Starbucks continue to enjoy favor among liberals even though they both engage in anti-union activities; the trick is that they sell products that contain the claim of being politically progressive acts in and of themselves. One buys coffee made with beans bought at above fair-market value, one drives a hybrid vehicle, one buys from companies that provide good benefits for their customers (according to the corporation's own standards), etc. Political action and consumption become fully merged. In short, without the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded, we may well find ourselves in a world in which Bill Gates is the greatest humanitarian fighting against poverty and diseases, and Rupert Murdoch the greatest environmentalist mobilizing hundreds of millions through his media empire. When

politics is reduced to the "private" domain, it takes the form of the politics of FEAR - fear of losing one's particular identity, of being overwhelmed. Today's predominant mode of politics is post-political bio-politics - an awesome example of theoretical jargon which, however, can easily be unpacked: "post-political" is a politics which claims to leave behind old ideological struggles and, instead, focus on expert management and administration, while "bio-politics" designates the regulation of the security and welfare of human lives as its primal goal . It is clear how these
two dimensions overlap: once one renounces big ideological causes, what remains is only the efficient administration of life... almost only that. That is to say, with the depoliticized, socially objective, expert administration and coordination of interests as the zero-level of politics, the

only way to introduce passion into this field, to actively mobilize people, is through fear, a basic constituent of today's
subjectivity.

This fear driven ideology Otherizes immigrants to a political image and shapes flawed policies Cisneros, 08 - Dr. Josue David Cisneros is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies. His research and teaching
interests focus mainly on rhetoric, or situated, public, and persuasive communication. Dr. Cisneros research focuses on the ways in which social and political identities are rhetorically constituted and contested in the public sphere, and he specializes in issues of citizenship, race/ethnicity, Latina/o identity, and immigration (Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of "Immigrant as Pollutant" in Media Representations of Immigration, 2008 http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhetoric_and_public_affairs/v011/11.4.cisneros.html)

Popular rhetoric

about immigration often operates by constructing metaphoric representations of immigrants that concretize the social "problem" and connote particular solutions. Scholars have identified discursive connections between the rhetoric of immigration and representations of other human problems such as crime or war. This essay identifies another metaphor present in popular media coverage of immigration, particularly visual images of immigrants. The metaphor of "immigrant as pollutant" present in news media discourse on immigration can have serious consequences for societal treatment of immigrants as well as the policies designed to respond to immigration. A "nation of immigrants," the United States has never been able to quell the fascination and fear with which it approaches migration. Though the country collectively celebrates the brave souls who populated the nation, America's
inhabitants remain suspicious of the hundreds of thousands of individuals that cross into the country on a yearly basis. Both legal and illegal immigration have been a concern to the government and the public since the birth of the nation. Though the degree of popular obsession with immigration rises and falls, there is always an awareness that these strangers potentially bring with them monumental and threatening changes. Concern over immigration is

evidenced not only in public discourse but also in the large body of scholarship on the phenomenon of immigration, including an attempt to understand how immigration as "problem" is constructed in mass media. To make sense of this complex phenomenon, scholars note, individuals approach
immigration through the perspective of metaphor to [End Page 569] clarify the topic and to connect it with their personal experience. Much of our knowledge about how immigration

is represented in media and popular discourse has centered on metaphors such as a crime wave or war as guiding tropes through which the "problem" of immigration is represented. In this essay, I identify another metaphor
through which popular media represent immigration. Moreover, I contribute to our understanding of immigration rhetoric by paying careful attention to how visual images construct metaphoric representations of migrants. By comparing the visual and metaphoric images of immigration in recent news coverage to images of pollution from coverage of toxic waste spills, particularly the crisis at Love Canal, I sketch a heretofore underanalyzed metaphor of "immigrant as pollutant" present in the immigration debate. Not only does this essay begin to illustrate another metaphor through which immigration is articulated, it also points to the need for more analysis of the visual rhetoric of immigration. Despite their contributions, however, these studies have two important limitations. First, many of these studies encounter a methodological shortcoming. Most research on the metaphoric representations of immigration focus solely on the text of stories in newspapers and magazines or transcripts of political speeches. Chavez's book examines magazine covers and their corresponding stories. Ono and Sloop do recognize how television news images contribute to public understandings of immigrants, yet neither work sufficiently examines the visual components of immigration rhetoric for the cooperative role they play in constructing metaphors of immigration. Attention to the visual elements of immigration rhetoric is important because of the centrality of images in modern public discourse, particularly news discourse. As Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites argue, "the widely disseminated visual image provides the public audience with a sense of shared experience that anchors the necessarily impersonal character of public discourse in the motivational ground of social life." Analyzing

the ways immigration is constructed through the images, texts, and aural messages of news discourse illustrates another way in which immigration is articulated through visual metaphor. I look to reports on
immigration from Fox News and CNN from September to December of 2005 to argue that, in addition to being conceived as a crime wave or invasion, immigration is framed metaphorically as a dangerous pollutant. This metaphoric construction of immigrant as pollutant can

be unpacked by considering the images of undocumented immigrants, the images of the dangers posed by these immigrants, and the images of the government's response.

Amnesty breeds economic xenophobia by allowing America to become the home of migrants Salaita, 05 - Steven Salaita is assistant professor of Multicultural literature at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (Anti-ArabRacism:
How Myth and patriotism Combine to Inhibit Democracy, 2005, accessed via JSTOR) Yet perhaps the

most crucial (and discomfiting) feature of imperative patriotism is its relationship with xenophobia. has a symbiotic moral association with colonial discourse, it is more disconnected from xenophobia because it does not actually arise from xenophobia, which is a phenomenon that, to a degree, has its roots in European contact with Indians, but more traditionally has resulted from animosity over ( perceived or real) economic disparity. On one level, xenophobia is a less vicious form of colonial discourse, but it more often results from a certain type of fear that is generated when people feel that their economic stability (or the possibility of it) is threatenedas, for instance, when laborers battle with immigrants over blue-collar jobs or when middle- to upper-class Whites complain to city councils about immigrants moving into their neighborhoods. Imperative patriotism,
While imperative patriotism however, tends to inform xenophobia, a fact that is expressed in statements such as, "If you don't like America, go back to where you came from"; "If you don't agree with the United States, why don't you just leave?"; and "A real American works hard and doesn't complain." These

statements insinuate that "American" is a stable, fixed identity rooted in a physical and cultural Whiteness for which many immigrants do not qualify. They also indicate that in xenophobia narrow political suppositions often govern social behavior: To dissent against the imagined mores of America is to forfeit identification as American.
Leaving the United States then becomes the only logical option.

Empirically, guest worker programs re-construct the immigrants role in society Jurado, 08 PhD, University of Michigan (ALIENATED CITIZENS: HISPANOPHOBIA AND THE MEXICAN IM/MIGRANT BODY, 2008,
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/58455/kjurado_1.pdf?sequence=1) Alcaraz and Rivera maintain a sharp eye on the pulse of the nation and given their digitized media outlet, make them forces to contend with. The likelihood of future

guest worker programs between the United States and Mexico make Riveras and Alcarazs web-based, creative political commentaries on stereotypes a relevant and necessary critique. Their work both highlights and challenges the long historical trajectory of hegemonic representations of the MexicanLatina/o im/migrant body. During different historical moments, the Mexican im/migrant body has provided a contested, metaphoric landscape that has been discursively dehumanized by hegemonic discourses. This rhetoric of fear has changed little over the last century. Vestiges of the pseudo-scientific jargon of eugenics remain in contemporary anti-immigrant fears. Contemporary anti-immigrant, xenophobic rhetoric, while not sustained by any pseudoscience, nonetheless remains a powerful ideological force in social and juridical thought with very real repercussions that I
analyze in each historical moment. In my dissertation I demonstrate that Latina/o authors and artists, past and present, have consistently and actively engaged these destructive constructions. Close

readings of the representations provided by Latina/o cultural workers in a variety of mediums and forums, will show how they have re-written, re-imagined and revisioned the maligned immigrant body. Their work in effect resurrects the element of humanity that is so often obscured by hegemonic discourses and rhetoric. At the heart of this analysis are the broader questions of rigid constructions of citizenship and national identity. This study maps the ways in which discourses of difference delineate and blur the distinctions between citizens and aliens. More importantly, the work of
Latina/o authors and artists constitute vital counter-narratives that fill in the historical gaps, erasures and misconceptions that have continuously robbed Latina/os of inclusion into the national imaginary. I think of the cultural productions by Latina/os as discursive acts of resurrection in which the Mexican-Latina/o im/migrant body is restored to 24 un cuerpo entero, complete with the humanity so often obscured in hegemonic discourse.

A guest worker program is the best moral option it deteriorates social and political subjugation through humanizing the Other Hing, 06 - Bill Ong Hing is a Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco and Professor Emeritus, U.C. California, Davis School of Law
(Deporting Our Souls, Oct. 16th, 2006, http://worldtracker.org/media/library/College%20Books/Cambridge%20University%20Press/0521864925.Cambridge.University.Press.Deportin g.Our.Souls.Values.Morality.and.Immigration.Policy.Oct.2006.pdf) As a nation, the

United States ought to do the right thing when it comes to undocumented immigrants. Given our long historical ties with Mexico, doing the right thing is especially in order in the case of Mexican migrants. We demonize the undocumented, rather than see them for what they are: human beings entering for a better life who have been manipulated by globalization, regional economies, and social structures that have operated for generations. We benet from undocumented labor every day and in a vast range
of occupations. The right thing to do is to develop a system to facilitate the ow of Mexican migrants to the United States who are seeking employment opportunities. Given the

economic imbalance between the two nations, we know that the ow will continue legally or otherwise. By legalizing the ow through a large guestworker progr am, we ease pressures at the border (thus freeing up personnel to concentrate on the serious challenge of looking for terrorists and drug
smugglers), address the labor needs of employers, bring the undocumented out of the shadows, and end unnecessary border deaths that have resulted from current enforcement strategies.57 Doing

the right thing requires us to humanize the guestworker upon whom we have come to rely. Thus, establishing a worker program must be done in a manner that provides the workers with hope for membership and respect from other Americans. A path toward legalization becomes a critical ingredient of any guestworker program. Only through that path can these individuals attain

a sense of enfranchisement and freedom from political subjugation and servitude. Our moral, economic, social, and national security interests demand that we pursue such a program.

Solvency State Key

The law is key - the state controls the Otherizing identity that the public embraces Nevins, 02 - Joseph Nevins, 2002, Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the "Illegal Alien" and the Making of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary,
Publication: Routledge: New York, page number: 95-122.

It is no mere coincidence that many of todays undesirables are from groups previously excluded or marginalized for overtly racist criteria. While yesterdays undesirables were distinguished by racial factors, todays unwanted immigrants are marked by their legal statusor lack thereof. And given the power of the law as an ideological construct dividing good from evil in the contemporary United States, this very factin addition to their othernessserves to marginalize these immigrants in the eyes of much of the public. Indeed, a striking feature of contemporary California is the reassignment of Mexicansespecially the
undocumented, non-English-speaking populationto the bottom of the new racial and ethnic hierarchy. But again, the illegal is not a mere discursive cover for racism.

Yes Militarism
The status quos militaristic approach serves as a death trap not as a deterrence factor Hing, 06 - Bill Ong Hing is a Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco and Professor Emeritus, U.C. California, Davis School of
Law (Deporting Our Souls, Oct. 16th, 2006, http://worldtracker.org/media/library/College%20Books/Cambridge%20University%20Press/0521864925.Cambridge.University.Press.Deportin g.Our.Souls.Values.Morality.and.Immigration.Policy.Oct.2006.pdf)

The fear-based strategies can become deadly. Beginning in 1994, the Clinton administration implemented Operation Gatekeeper, a strategy of control through deterrence that involved constructing fences and militarizing the parts of the southern border that were the most easily traversed. Instead of deterring migrants, their entry choices were shifted to treacherous terrain the deserts and mountains. The number of entries and apprehensions were not at all decreased, and the number of deaths because of dehydration and sunstroke in the summer or freezing in the winter dramatically surged. In 1994, fewer than 30 migrants died along the border; by 1998, the number was
147; in 2001, 387 deaths were counted; and by2005, 451 died. The pattern continued in 2006.Given the risks, why do migrants continue the harrowing trek? The attraction of the United States is obvious. The strong economy pays Mexican workers, for example, eight to nine times more than what they can earn in Mexico. For many, its a matter of economic desperation, and some observers think that migrants would continue to come even if we mined the border. In a sense,

they do not have a choice . Besides, jobs are plentiful

here, because a variety of industries rely on low-wage migrant workers. They may know the risks but gure that the risks are outweighed by the benets of crossing. Motivations for continued migration call into question the likely effectiveness of the expansion of Operation Gatekeeper if the goal is to discourage bordercrossers. Beyond

the economic situation in Mexico, a socioeconomic phenomenon is at play. The phenomenon is the long, historical travel patterns between Mexico and the United States, coupled with the interdependency of the two regions. Migration from Mexico is the manifestation of these economic problems and social phenomena. The militarization of the border does nothing to address these phenomena. Instead, it is killing individuals who are caught up in the phenomena. And yet we condone this enforcement strategy knowing that needless deaths will continue.

Yes Dehumanization
Status quo framings of immigrants serves to dehumanize and bolster dominant ideologies
-this could also be a great alt solvency card if read as a kritik

Cisneros, 08 - Dr. Josue David Cisneros is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies. His research and teaching
interests focus mainly on rhetoric, or situated, public, and persuasive communication. Dr. Cisneros research focuses on the ways in which social and political identities are rhetorically constituted and contested in the public sphere, and he specializes in issues of citizenship, race/ethnicity, Latina/o identity, and immigration (Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of "Immigrant as Pollutant" in Media Representations of Immigration, 2008 http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhetoric_and_public_affairs/v011/11.4.cisneros.html) Rhetorical theory and cognitive science teach

us that metaphors are more than linguistic ornamentation; they are significant rhetorical tools that affect political behavior and cognition.4 Metaphors create conventional understandings by connecting
phenomena with familiar cultural assumptions and experiences.5 Not only are they essential cognitive tools, but metaphors participate in creating fundamental understandings of texts and the rhetorical contexts in which they are situated.6 Metaphors

are cultural indices with which Americans build their commonplace understanding*s+ and attitudes.7 Scholars have mapped the historical metaphors used to talk about the immigration problem as a means to identify the underlying cultural assumptions of these representations. Mark Ellis and Richard Wright offer examples of metaphors that encapsulate different perspectives on the assimilation of immigrants into American society such as the melting pot, the quilt, the kaleidoscope, or the salad bowl. They describe how metaphors of immigration serve as conceptual tools with which scholars build research, society establishes group relationships, and government creates public policy: Metaphors] represent
competing views, some more distinct than others, of the consequences of immigration, interethnic contact, and societal coherence. In using metaphors . . . we run the risk of being confined to particular ways of interpreting immigration and demographic trends. As they become entrenched in theoretical discourse, they influence how we formulate our hypotheses about the impacts of immigration and ethnic group behaviorabout how different immigrant groups fit into U.S. society.8 As repositories of cultural understandings, metaphors are some of the principal

tools with which dominant ideologies and prejudices are represented and reinforced. For example, as George Lakoff and Sam Ferguson note, the framing of immigration discourse in the terms of illegal aliens, border security, and amnesty focuses entirely on the immigrants and the administrative agencies charged with overseeing immigration law. This framing is NOT neutral but dehumanizes immigrants and pre-empts a consideration of broader social and economic concerns (such as foreign economic policy and international human rights).9 The task, then, is to examine the ways in which conventional understandings of immigration are made concrete through metaphor. Examining these discursive representations can unmask or demystify dominant assumptions about immigrants, assumptions that can have potentially deleterious effects on social relations.10 Before discussing these contemporary
metaphoric representations or their ideological implications, however, I review the extant literature on metaphors of immigration.

Fear politics create immoral policies - dehumanizes the Other Hing, 06 - Bill Ong Hing is a Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco and Professor Emeritus, U.C. California, Davis School of
Law (Deporting Our Souls, Oct. 16th, 2006, http://worldtracker.org/media/library/College%20Books/Cambridge%20University%20Press/0521864925.Cambridge.University.Press.Depor ting.Our.Souls.Values.Morality.and.Immigration.Policy.Oct.2006.pdf)

The age of hysteria over immigration in which we live leads to tragic policies that challenge us as a moral society. Policies that are unnecessarily harsh that show a dehumanizing side of our character are senseless. They bring shame to us as a civil society. When I meet and speak with immigrants documented and undocumented I
nd decent, hardworking folks who have traveled to join relatives or to work, or, in the case of refugees, ed here seeking freedom. I nd individuals who want to be Americans and who denitely want their children to be Americans. If we were in their shoes (in fact, many of our parents or grandparents were in their shoes), then I am condent that we would want to be treated with simple, human respect. In the chapters that follow, I set forth some of the major immigration issues that are up for debate and that likely will be debated for years to come.

These are the issues related to undocumented immigration, the deportation of long-time residents, kinship versus employment-based immigration, national security, and how and why we should be integrating new immigrants . In the process, my hope is that the venom toward immigrants be put aside while the issues are considered. The debate over these issues

provides our nation an opportunity to shed the cold side of our character and demonstrate the human values of which we are proud. I believe that the vast majority of Americans not only understand the value that immigrants bring to
our shores but also believe that our energy is better spent following reasonable approaches that will not shame and embarrass us later. We will be better for doing so, and, with the right approach, we can invite newcomers to step forward and take on their American responsibilities as well.

Solvency

AT: H-2 Visa Solves

H-2A program fails cant compete with illegal labor, so its rarely used Semuels 3/30 [Alana Semuels ; March 30, 2013; U.S. farmers, guest workers pay a price to stay legal; Journalist for the LA times
dealing with Latin American policy issues; http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guest-worker-20130331dto,0,5896092.htmlstory]

Although the H-2A program is the only legal way to bring foreign farmworkers to the United States, most employers don't use it. H-2A workers fill an estimated 6% of U.S. farm jobs, the majority in states such as North Carolina and Georgia, where employers are hard-pressed to find anyone else willing to do the work. Undocumented workers fill most of the 1 million or more farm jobs open nationally every year; California, which hires more farmworkers than any other state, uses H-2A workers less frequently because its location close to Mexico makes it easier for employers to find undocumented workers. Barr says it's easy to understand why only a handful of employers bring in guest workers. He spends $1,000 per worker for visas, consulate fees and transportation to North Carolina. He's required to pay for their housing, and he estimates he has spent more than $80,000 building a house on his property, plus $36,000 to buy a mobile home and $5,000 a year to rent an apartment for the 48 workers he employs during the growing season. The government makes him pay them $9.68 an hour, which is about one-third higher than the minimum wage in the state, and he spends thousands of dollars on workers' compensation insurance. Costs aside, the process is a headache of applications and paperwork required by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor. Barr must go through lengthy steps to make sure no American wants a job before he hires a Mexican worker. He must place ads around the state and hire any American who wants to work, even if the job has already been filled by a migrant worker. The chance of violating a rule, even by mistake, is high, he says a neighbor had to pay a fine of
$80,000 last year.

H-2A is inefficient and costs more than it saves North Carolina proves Clemens 13 [Michael A. Clemens; INTERNATIONAL HARVEST: A Case Study of How Foreign Workers Help American Farms Grow Crops
and the Economy; Clemens has a PHD from Harvard in Economics and is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development where he leads the Migration and Development initiative; http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/nc-agr-report-05-2013.pdf; May 2013]

The North Carolina Growers Associations (NCGA) use of H-2A visas also provides clear evidence that some of the H-2A program requirements actually cost farmers time and money that could otherwise be used to create jobs. In 2011, the NCGA spent $54,440 on advertising its jobs in local newspapers, as compliance with the H2A program requires, as well as $46,000 in staff time exclusively devoted to cooperating with the North Carolina Division of Employment Security (DES) recruiting, hiring, and tracking referrals of US workers to NCGA farms. This $100,440 spent by NCGA does not include the time and costs shouldered by DES, the US Department of Labor, or the North Carolina Department of Labor that was spent enforcing H-2A program requirements each of which devote staff to either ensuring that unemployed workers are referred to the NCGA or that the NCGA is fulfilling its obligation to extensively recruit native workers. But in that same year, 2011, only seven unemployed US workers were willing to take seasonal farm jobs offered through the NCGA and complete the season. Those seven workers collectively earned approximately $87,300 in wages, meaning the $100,440 spent to comply with the H-2A program exceeded the total value of the jobs it provided to native workers.

Guest Workers Solve Without Amnesty

Guest workers solve without amnesty WSJ 6/5 [Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2013; The Farm Worker Shortage; Article appeared on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall
Street Journal, with the headline: The Farm Worker Shortage; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612.html]

Most media attention on immigration has been on legalizing the 11 million workers already here, but more crucial for the future is creating an adequate flow of guest workers to meet the demands of a growing U.S. economy. Having conceded on a "path to citizenship" for the 11 million, Republicans should focus on creating guest-worker programs with enough visas and without bureaucratic controls. Let Democrats choose between satisfying Big Labor and legalizing 11 million Hispanics.

Plan Better Than H-2A

Guest worker program would solve the problems with the H-2A Semuels 3/30 [Alana Semuels ; March 30, 2013; U.S. farmers, guest workers pay a price to stay legal; Journalist for the LA times
dealing with Latin American policy issues; http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guest-worker-20130331dto,0,5896092.htmlstory] Barr says these steps are worth it because he doesn't want to be raided by immigration officials and lose his crops. But

the expense puts him at a competitive disadvantage with the other Christmas tree farms in the region, he says. Those that use undocumented workers pay the minimum wage and don't offer housing, insurance or transportation, he said. For employers like him, "It's definitely a disadvantage to be providing higher wages," Barr said. A coalition of farmers has proposed a more flexible alternative to H-2A. The Agricultural Worker Visa Program would allow two options for guest workers. One would give workers visas good for 11 months one month longer than is now permitted and would allow them to move from employer to employer, which is difficult under existing rules. In theory that would allow undocumented workers to leave abusive employers and find jobs elsewhere, worker advocates say.

Guest Worker Program Solves

Visa program is vital to fill the inherently difficult and competitive Ag jobs Bracero empirics prove Sumption 11
(Madeleine, Masters in Public Policy at University of Chicago, senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, Filling Labor Shortages through Immigration: An Overview of Shortage Lists and their Implications Feb, pg online at http://migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=828//sd)
Pick up any paper, report, or book about immigration and the economy, and it probably will not be long before you encounter a reference to labor shortages. Some skills

and abilities are in short supply, even in times of recession, and sometimes vacancies in certain sectors are particularly hard to fill. Since immigration brings new workers to the economy who might fill these gaps, immigration policy represents a logical part of any strategy that addresses recruiting difficulties. Immigration policies designed to alleviate perceived shortages of labor have been around for decades, and the idea of targeting immigration to needy parts of the economy is not new. The United States' Bracero Program, for example was a series of bilateral labor agreements with Mexico that emerged in response to tight labor supply in agriculture during and following World War II. Regional migration policies in Australia and Canada were also designed, in large part, in response to perceived local labor shortages. And dedicated visa programs for specific occupations or sectors in which host countries wish to increase labor supply for example, in agriculture or health are common. But over the past ten years, wealthy countries have frequently attempted to fine-tune immigration flows by maintaining lists of critical occupations into which immigration should be facilitated. The points
systems in New Zealand and Denmark, for example, reward prospective immigrants working in designated occupations. Canada maintains a list of occupations in high demand, and France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom all introduced a shortage list of some kind between 2006 and 2008. What are labor shortages, how do countries go about measuring them, and how effectively can policymakers use such information to increase labor supply in targeted areas of the economy? How do these policies work and what impact do they have? This article addresses some of the technical, philosophical, and policy-related questions raised by the practice of maintaining shortage lists and translating them into immigration policy. What is a Labor Shortage? Defining labor

shortages is not straightforward, but a simplified definition is that when the demand for a given type of worker exceeds the number of willing candidates at the prevailing wage and working conditions in that occupation, a shortage is thought to occur. Economists disagree as to whether "labor shortages" exist at all: if particular skills are scarce, employers will raise wages and more workers will come forward or seek training to join the occupation. In practice, however, this is not always the case. Some periods of tight labor supply are transient, disappearing once the market has had time to adjust. Others persist, perhaps because demand continues to rise faster than supply can catch up, or because the work is inherently difficult or unappealing. In some occupations, international competition with producers abroad might mean that employers cannot raise wages and remain economically viable. In other cases, such as with highly renowned scientists or talented businessmen,
one could argue that a shortage exists because one can never have too much of a good thing. Or a recruitment difficulty of sorts might arise in fields where workers perform a socially valuable function teachers, nurses, and caregivers, for instance but taxpayers are not willing or able to pay the high price that would be required to attract more of them into the profession. In other words, "shortages" come in different shapes and forms. It may in fact make more sense to refer to them as "recruiting difficulties", since this is how they are experienced in practice by employers. Identifying Labor Shortages Because various types of shortages exist, identifying and measuring them is quite difficult. Rapidly

rising wages can be a good indicator for identifying labor shortages since employers will typically be forced by the market to pay more for skills that are scarce, but will not occur in cases where earnings are held back by international competition or taxpayers' desire to get more for less. Low unemployment can also be a useful if imperfect indicator, as it can signal tight labor supply in the short run, but could also reflect transient or seasonal variations in the number of workers
needed. However, unemployment by occupation is difficult to measure accurately.

AT: Topicality

Guest Workers = Economic Engagement

The plan is economic engagement James Edwards Jr., Fellow @ Hudson, 4-26-2001, Help Mexico, but Don't Hurt U.S., Hudson,
http://rs.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=839 The relations between America and Mexico are complicated by the fact that a 2,000 mile land border separates a firstworld country from a third-world country. The disparities give powerful incentive to come north. President Bush is right. Commerce is "the long-term solution" to illegal immigration. But a guest worker program and amnesty of illegals would only exacerbate a huge problem. Economic engagement with Mexico must take other forms. President Fox considers himself president of the 18 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans living in the United States. He wants
an open border because he perceives it to be in his nation's best interest. We must keep in mind what is in America's best interest. Open borders, amnesties and guest workers clearly aren't.

Immigration reform with Mexico is economic engagement US Chamber of Commerce, 2013, The U.S.-Mexico Leadership Initiative Vision 2020: Enhancing
the U.S.-Mexico Economic Partnership, http://www.uschamber.com/international/americas/usmexico-leadership-initiative-vision-2020-enhancing-us-mexico-economic-par The U.S.-Mexico relationship has reached a critical moment. The North American Free Trade Agreement partnership is nearly two decades old. Immigration controversies have become a political flash-point between our countries. Security has become a growing concern at and around the border and for travelers and investors. Both countries compete in an increasingly competitive global environment. In this moment, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is launching a CEO-level Leadership Initiative to execute a strategy for enhanced economic engagement between the United States and Mexico. The Leadership Initiative will provide the strategic energy behind Vision 2020, a five-point plan for enhancing the U.S.-Mexico
economic partnership, with a view toward making the relationship a global model for bilateral best practices by the year 2020.

Increasing immigration is economic engagement Helen V. Milner and Dustin Tingley, Profs @ Princeton, 2011, The Economic and Political Influences
on Different Dimensions of United States Immigration Policy, Princeton, http://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/working%20papers/The%20Economic%20and%20Political%20Influ ences%20on%20Different%20Dimensions%20of%20United%20States%20Immigration%20Policy.pdf Our overall contributions to the literature are threefold. First, we highlight how widely the substantive content of legislation that is called immigration policy varies and thus point out the risk of obscuring important differences across policies if the analysis does not disaggregate the legislation. We show that different factors affect attitudes toward different policy dimensions. Hence we help adjudicate the important debate over economic versus ideological factors as influences on immigration policy. Second, we provide a critical test of public finance theory in the legislative setting. Hence as in the trade literature, which has examined both public opinion and legislative voting, our extension of public finance arguments helps provide a more complete picture of democratic representation by extending earlier public opinion work to the legislature. Third, this paper contributes to a larger research tradition that seeks to explain preferences of both citizens and their elected representatives toward different types of international economic engagement, such as immigration, trade and foreign aid (Espenshade and Hempstead, 1996; Hainmueller and Hiscox, 2006; Hiscox, 2006; Huber and Espenshade, 1997; Milner and Tingley, 2011; Scheve and Slaughter, 2001b).

Visa programs are economic engagement U.S. Embassy of Mexico 13 (The United State Embassy of Mexico, January 7, 2013, The U.S. Mission in Mexico Increases
Corporate Eligibility to Participate in its Business Facilitation Program http://mexico.usembassy.gov/press-releases/the-us-mission-in-mexicoincreases-corporate-eligibility-to-participate-in-its-business-facilitation-program.html)

The United States Embassy is pleased to announce the expansion of its Business Facilitation

Program (BFP) that allows access to expedited visa processing for employees of qualifying firms traveling to the U.S. on company business. The BFP will provide time-saving benefits for businesses whose employees need to travel to the U.S., and highlights the United States commitment to deepening trade and economic engagement with Mexico. The BFP is open throughout Mexico and is available at all U.S.
Consulates and the Embassy. The BFP requires interested firms to register with the U.S. Embassys or Consulates Consular Section. Participating companies will benefit from access to our visa appointment system, allowing a company representative to schedule online visa application appointments in for a reserved appointment block. In addition, employees of participating companies will receive expedited processing and visa delivery for their approved applications.

Immigration policy is economic engagement Milner and Tingley 11 (Helen V., B. C. Forbes Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and the
director of the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, and Dustin Tingley, Associate Professor of Government at Harvard University, PhD in Politics from Princeton, BA from the University of Rochester The Economic and Political Influences on Different Dimensions of United States Immigration Policy October 3, 2011 http://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/working%20papers/The%20Economic%20and%20Political%20Influences%20on%20Different%20Dimensio ns%20of%20United%20States%20Immigration%20Policy.pdf) Our overall contributions to the literature are threefold. First, we

highlight how widely the substantive content of legislation

that is called immigration policy varies and thus point out the risk of obscuring important differences across policies if the analysis does not disaggregate the legislation. We show that different factors affect attitudes toward different policy dimensions. Hence we help adjudicate the important debate over economic versus ideological factors as influences on immigration policy. Second, we provide a critical test of public finance theory in the legislative setting. Hence as in the trade literature, which has examined both public opinion and legislative voting, our extension of public finance arguments helps provide a more complete picture of democratic representation by extending earlier public opinion work to the
legislature. Third, this paper contributes to a larger research tradition that seeks to explain preferences of both citizens and their elected representatives toward different types of international economic engagement, such as immigration, trade and foreign aid (Espenshade and Hempstead, 1996; Hainmueller and Hiscox, 2006; Hiscox, 2006; Huber and Espenshade, 1997; Milner and Tingley, 2011; Scheve and Slaughter, 2001b).

AT: CPs

AT: AgJobs CP
AgJobs bill is worse amnesty would drive more illegal immigration Mcneill 09 [Jean Baker Mcneill;June 30, 2009; Ag JOBs Amnesty: The Wrong Way to Help American Agriculture; Senior Policy Analyst at
the Heritage Foundation and Senior Professional Staff Member at United States Senate; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/ag-jobs-amnesty-the-wrong-way-to-help-american-agriculture] The Ag JOBS Act would create a pilot program that would provide work visas, also known as "blue cards," to guest workers looking to work in the agricultural sectors. Blue cards have long been used to help legal individuals work in the United States. However, under Ag JOBS, blue cards would be given to workers whether or not they were in the U.S. legally. After working for three to five years, program participants are required to become citizens. This would provide amnesty and a direct path to citizenship for the estimated 600,000-800,000 illegal agricultural workers and their family members (this number has decreased since the economic downturn; in 2007 this number was estimated at 1.3 million). To

gain blue card status, applicants would only have to demonstrate that they worked in agriculture for "863 hours or 150 work days" in 2007 and 2008. The bill would not require necessarily valid documentation; it would instead allow an alien to provide "any other reliable document" to demonstrate worked hours. This means some individuals could gain citizenship without working a day in the agricultural sector. Finally, DHS (under the bill's confidentiality clause) would be barred from using the applicant's information to enforce federal immigration laws. The Ag JOBS bill would have the perverse effect of decreasing the incentives for employers to hire workers with a blue card--causing a tremendous disadvantage to those using blue cards legally. This is because the amendment protects workers with blue card status from being fired unless the employer has "just
cause." This kind of protection is not even afforded to those American workers who work on an "at will" basis in many states, where they can be fired for any reason or no reason. This could mire

employers in legal proceedings if a worker feels that he has been unjustly fired and would be a large disincentive for employers to hire workers with a blue card.

AT: Capped Visa CP

Capped Visa CP 2AC

First: Perm do both. Previous visas prove- uncapped is key to supply the ag market Nowrasteh, 13 - Alexander "Alex" Nowrasteh is an analyst of immigration policy currently working at the Center for Global Liberty and
Prosperity of the Cato Institute (How to Make Guest Visas Work, 1/31/13,

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2228179&download=yes\\CLans) A successful guest worker visa program must do several things. It must be flexible and large enough to supply American firms with the laborers they demand, so as to virtually eliminate unauthorized immigration. It must
provide a legal temporary migration alterna- tive for lower-skilled migrants, and, realisti- cally, it must also contain some protectionist measures to satisfy political constituencies that are skeptical of the benefits of guesworkers. Analyzed below are key components of successful guest worker visas that should be incorporated into any immigration reform.

The H-2 visa for temporary agricultural workers has no quota but only 2 percent of the agricultural workforce uses that visa be- cause inspections, fees, paperwork, employer job search requirements, and minimum wages make it too expensive for most farmers.86 The more flexible and affordable H-2B visa for seasonal nonagricultural workers has an annual quota of 66,000.87 For
private firms, H-1B visas for highly skilled workers are an- nually limited to 85,000,88 of which 65,00089 must come from abroad, while 20,000 are for foreign nationals who graduate with ad- vanced degrees from American universities.90 This low H-1B visa cap has been reached every year of its existence. In

2008 it was reached within one day of the start of the visa application process.91 2001 to 2003 the cap was increased to 195,000 an- nually and did noterr fill during those years.92 This is in stark contrast to the highly
During poor eco- nomic times, the visa cap can take months to fill, but it does do so without fail. From success- ful World War I guest worker and Bracero programs, which did not put a government quota on the number of applications.93 As a result, U.S. farmers could expand and con- tract their employment of guest workers on the basis of market conditions. Instead

of Congress or a committee changing the quota every year in a vain attempt to guess how many visas employers will demand, the market should determine the number. The government should not limit the number of guest worker visas it issues. An uncapped system allows the number of visas to expand
and contract

on

the basis of ebbs and flows of the market . Guest workers should be limited by market demand, which is far more binding and realistic than any numerical limitation.

A capped system is too limiting- means the counterplan cant solve the internal links to any advantage Rosenblum 9 (Marc R., Marc Rosenblum is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University
of New Orleans, B.A. in political science at Columbia University and Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, San Diego, Aligning Temporary Immigration Visas with US Labor Market Needs: The Case for a New System of Provisional Visas, July 2009,\\CLans) The current visa system, which owes its basic architecture to the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, is far too rigid in setting conditions for immigrant recruitment. Most employers seeking to hire a permanent immigrant or a
low-skilled temporary worker must painstakingly document their inability to hire a native worker. Many employers of high-skilled temporary workers must commit to specific employment conditions before petitioning for the immigrants admission. And the

most important visa categories, both permanent and temporary, confront strict numerical limits. Such restrictions have produced wait times of up to six years for some employment-based green cards (i.e. visas authorizing lawful permanent residency), and a scramble to apply for scarce nonimmigrant visas, which in recent years have been exhausted within days or hours of the new fiscal year. Markets, Economic Competitiveness, and Immigration, to facilitate more regular adjustments to employment-based visa quotas based on systematic analysis of the economic impacts of labor market immigration. This report focuses on a second set of vital reforms: changes to the terms of
most employment-based visas and to the rules that govern the marketplace. Under the current system, immigrants with green cards face no time limits on their legal residency and enjoy the same employment privileges and labor protections as US citizens. But at least several times as

many foreign nationals are admitted each year as temporary workers. 4 In a previous report, we propose a Standing Commission on Labor 5 6 These workers face restrictions

on their labor mobility (it is difficult for them to change employers), and they have few chances for permanent residence. These requirements were designed to protect the jobs, wages, and working conditions of US workers. In practice, however, restrictions on mobility and immigration status make the system opaque, cumbersome, and outdated for the majority of those who engage with or are affected by it employers, immigrants, native workers, and US communities and so the requirements fail to meet their basic objectives. Worse still, policy has been moving in the wrong direction: recent legislation and regulations have encouraged employers to rely more extensively on temporary visas, and green cards account for a decreasing share of employment-based flows.

Default to uncapped visas only a risk a cap has a negative impact Ruhs and Martin 11(Philip Martin is an economist at UC-Davis, Martin Ruhs is an economist at the
Centre on Migration, Policy and Society at Oxford University and a member of the UKs Migration Advisory Committee, Labor Shortages and US Immigration Reform: Promises and Perils of an Independent Commission, June 2011\\CLans) Regulating the entry and right to work of migrants is a key function of governments. However, it is often hard for government agencies to assess and respond to employer requests for foreign workers to fill alleged labor and skills shortages because of the complexity of measuring shortages and evaluating alternative options to deal with them. The cost of bad policy decisions can be very high, leaving local workers without jobs and delaying productivity-increasing changes that keep economies competitive, On the other hand, restricting access to foreign workers could adversely affect particular employers and may slow economic growth.

Cap discourages use of program uncapped resolves this and solves labor demands Chishti 13 (Muzaffar A. is the Director of the migration Policy Institutes office at New York University
School of Law, Americas Immigration System: Opportunities for Legal Immigration and Enforcement of Laws Against Illegal Immigration, February 5, 2013 http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/ChishtiTestimony-February2013.pdf\\Clans) At present, both temporary and permanent work-related immigration channels for low-skilled workers are exceedingly limited. While the H-2A and H-2B temporary visa programs allow employers to sponsor foreign workers for temporary or seasonal work, there are almost no permanent visas fewer than 5,000 available for ongoing, non-temporary positions that require less than a bachelors degree or two years of experience. In recent years, and even during the middle of the recession, employer demand for H-2B visa holders far exceeded the annual statutory cap of 66,000 visas. In addition, employers have voiced concerns over the arduous nature of the I l-2A and I-2B sponsorship process, which may discourage widespread use of the program.

Uncapped is key a capped program is too limiting and the bureaucratic hurdles make it unworkable U.S. Chamber of Commerce 13 (Why Our Current Immigration System Does Not Work For the
Business Community, February 2013, http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/files/immigrationWhyCurrentImmigrationSystemBadFor Business0213.pdf\\CLans) Whats Wrong with our Employment Based Immigration Laws? Under current law, employment based programs are extremely limited. Basically, there are only three programswhere employers can hire immigrant workers: H-2B for seasonal or temporary workers, capped at 66,000 per year; H-1Bs for high-skilled workers, capped at 65,000 per year; and the H-2A program for agriculture, which is uncapped, but very difficult to use.
On the green card side, of the approximately 1 million new lawful permanentresidents, only about 59,000 were issued green cards as workers,

based on theirskills. When

mirrored against a workforce of over 155 million workers, these programs are extremely limited. Further, given demographic realities, we need employment-based programs that allow employers to utilize immigrant labor when U.S. workers are not available. Unlike the current employment based options, these new programs cannot be so encumbered with bureaucratic hurdles that they become unworkable.
There will be significant transaction costs associated with either high-skilled or low-skilled programs, and employers will not use these programs unless there is a truly pressing need driven by the absence of available American workers.

Current capped visas fail a new uncapped visa is key Gowdy 13 (Trey, U.S. Representative for South Carolinas 4th congressional district since 2011, former
district attorney for South Carolinas Seventh Judicial Circuit, Agricultural Labor: From H-2A To A Workable Guestworker Program, February 26, 2013\\CLans) What about the current H-2A agricultural worker program? This program is numerically capped, and initial expectations were that growers would use hundreds of thousands of H.2A workers each year. Yet, the State Department only issues about 50,000 visas a year. So why is it so under-utilized? What I am going to do today is ask the farmers, because in the eyes of many, the program itself is designed to fail. It is cumbersome . It is full of red tape. Growers have to pay wages far above the locally prevailing wage, putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with growers who use illegal labor. Growers are sub ject to onerous rules, such as the 50 percent rule, which requires them to hire any domestic worker who shows up even after the H. 2A worker has arrived from overseas. Growers cant get workers in time to meet needs dictated by the weather . And finally, growers are constantly subject to litigation by those who dont think the H. 2A program should even exist. What growers need is a fair and workable guestworker program. They need a program that gives them access to the workers they need. When they need them, at a fair wage and with reasonable conditions, and they need a partner in the Federal Government, not what is often perceived as an adversary. A reformed guestworker program will work better for growers and for workers. If growers cant use a program because it is too cumbersome, none of its worker protections will benefit actual workers. If a program is fair to both growers and workers, it will be widely used and workers will benefit from its protections. I look forward to hearing todays witnesses and
learning how they would reform our agricultural guestworker system.

Farm lobby specifically wants an uncapped visa- means counterplan links to politics Abbott 13 (Charles Abbot is a Political Journalist for Reuters U.S. grower group asks for no limit on
foreign field workers May 16, 2013 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-16/news/sns-rt-usaimmigrationfarmworkersl2n0dx2g6-20130516_1_bob-goodlatte-workers-u-s-house) "Farmers need the program to be uncapped," said Lee Wicker, deputy director of the North Carolina Growers Association, the largest H-2A user group in the country. Its members expect to employ 7,500 guest workers during the
growing season as well as thousands of Americans. At a Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Wicker said farmers can face bankruptcy if they cannot get enough workers into the field when crops are ready to pick. Also, consumers pay higher produce prices if crops rot in the field. Goodlatte's bill would create a H-2C visa, good for up to three years and renewable for 18 months at a time, for farm, seafood and food processing employees. It would be the first time processors could hire guest workers for year-round jobs. A

coalition of growers and the United Farm Workers union backs the Senate approach, which includes a path to citizenship for farm workers in the country illegally as well as a new guest worker program. It allows visas to run for up to three years
at a time but does not include packing-plant workers.

Uncapped visas are the only way to guarantee sufficient laborers Farm Bureau 13 [July 13; http://www.fb.org/issues/docs/aglabor13.pdf; Farm Bureau is a collection of farms who are represented
collectively by the Farm Bureau; AGRICULTURAL LABOR IMMIGRATION REFORM]

The uncapped Agricultural Worker Visa Program (AWP) will ensure agricultures future legal workforce. The AWP allows both employer and employee choice and flexibility by including two options: 1. At-Will employees have the

freedom to move from employer to employer without any contractual commitment. They would have a visa term of up to 11 months with USDA registered employers and then return home for 30 days. There would be no limit on the number of times a person could obtain the 11-month visa. 2. Contract employees commit to work for an employer for a fixed period of time and would have a visa term of up to 12 months (renewable indefinitely), and conditioned upon a commitment to return to their home country for at least 30 days over a 3-year period.

Ext. Not Solve Ag

Uncapped visas are the only way to guarantee sufficient laborers Farm Bureau 13 [July 13; http://www.fb.org/issues/docs/aglabor13.pdf; Farm Bureau is a collection of farms who are represented
collectively by the Farm Bureau; AGRICULTURAL LABOR IMMIGRATION REFORM]

The uncapped Agricultural Worker Visa Program (AWP) will ensure agricultures future legal workforce. The AWP allows both employer and employee choice and flexibility by including two options: 1. At-Will employees have the freedom to move from employer to employer without any contractual commitment. They would have a visa term of up to 11 months with USDA registered employers and then return home for 30 days. There would be no limit on the number of times a person could obtain the 11-month visa. 2. Contract employees commit to work for an employer for a fixed period of time and would have a visa term of up to 12 months (renewable indefinitely), and conditioned upon a commitment to return to their home country for at least 30 days over a 3-year period.

Having a rigid, inflexible cap on visas cant solve illegal immigration COC 13 [March 2013; Visas for Essential but Less Skilled Immigrants Why a New Essential and Lesser-skilled Legal Immigration System Best
Serves the National Interest; http://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/HLD2013/documents/LessSkilled_Future_Flow_2013_with_demand_graphic.pdf; US Chamber of Commerce is the Chamber of Commerce and is our government so its qualified] Moreover, a

lesser-skilled worker visa program is perhaps the only real-world alternative to unauthorized migration and, therefore, is a key component of border control and protecting our national security.
It seems obvious to us that that securing our borders is closely connected to legal immigration levels especially for the lesser-skilled, and that

larger numerical caps for legal lesser-skilled workers reduce the need for enforcement while smaller quotas increase it .8 Further, border enforcement does not exist in a vacuum. While unauthorized immigration to the United States initially declined following the passage of the 1986 Act, that legislation failed to create flexible legal limits on immigration that were capable of responding to ups and downs in future U.S. labor demand. Immigration reform must include meaningful changes to the lesser-skilled
employment-based visa system to help prevent future illegal immigration. Prior to the 1986 Act, a circular pattern of migration existed between the U.S. and Latin America. About half of immigrants from Latin America came to the U.S. for short periods of time to work and then return home. Following implementation of the 1986 Act and other immigration reforms thereafter, immigrants feared their ability to reenter the U.S. and they in turn did not depart. 9 Our

national interests, both economic and security, necessitate creation of a new essential and lesser-skilled worker legal immigration system.

Capped visas dont solve North Carolina proves Clemens 13 [Michael A. Clemens; INTERNATIONAL HARVEST: A Case Study of How Foreign Workers Help American Farms Grow
Crops and the Economy; Clemens has a PHD from Harvard in Economics and is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development where he leads the Migration and Development initiative; http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/nc-agr-report-05-2013.pdf; May 2013] We hope as Congress works to reform our immigration system, this key component is the subject of solutions that work for the business community and the country. There is virtually no supply of native manual farm laborers in North Carolina: In 2011, with 6,500 available farm jobs in the state, only 268 of the nearly 500,000 unemployed North Carolinians applied for these jobs. More than 90 percent (245 people) of those applying were hired, but just 163 showed up for the first day of work. Only seven native workers completed the entire growing season, filling only one-tenth of 1 percent of the open farm jobs.

No matter how bad the economy becomes,

native workers still do not take farm jobs : In the late 2000s, North Carolina experienced an economic shock that dramatically
increased the states unemployment rate, from 4.7 percent in 2007 to 10.9 percent in 2010. Yet there was almost no correlation between rising unemployment and either more native workers being referred to NCGA jobs or more workers starting at NCGA jobs, and there was no correlation between higher unemployment and more workers completing the growing season. Foreign

farm workers create jobs for American workers: In 2012, the foreign-born seasonal agriculture workers who filled North Carolina farm jobs added an estimated $248 million to $371 million to the state economy that year. This

economic benefit created one U.S. worker job for each 3.0 to 4.6 immigrant farm workers who worked in North Carolina. The North Carolina Growers Association (NCGA) the organization that comprises many of the states leading farms spends more money to comply with the immigration laws designed to protect American workers than it does on salaries for all of its American farm workers combined: The NCGA spent more than $100,000 to advertise farm jobs and comply with immigration laws in 2011, while NCGA farms paid out just $87,000 in wages to the seven native workers who completed the season working on the farm, showing that the program protecting native employment is inefficient.

Based on these findings, the report concludes with the following recommendations for any future guest worker visa for agriculture: The number of agricultural guest worker visas should remain uncapped or be structured in a way that meets farmers labor needs. In North Carolina, native workers filled just onetenth of one percent of farms labor needs. Any temporary visa program should provide sufficient workers to meet the remaining 99.9 percent of job openings.

H-2A visas prove the need for uncapped visas but they cant solve bureaucracy Chao 08 *Elaine Chao; President Bushs Secretary of Labor; http://www.openmarket.org/2012/05/07/h-2a-visas-open-in-theory-closed-inpractice/; H-2A Visas: Open in Theory, Closed in Practice; January 2008]

There are 1.2 million hired agricultural workers in the United States today. Estimates show that between 600,000 and 800,000 are undocumented. There simply arent enough U.S. workers to fill the hundreds of thousands of agricultural job openings in this country. Farmers can hire temporary foreign workers to harvest their crops through the H-2A visa program Yet despite the fact that this program is uncapped, agricultural employers hired only about 75,000 H-2A workers in 2007 Farmers report that the H2A program is burdensome, duplicative and riddled with delays. And many who have tried it report such bad experiences that they stopped using it altogether.

Ext. Not Solve Immigration

Cant solve immigration caps incentivize illegal immigration and overstay Shemkus 08
Freelance journalist, internally quoting Matthew Lee, a lawyer who specializes in immigration Visa reforms mired in debate September 30, 2008 http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080930/NEWS/809300323 For many, the chief limitation of the system is the visa cap. In 2006, the last year for which numbers are available from the U.S. Department of State, more than 122,000 H-2B and H-2R visas were issued in all. This number, many say, demonstrates that there is far more demand for foreign workers than can be met if the limit of 66,000 continues. The cap may also tempt workers and employers to break the rules, some experts said. Enforcing the limit, they said, may take away the incentive for foreign labor to use legal channels to obtain work. Knowing it could be difficult to return to the U.S., workers already in the country may choose to overstay their visas and continue to work without authorization, Agunias said. "The policies that limit access to the labor market are actually the same policies that might tell them to not abide by the rules and stay in the country of destination," she said. Even now, many visa holders take on additional, unauthorized jobs when they are in the United States. Several Jamaican H-2B workers who reported doing multiple jobs on Cape Cod said that they had done so with the explicit encouragement of their primary employer. "It's a problem that you have people working illegally," Lee said, "but it is a reflection of the fact that there's not enough visas."

200,000 is trivial only solves for one county St. John 10

Reporter for KPBS/NPR internally quoting Erik Larson of the San Diego Farm Bureau Costs And Benefits Of Illegal Immigration Are Unequally Distributed Friday, July 23, 2010 By Alison St John http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/jul/23/costs-benefits-illegal-immigration-unequal/ An estimated 200,000 illegal immigrants are working in San Diego County. They bring both benefits and costs. UCSD economics professor Gordon Hanson says the problem is those benefits and costs are not evenly distributed. Those benefits go primarily to one group of individuals, he said, and that is employers in industries that hire illegal immigrants intensively: construction, agriculture, hospitality and tourism. Agriculture is a $5 billion a year industry in San Diego. Crossing The Line: Border Stories Envision San Diego takes a closer look at illegal immigration, exploring why migrants take big risks to work in the U.S., what happens to the children of deported parents, and how this region benefits from -and pays a price for -- its unauthorized migrant labor pool. Envision San Diego takes a closer look at illegal immigration, exploring why migrants take big risks to work in the U.S., what happens to the children of deported parents, and how this region benefits from -- and pays a price for -- its unauthorized migrant labor pool. Erik Larson of the San Diego Farm Bureau says that, because land is so expensive, farmers have to grow crops with a high return on investment, and those crops are also labor intensive. He says that without immigrant labor most farms in San Diego would disappear.

Uncapped solves best for immigration WSJ 3-23-13

Immigration Reform Roadblock March 23, 2013, 1:02 p.m. ET http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578362512667311612.html

It's important to keep in mind that low-skilled workers also make up the bulk of illegal immigrants. A visa limit of 20,000 a year, or even 200,000, doesn't begin to match the realistic cross-border flow. According to the Mexican Migration Monitor run by Roberto Suro of the Annenberg School, illegal Mexican migration exceeded 368,000 in every year from 2003-2009, with a high of 682,000 in 2007. The number has fallen with the slow U.S. recovery (to 165,000 in 2011), but history shows it will expand again if we ever get a decent job market. The point of all this for the reform debate is that these migrants come to the U.S. to work, and they will keep coming illegally if a guest-worker program is too small or too cumbersome to use. History also shows that the best way to reduce illegal immigration is by expanding legal channels. Under the Bracero program for Mexican farm workers in the 1940s and '50s, unlawful border crossings fell by more than 80%. They soared after Congress ended Bracero in 1964. Ideally, a guest-worker program would have no cap so labor flows would adjust with supply and demand. The next best approach is to adopt a relatively high capsay, a half-million temporary visas that would let employers fill their job needs with relative ease. In 2007, the Senate reform bill began with 400,000 guest visas.

Cant solve immigration 1 million worker shortage Miroff 1-5-13

Covers Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean for the Washington Post, has a masters degree from UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and studied Spanish and Latin American Literature at UC Santa Cruz NICK MIROFF 1-5-13 Mexico, Canada partner on program for guest workers http://www.voxxi.com/mexico-program-guest-workers/ Last year, the Border Patrol made just 340,000 apprehensions, the lowest level since 1971, the result of a tighter U.S. job market, stiffer U.S. enforcement and widespread fears in Mexico of the kidnapping crews and drug gangs who roam the borderlands. Overall, nearly as many Mexicans are now leaving the United States, whether voluntarily or as deportees, as the number who arrive, a trend that has raised alarms of labor shortages in industries such as food service and farming that are historically dependent on low-paid migrants. For anybody who believes that there will be a wild and endless flow of *Mexican migrants+ into the future, thats just not realistic, said Craig Regelbrugge, vice president for government relations at the American Nursery and Landscape Association, a trade group. According to industry estimates, U.S. farms hire more than 2 million workers each year, at least half of whom are thought to be in the country illegally.

200,000 cant solve immigration Krieble 6-10-13

author of Two Paths to Safety: A Private Sector Initiative to Break the Illegal Immigration Deadlock. holds a B.A. (cum laude) from Harvard-Radcliffe and a M.A. from the University of Pennsylvania Helen Krieble Guest Commentary: Why should a gang determine guest worker quotas? 6-10-13 http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_23415129/why-should-gang-determine-guest-worker-quotas Even the all-powerful Gang of Eight can never repeal the law of supply and demand. If they only allow 200,000 guest workers and the economy needs 250,000, the rest will come illegally perpetuating the very problem Congress is trying to solve.

Lobby Link Non-Unique

No union support for CIR Davidson 6-11-13
By Joe Davidson Two labor groups buck trend of union support of Obama on immigration http://failover.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/two-labor-groups-buck-trend-ofunion-support-of-obama-on-immigration/2013/06/11/cac5c30e-d2b9-11e2-a73e826d299ff459_story.html The National ICE Council and the National Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Council are working to defeat the immigration bill the Senate is now debating. The ICE Council represents Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees, and the CIS Councils members verify a persons right to work in this country and determine the eligibility of those seeking to become citizens, among other duties. Their opposition to the legislation is notable because AFGE has taken no position. Neither has the National Border Patrol Council, another AFGE unit that is directly involved with immigration and border issues.

CP Links to Politics
Republicans oppose capped programs Sherman and Nocera 4-9-13
Congressional reporters for Politico House immigration bill stuck on workers By JAKE SHERMAN and KATE NOCERA | 4/9/13 11:30 PM EDT http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/house-immigration-bill-stuck-on-workers-89835_Page2.html Currently, Republicans are negotiating with Democrats to eliminate a pair of demographic-specific visa programs. The Diversity Visa Program, which aims to give entry to countries underrepresented in the U.S., continues to be a target of the GOP. And Republicans are also seeking to tighten the visa category for siblings of U.S. citizens. But these disagreements are illustrative of why the legislation still hasnt been introduced in the House. The biggest hurdle is the low-skilled workers program. The AFLCIO/Chamber of Commerce agreement allowed 200,000 low-skilled foreign workers into the U.S. The construction industry would get no more than 15,000 visas a year. Republicans involved in the negotiations told POLITICO they could not support an artificial cap on the number of work visas the government could issue. They would seek to match the visa amount with market demand. The group also has not hashed out an agreement on agricultural workers.

AT: H2-A Reform CP

Using H2-A visas as a framework fails Farm Bureau 13 [July 13; http://www.fb.org/issues/docs/aglabor13.pdf; Farm Bureau is a collection of farms who are represented
collectively by the Farm Bureau; AGRICULTURAL LABOR IMMIGRATION REFORM]

Reforms to the immigration system can assure that American agriculture has a legal, stable supply of workers, both in the short- and long-term for all types of agriculture. This requires a legislative solution that deals with the current
unauthorized and experienced agricultural workforce and ensures that future needs are met through a program that will admit a sufficient number of willing and able workers in a timely manner. Past

legislative proposals (e.g. AgJOBS, HARVEST Act, BARN Act and other bills) have attempted to reform the H-2A program to ensure a future workforce in agriculture. However, it is apparent that those proposals are no longer viable to meet agriculture's needs. Multiple H-2A regulatory changes and rigid program administration have made use of an already difficult program nearly impossible. A national survey conducted by the National Council of Agricultural Employers of H-2A employers under the current rules showed that administrative delays result in workers arriving on average 22 days after the date of need causing an economic loss of nearly $320 million for farms that hire H-2A workers. Costly recruitment requirements result in less than 5 percent of those referred by the government working the entire contract period. Agriculture needs a program that functions as efficiently as the current free market movement of migrant farm workers while providing the security of a contractual relationship in areas where there is little migration. Having lost confidence in the H-2A structure as a framework for future success, Farm Bureau is seeking the new approach outlined above to ensure a legal, reliable, long-term
workforce for all sectors of the industry.

AT: Farm Mechanization CP

Farm Mechanization fails Fragmented lands Islam 08 [Shirazul Islam; Farm Mechanization for Sustainable Agriculture in Bangladesh: Problems and Prospects; Dr. Md. Shirazul Islam is
the Chief Scientific Officer at Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute; June 29, 2008; http://uncsam.org/Activities%20Files/A09105thTC/PPT/bd-doc.pdf] In 1980, the average farm holding was 0.91 ha which decreased in 2000 to 0.68 ha (Roy, 2008). It has been found that many farmers cultivate only about 1.0 decimal land by traditional method. Further, the

total holding of land is not located in one place, rather, it is found in split plots in several places. This restricts power operated tilling, seeding and harvesting machines to perform at optimal efficiency. Even two wheel tractors, reapers and combines face tremendous problems from frequent turnings in such fragmented lands.

Too expensive Binswanger 86 [Hans Binswanger; http://wbro.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/27.full.pdf+html; Senior Advisor for the Africa Region
World Bank, Winner of the Elmhirst Medal of the International Association of Agricultural Economist, 2006]

Energy is only one of the costs of using machines. Capital and maintenance costs are often larger. Since the profitability of machinestheir comparative advantageis tied closely to labor costs, expensive energy is likely to retard mechanization much more in countries with cheap labor

Their evidence oversimplifies laborers key to handling of certain fruit Regelbrugge 12 [Craig J. Regelbrugge; September 26, 2012; The Farm Labor Crisis: Imagined, or Real?; Craig J. Regelbrugge is a cochair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, and serves on the steering committee of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, the leading coalitions seeking legislative reform of Americas antiquated immigration system. He was recently elected vice chairman of the board of the National Immigration Forum; http://www.cnbc.com/id/49182232/Regelbrugge_The_Farm_Labor_Crisis_Imagined_or_Real]

Thats just one example of the two different worlds of crop agriculture. The first involves commodities such as corn, soybeans, wheat and rice, which are typically grown on large-scale farms with highly mechanized processes. These crops require minimal hand labor: A mechanical planter puts the seeds into the soil, and a mechanical harvester reaps the grain. Such crops have also historically enjoyed safety nets including government subsidies, price supports, crop insurance and disaster relief. More recently, they have benefited from major new subsidies for crop-to-energy programs, as with corn-based ethanol. As a result to paraphrase Oklahoma! corn prices are high as an elephants eye, and it looks like theyre climbing clear up to the sky! But back on the ground, we also have crops that cannot be mechanized completely, or, in some cases, at all. Think apples, strawberries, blackberries, watermelons and peaches. These delicate fruits must be hand-picked to avoid bruises and blemishes that might make them unpalatable to consumers. (Read More:California Farm Labor Shortage 'Worst It's Been, Ever') The care and harvest of these crops depends upon the skilled and trained eyes and hands of farmworkers, many of whom moved here from other countries. These fruit, vegetable, nursery and greenhouse crops
are grown in a free and increasingly competitive global market. They do not receive federal subsidies or price supports, and insurance or disaster relief safety nets are more limited.

Hand picked farms are crucial Georgia proves Regelbrugge 12 [Craig J. Regelbrugge; September 26, 2012; The Farm Labor Crisis: Imagined, or Real?; Craig J. Regelbrugge is a cochair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, and serves on the steering committee of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, the leading coalitions seeking legislative reform of Americas antiquated immigration system. He was recently elected vice chairman of the board of the National Immigration Forum; http://www.cnbc.com/id/49182232/Regelbrugge_The_Farm_Labor_Crisis_Imagined_or_Real] In his latest column on the agricultural industry, Carney dismisses that there is a problem in Georgia, which enacted a state immigration law that led to a labor disaster. Again, he mistakenly

equates rising income from mechanized crops and livestock

with success across all of agriculture, ignoring the evidence that Georgia growers of seven perishable, hand-picked crops such as blackberries and peppers have already lost an estimated $150 million, or 24 percent of the farm gate value for those seven crops, due to labor drought that followed the laws passage. (Read More: Who's Picking Your Food?)

Mechanization leads to food insecurity Regelbrugge 12 [Craig J. Regelbrugge; September 26, 2012; The Farm Labor Crisis: Imagined, or Real?; Craig J. Regelbrugge is a cochair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, and serves on the steering committee of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, the leading coalitions seeking legislative reform of Americas antiquated immigration system. He was recently elected vice chairman of the board of the National Immigration Forum; http://www.cnbc.com/id/49182232/Regelbrugge_The_Farm_Labor_Crisis_Imagined_or_Real]

Why shouldnt all American farmers just grow corn, wheat and soybeans the machine-harvested crops? First, we would find ourselves in a new and unsettling food-insecure age where we turn to countries such as Chile and China to fill our produce aisles and the dairy case. A diplomatic crisis, or worse, and we start going hungry. (Read More:USDA Plans Regional Meetings to Address Drought)

<Insert Impact Card> Hand picked farms are key to the economy Regelbrugge 12 [Craig J. Regelbrugge; September 26, 2012; The Farm Labor Crisis: Imagined, or Real?; Craig J. Regelbrugge is a cochair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, and serves on the steering committee of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, the leading coalitions seeking legislative reform of Americas antiquated immigration system. He was recently elected vice chairman of the board of the National Immigration Forum; http://www.cnbc.com/id/49182232/Regelbrugge_The_Farm_Labor_Crisis_Imagined_or_Real] Second, communities from

Vidalia, Ga., to Visalia, Calif., would see their local economies shrivel on the vine. After all, the high-value, labor-intensive stuff, from apples to lettuce to watermelons, brings many times more dollars into the community. Farmers buy supplies, services and equipment, and farmworkers spend money at local shops, grocery stores and Laundromats.

<Insert Impact Card> Tech isnt ready-only labor can solve Linden 11 (Tim Linden 2011 February 1 Inroads Continue But Challenges Remain
http://www.wga.com/magazine/2011/02/01/inroads-continue-challengesremain#sthash.W4jD6d8G.dpuf) He said a human can look at the head of lettuce and decide how high to make the cut and how many wrapper leaves to take off and how many to leave on. While the technology exists to mechanically harvest the product, DeGroot believes that the advantages arent there yet. He said either the mechanical harvester will leave too much tonnage in the field, or there needs to be an inordinate number of sorters on the machine making culling decisions. In that event, the economic advantages of reducing labor have been lost. In fact, DeGroot said most of the harvesting aid advances over the past decade have not resulted in significant labor force reduction. He said you can certainly make the laborers more efficient and help them do their jobs better but the basic steps and labor requirements are about the same. Of course there are no secrets in the Salinas Valley and DeGroot is well aware of the efforts of Ramsay Highlander, and is watching it with interest. Maconachy believes his firm is on the verge of making it work. He said Ramsay has developed what is basically a water knife that allows for precision cutting in the field. With the mechanical band saw you either cut too high and lose yield or you cut too low and you bring a lot of leaves up that you dont want. With this water knife we can precision cut each head and follow the contours of the bed. For romaine lettuce that is used in processing, Maconachy said the mechanical harvester has been tried and it works. He said

several are already in the field working and another will be delivered soon. It pencils out, he said. You can cut 20 people out of the crew. Of course, cutting for processing and cutting for the fresh market are a bit different. Maconachy said the same technology (the water jet knife) works for fresh romaine though there are a few bugs to work out. He said Ramsay is also working on a spin wrap technology so that the cutting and the wrapping of a fresh head can be mechanized. When it is perfected, he said four packers will be able to do the job of a 12-packer crew today. Additionally, the company is working on adding a robotic feature to its harvesters which will eventually allow for the cutting and delivery of iceberg lettuce from the field to the top side of the machine where it is packed. This innovation will cut and pick it up, he said, using SLAM technology. In the world of robotics, SLAM is an acronym for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping. It means, the robotic apparatus can basically individually select the head that it cuts and picks up and delivers to the packers or the spin wrap process. Maconachy is certain that this is not a farfetched idea. He said it is already possible but the key is to make it economical. As an engineer, we keep looking at how to make the process simpler and simpler. Thats what we have done. We have actually made it so simple that anybody can use it; you dont have to be a PhD. He said the patent on the technology is currently pending, but taking it to the next level does require customer investment. DeGroot said the pressure to innovate may soon increase as the U.S. recession has eased that pressure a bit, but a recovering economy could bring it on once again. The downturn in the construction industry has led many of those workers back to agriculture, but when the economy improves, you would expect that they will return to the higher paying construction jobs. He indicated that a labor shortage in the agricultural sector will cause people to take a more serious look at labor saving devices. Maconachy has no doubt that mechanization will continue but he believes it will result in somewhat of a caste system in the grower-shipper community. It will separate the mighty from the mightier, he said. He reasoned that while these sophisticated harvesting machines do pencil out, they also require quite an initial investment. You are talking about $600,000 and up, he said. The return on investment is huge, but the investment is large. Besides the cost savings, he said concerns about food safety are another factor driving this type of innovation. With the robotics and the spin wrapper, you can get a head of lettuce in a carton without it ever having been touched by human hands, he said. Thats an important issue. Maconachy is a bit reluctant to look into the crystal ball and predict the future, but he did agree that by 2015 much more of the lettuce industry will be mechanized than it is today.

Farm Mechanization hurts small farms its too expensive Willard 07 -01 ( Haley Willard, Writer July 01, 2013 Robots Begin to Replace Farmers in the United
States Picking and tending to crops are now in robotic hands http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=110827) The march of the machines continues. Thinning a field of lettuce is a task normally requiring 20 people, but, in some places, this is now being entrusted to computerised technology with vision sensors. A tractor called the lettuce thinner, developed by Frank Maconachy, president and CEO of Ramsay Highlander, seems to do the task a well as the workers. This is coming as a relief to growers who are experiencing a shortage of labor thanks to border regulations. The tractor uses a vision system to locate seedlings, then sends their location to the tractors computer, which determines which seedlings to keep and which to get rid of. With a shot of fertilizer, it destroys the unwanted seedlings. In just a few minutes, a whole row of lettuce is thinned, and it only takes one robot. Maconachy's companys latest design is a robotic picker that finds a head of lettuce and picks it. This robot relies on a similar vision system as that of the lettuce thinner. The cost of the lettuce thinner starts at $250,000, and some farm machines cost as much as $600,000. There is a worry, however, that smaller farms, that cannot afford the machines, could fall behind larger operations.

The plan is key H-2A is insufficient and the counterplan doesnt solve cant harvest non perishables Knutson 11 (Ronald D. Knutson is a professor at the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M
University Statement of Dr. Ronald D. Knutson Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, Committee on Judiciary, United States Senate Hearing on "America's Agricultural Labor Crisis: Enacting a Practical Solution" October 4, 2011 http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-104KnutsonTestimony.pdf) The first of these myths is that farm labor should be readily available from nonfarm sources, particularly in a time of high unemployment. Anyone who has worked on a farm knows that there are many jobs associated with agricultural production and processing that domestic nonfarm laborers will not do. This fact has been repeatedly demonstrated. While the process of farm mechanization goes forward, back-breaking hand labor is still essential for harvesting most perishable fruits and vegetables sold fresh in our supermarkets and farmers markets. This is not just our assertion based on our anecdotal experience; it was a central conclusion of a set of case studies completed by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (ERS/USDA) and the University of California, which was recently published by ERS/USDA. In animal agriculture, while hand milking is no longer required, skilled milkers must be available to operate machines that are used to milk, feed, and clean up after cows two or three times a day, seven days a week. There are no holidays and no weekend breaks for harvesting perishable crops or for milking cows. These 3 are jobs that must be performed on a timely basis, or food is wasted, and farm income declines. Waiting for a visa or work permit to be issued under the H-2A program is not a viable option for most farmers. That is one of the reasons most farmers do not use the program.

AT: Berlin Wall CP

First: Perm do both Links to politics Cornyn Amendment proves Parker 13 ( Ashley Parker June 14, 2013, New York Times, Savior or Saboteur? A Texas Senator
Shakes Up the Immigration Debate http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/us/politics/texas-senator-is-lightning-rod-in-immigrationfight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 )
WASHINGTON One week into the Senates immigration floor fight, Senator John Cornyn of Texas has emerged

as one of the most polarizing figures on the issue: a Republican leader from a border state brandishing a border security plan that

he says is meant to salvage the measure but that is seen by others as a surreptitious attempt to scuttle it. To his supporters, Mr. Cornyn is simply trying to rescue a potentially historic immigration overhaul by offering a reasonable plan that would attract reluctant Republicans by strengthening border security before 11 million people who are in the country illegally can begin their path to citizenship. But to

Democrats and immigration advocates, Mr. Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, has written a poison pill provision intended to torpedo a bill he would never support. One thing is certain: the role of Mr. Cornyn, who has
snowy white hair and a visage that looks more British tea-sipper than Texas two-stepper, is sure to have ramifications for him in the Republican leadership, in the Senate itself and in Texas, where the fast-growing Hispanic population is changing the demographic face of the state. No one believes the status quo is acceptable, and I think just saying no is not a satisfactory answer, Mr. Cornyn, shod in brown alligator-skin cowboy boots, said in an interview in the whips office just off the Senate floor. So if youre not going to say no, I think you have to come up with a solution, and I think this is part of it. Mr. Cornyns proposed amendment would require both the Department of Homeland Security and the top federal auditor to certify that all of his border goals had been met before immigrants could start the path to citizenship and receive green cards. His method of measuring success would include a 90 percent apprehension rate of illegal crossers at the southern border, as well as the installation of a biometric exit system at all air and sea ports, which immigration advocates worry could be logistically unattainable. Though

Democrats have expressed a willingness to strengthen border enforcement measures, they say that Mr. Cornyns provision goes too far. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the bipartisan group
that drafted the legislation, called it a nonstarter, and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, was among those who labeled it a poison pill. (Mr. Cornyn took to the floor to assert that the real poison pill would be not accepting his amendment.) Hes

pulled out a machete, and hes hacking at the path to citizenship, said Frank Sharry, the executive director of Americas Voice, a proimmigration group. He doesnt want to improve border security, he wants to take down the path to citizenship. If he wanted m ore border security without impaling the path to citizenship, hed probably get it. This is a guy, Mr. Sharry added, who pretends he wants to get to yes, always gets to no, and in the meantime destabilizes

the bipartisan immigration bill in place. Some conservative Republicans are also frustrated with Mr. Cornyns plan. On Friday, Heritage Action for America, an
advocacy group, released a statement urging senators to vote against Mr. Cornyns proposal, which, it said, could serve as political cover for those senators seeking to justify their support for amnesty.

Visas are key only way to ensure legal crossing CIR and border funding fails Bier 13(David, June 26, 2013, policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. His publications are
often posted on the Huffington Post. Border Security Doesnt Require Invading the Border http://www.openmarket.org/2013/06/26/border-security-doesnt-require-invading-the-border/ ) These funds will go to finish a 700-mile border fence and add hundreds of new surveillance towers, thousands of camera systems, and tens of thousands of ground sensors not to mention fiber-optic tank
inspection scopes, thermal imaging systems, and portable contraband detectors. It will send 17 UH-1n helicopters, five Blackhawk helicopters, eight AS-350 light enforcement helicopters, and enough drones to log 130,000 hours of flight time each year. This

is not simple border security personnel-wise, its a mobilization proportional to the one in Afghanistan (its

already being called the surge). But unlike that adventure, it was not provoked by any foreign aggression. Instead, this

offensive is a response to hundreds of thousands of peaceful people moving to the United States to work such a reaction is without even the slightest rationale. Not to be misunderstood, border security is a legitimate and necessary function of governmentborder invasions are not. Border security would require immigrants and travelers to enter within legal avenues through which they could be processed and checked. Securitys role is to protect and aid
movement between countries, which allows free markets to extend beyond legal jurisdictions. Hoeven-Corkers amendment is not about protecting and aiding legal movement between countries, nor is it about addressing the justifiable concern of property owners along the border (it actually expands Border Patrols powers to trample property rights along the border). Those concerns

could be addressed with small increases in border protection and major increases in legal avenues for entry for peaceful, lowskilled workers cutting demand for illegal entry. Only accessible channels for legal immigration will end illegal immigration. As Ive noted previously, America nearly eliminated illegal entries in the 1960s through dramatically expanding work visa options for low-skilled immigrants. Rather than building on this proven method for addressing illegal immigration, this bill includes a complex and utterly inadequate guest work program, which does the bare minimum to increase legal movement. America has seen a tenfold increase in border security spending over the last 25 years, and in all that time, the illegal population in the United States shot up. Economist Douglas Massey at the University of Pennsylvania has shown that this was not because of greater entries, but
rather fewer exits. During the 1980s, migrants traveled back and forth freely. But after the border buildup, this became too costly and dangerous, so they settled and brought their families. This experience shows that allowing

people to move freely through legal channels not only could reduce illegal entries, it also could keep overall immigration lower than it would be otherwise. But these facts are rejected in favor of more wasteful government programs and spending. And border hawks still say the spending is not enough. It will never be enough. Twenty years from now, people will say, Democrats are to
education spending what Republicans are to border security spending. Illegal immigration and poor educational outcomes are insti tutional problems for which the simple fix is freedom. Let people choose where they want to go to school or work. These fixes have solved problems. More money hasnt

No solvency money is misused absent strategic focus Barry 13 ( Tom, February 12, 2013, Director for the TransBorder project at the Center for International
Policy in Wash. DC How the Nation's Border Guardians Got Stuck in a Policy Conundrum, and How They Can Get Out http://borderlinesblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-nations-border-guardians-got-stuck.html) Perhaps the harshest criticism has come from the governments own auditing agencies. The Government Accountability Office (GOA) has issued a series of scathing reports faulting the Border Patrol for mismanagement, waste, and lack of strategic focus. Despite the increasing disapproval, the Border Patrol has continued to benefit from a bipartisan consensus to secure the border, resulting in a doubling of funding for Border Patrol operations over the last ten years. The Border Patrol is a division of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged with securing U.S. ports of entry (POEs) and the northern and southwestern land borders. CBP is the largest DHS agency, receiving 21% (currently $11.5 billion) of its total funding. Over the last ten years, DHS has spent over $100 billion on bordersecurity operations, yet the Border Patrol still struggles to formulate a practical and politically viable strategy to guide the spending of this new border security bonanza.

Rapid growth is insufficient inexperienced workers and managerial problems Isacson 13 (Adam Isacson, June 26th, 2013, Senior Associate for Regional Security Policy at the
Washington Office on Latin America Seven Bad Things That Will Happen After a Border Surge http://www.wola.org/commentary/seven_bad_things_that_will_happen_after_a_border_surge )

4. For Border Patrol, very rapid growth spells trouble. Today, even before any border surge, Border Patrol is one of the fastest-growing institutions in the federal government. The last time it doubled in size was between 2004 and 2011. By 2011, the agency had five times as many agents as it had in 1993. And now the Senate bill would have it double in size again. If Border Patrol grows to 38,405 agents along the U.S.-Mexico border, less than 10% of the force there will have 20 years experience. Less than a quarter will have been in the organization even since 2005. The vast majority will be inexperienced, and probably recruited and trained very hastily so that the requirement holding up the path to citizenship can be met. The hiring binge could let in some unqualified people. Meanwhile, any agency with so few experienced senior managers amid a mass of new hires is guaranteed to face some crippling managerial problems.

Perm- Do the CP Cant solve relations and links to the slavery disad- human rights abuses
(not sure if that actually means it links to the slaver DA but human rights abuses are saad ) Isacson 13 (Adam Isacson, June 26th, 2013, Senior Associate for Regional Security Policy at the Washington Office on Latin America Seven Bad Things That Will Happen After a Border Surge http://www.wola.org/commentary/seven_bad_things_that_will_happen_after_a_border_surge ) 5. Abuses of migrants could multiply. Advocacy groups, especially in Arizona and California, have already documented what appears to be a disturbingly frequent pattern of abuse of migrants in Border Patrol custody. The University of Arizona survey of 1,113 recent deportees in Mexico found episodes of abuse to be common. Meanwhile, Mexicos government has voiced anger at the killing of at least 15 civilians, most of them Mexican, in confrontations with Border Patrol agents along the border since 2010. These incidents
have raised concerns about Border Patrols use-of-force guidelines (which are secret), its internal controls, and its procedures for dealing with allegations of human rights abuse. If

the border surge doubles the agencys manpower without bringing improvements to training and accountability, the number and frequency of abuses will grow still further. I think we could have used the money in a much more effective way, Cardin said on the floor Tuesday. Well spend a lot of money with little results. The cost-benefits of these billions of dollars being spent are very minimal.

AT: DAs

AT: Exploitation DA
H-2A program is worse causes widespread abuses Semuels 3/30 [Alana Semuels ; March 30, 2013; U.S. farmers, guest workers pay a price to stay legal; Journalist for the LA times
dealing with Latin American policy issues; http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guest-worker-20130331dto,0,5896092.htmlstory]

And there's no guarantee of a job the next year, especially for aging workers. This year, trying to save money, Barr called seven workers and told them to come in May, three months later than their usual arrival. He says workers often pull him aside and ask him for help in getting legal papers so they can bring their families to Crumpler. But he knows there's no legal way to do so. Still, Barr's workers have it much better than most. Last month, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that H-2 programs were "rife with labor and human rights violations committed by employers who prey on a highly vulnerable workforce." One worker said that at a North Carolina
tobacco farm, the foreman would get drunk and threaten workers with a gun. He locked them out of the kitchen and required them to buy meals from his wife. "He'd humiliate us in the field," the worker said in an interview. "But we wanted to work, so what could we do?" Such

complaints aren't uncommon, said Mary Lee Hall, a lawyer with Legal Aid of North Carolina. But because they want to come back
the next year, workers rarely complain. "They put up with a lot; they really do," she said. "This is how some parts of Mexico feed their families."

Status quo guest worker programs link more SPLC, 2/13, The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to
seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society, Close to Slavery: Guest Worker Program in the United States, http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/close-to-slavery-guestworkerprograms-in-the-united-states#.UdHAVPnFVqV The current H-2 program, which provides temporary farmworkers and non-farm laborers for a variety of U.S. industries, is rife with labor and human rights violations committed by employers who prey on a highly vulnerable workforce. It harms the interests of U.S. workers, as well, by undercutting wages and working conditions for those who labor at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. But far from being treated like guests, these workers are systematically exploited and abused. Unlike U.S. citizens, guestworkers do not enjoy the most fundamental protection of a competitive labor market the ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. Instead, they are bound to the employers who import them. If guestworkers
complain about abuses, they face deportation, blacklisting or other retaliation. Bound to a single employer and without access to legal

guestworkers are routinely: Cheated out of wages, Forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs, Held virtually captive by employers or labor brokers who seize their documents, Subjected to human trafficking and debt servitude, Forced to live in squalid conditions, Denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries. Former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel put it this way: This guestworker programs the closest thing Ive ever seen to slavery. U.S. workers suffer as a result of these flaws in the guestworker system. As long as employers in low-wage industries can rely on an endless stream of vulnerable guestworkers who lack basic labor protections, they will have little incentive to hire U.S. workers or make jobs more appealing to domestic workers by improving wages and working conditions. Not surprisingly, many H-2
resources, employers discriminate against U.S. workers, preferring to hire guestworkers, even though they are required to certify that no domestic workers are available to fill their jobs. In addition, it is well-documented that wages for U.S. workers are depressed in industries that rely heavily on guestworkers.

Visa portability solves their link (gender modified) Alex Nowrasteh, 3-6-2013, "Guest Workers Key to Reform," Real Clear Politics,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/06/guest_workers_key_to_reform_117310.html

But the employer abuse issue is a straw[person] man. There is a rather simple remedy: visa portability, which would allow guest workers to easily switch jobs. The ability to quit a job without the legal risk of deportation would give guest workers the ability to effectively enforce their own labor standards: They could depart an abusive employer without fear of deportation. Instead of more migrant freedom, labor leaders are supporting more regulations for guest-worker visas. The Obama-endorsed blueprint wants reform to protect workers by ensuring labor protections. But those so-called protections have already made current lower-skilled guest-worker visas too costly for American employers a by-product unions favor.

AT: Economy DA
Immigrants key to US econ Becker and Posner 13 (Gary Becker, Richard Posner, The Becker Posner Blog, Mexican Immigration
to the United StatesPosner April 24, 2013 http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/03/mexicanimmigration-to-the-united-statesposner.html)CL Just as financial capital moves more or less effortlessly across national borders in search of higher returns, human capital as well is increasingly mobile. The ability of Mexicans to work on either side of the U.S.-Mexican border benefits both the United States and Mexico. Immigration reform now being discussed in Congress will if enacted reduce barriers to the international movement of human capital even further, and can therefore be compared to the successful post-World War II movement for the reduction of tariff barriers to international trade. The diminution in
Mexican immigration to the United States has greater political than economic significance. It has reduced the hostility to immigrants, a hostility that played a role in the licking that the Republican Party took in last Novembers national elections, and by reducing that hostility facilitates immigration reform. I do not think we should return to the era, which ended in about 1920, of unrestricted immigration to the United States. What has changed since then is that the country is considerably more crowded, and with an existing population in excess of $300 million additional population contributes to pollution, water shortages, extinctions, other environmental harms, infrastructure costs, and traffic congestion. In addition, the

expansion in public benefits in recent decades can attract immigrants from very poor countries who have little prospect of gainful employment. So immigration has to be regulated. But so for that matter so does international trade in products, services, and financial capital. The goal of U.S. immigration policy should not be to discourage or encourage immigration, but to admit as immigrants (besides refugees and family members) only persons who have good prospects for making a net contribution to the U.S. economy.

Our border security advantage is a link turn improves trade flows Fischler 5/29 (Jacob, The Monitor, Mexican tourists are an underappreciated economic boost to U.S.
Southwest May 29, 2013 http://skift.com/2013/05/29/mexican-tourists-are-an-underappreciatedeconomic-boost-to-u-s-southwest/)CL Theres no doubt we have a much stronger economy than we would without them 35 percent stronger, she said.The NDN report called on lawmakers to use the immigration reform bill to increase the number of ports of entry and staffing of Customs and Border Protection officers at the border to expedite travel from Mexico to the U.S. The customs department of (the Department of Homeland Security) is going to have to grow with trade and legal tourism, Rosenberg said. Weve got to invest more in border infrastructure. Weve got to cut down on wait times. Doing so would also help eliminate barriers to further trade between the two countries, said Shannon ONeil, a senior policy fellow for Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. And further trade means growing economies on both sides of border, particularly in areas near the border. When a Ford plant opens in Mexico, it increases employment in the U.S., ONeil said. That is because manufacturing companies take advantage of the free-trade laws that allow easy passage between North American nations to produce different parts in
different places for the same finished product.

Immigrants key to the economyincreases productivity, GDP and specialization Orrenius & Zavodny 13 (Pia M. Orrenius is a Labor Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas;
Madeline Zavodny is a professor of Economics @ Agnes Scott CollegeImmigrants in the US Labor Market http://128.42.204.130/publications/LAI-pub-OrreniusZavodnyImmigrantsLaborMarket040813.pdf // LShen Immigrants help power and grease the economys engines. First, immigration increases the labor force , enlarging the economy. Although they make up only 16 percent of the U.S. workforce, these immigrants account for a much larger share of its growth. Just over half of the increase in the U.S. labor force between 1996 and

2010 was the result of immigrationlegal and illegal. The role of native-born workers in workforce growth is diminishing due to
several factors, including declining labor force participation rates. As the native-born population ages over the next 20 years, the foreign-born contribution to labor force growth is expected to stay high or even increase. This will help offset the 80 million baby boomers retiring from the U.S. workforce over the next two decades.7 When immigrants flow into the labor force, it is not just a question of adding more workers. As long as immigrants differ from nativeswhich they do in varying degreesspecialization occurs. Native and immigrant workers

sort into the jobs and tasks that they do relatively well. For example, one recent study shows that natives have a comparative advantage in communication-intensive work, while immigrants have a comparative advantage in manual labor jobs .8 Specialization increases efficiency, which allows more output to be produced with fewer resources . This boosts labor market productivity, raising economic output, or GDP. Although the bulk of GDP gains go to the immigrants in the form of labor earnings, the native- born population benefits from the immigrant influx through lower prices and the specialization in production described above. The
effect of immigration on the GDP accruing to natives has been termed the immigration surplus (Borjas 1995). Estimates suggest the gain to natives incomes from immigration is about $38$75 billion per year, which is not insignificant even though it represents less than 0.5 percent of the $16 trillion U.S. economy. Consumers

benefit from lower relative prices for goods and services, and investors, business owners, and landowners from higher returns on capital and land. In cases where immigrants and natives are complements, lower prices can have far-reaching effects. For example, research shows the immigration- induced decrease in the cost of child care and housekeeping has significantly increased the labor supply of highly educated native women (Corts and Tessada 2011).

AT: Mexican Ag Industry DA

Mexican Ag industry is prospering Economy Watch 2010, April 30, Mexico Agriculture,
http://www.economywatch.com/agriculture/country-wide/mexico.html Mexico Agriculture is one of the biggest in the world and this has become a very important part of the country's economy as well. The Mexico Agriculture was not really a very prosperous one but after the Mexico Revolution a reformation in agricultural sector and this was taken into action after the release the 27th edition of the Mexican Constitution.The Mexican Government encouraged only crops like corn and beans until the year 1990 by restricting the import of these crops from other nations by implying certain acts. After that, the Mexico Agriculture though has decreased in percentage of Gross domestic product but as a whole it has increased in a remarkable way. There are many products that are produced by the Mexico Agriculture are among the top three ranks it terms of production in the world. Some of them are:Mexico is ranked one in producing things like Onions and Chayote, Avocados, Lemons and Limes and the seed of Safflower.Mexico is ranked second for producing things like Papaya, Dry fruits, chillies and peppers and some other things as well.Mexico is considered third in producing things like oranges, mangoes, chicken meat, whole beans ,Asparagus and some other things.Mexico although concentrates mainly on producing corns and beans but what makes Mexico Agriculture famous is the various kinds of fruits that they produce. Mexico has one of the best weathers to produce fruits and this has made a big impact in the economy of Mexico. There are various organizations that try help the farmers in whatever way possible and this has also made a great impact on the Mexico Economy. NAFTA is similar type of organization that tries to help the farmers and also sees the process through which the Mexico Agriculture can prosper. Keeping these aims in mind NAFTA is looking to spread the horticulture in place of corns and beans and this move has not only brought a great increase in the horticulture but has also stabilized the corn production along with the Mexico Agriculture.

AT: Slavery DA
No link- Current H-2A visas increase abuses in the AG industry- plans visas solve for current abuses Newman 2011, Etan Newman: reporter for Framework Justice, No Way to Treat a Guest
http://farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/documents/7.2.a.6%20No%20Way%20To%20Treat%20 A%20Guest%20H-2A%20Report.pdf H-2A workers have limited, non-immigrant status, and cannot stay in the U.S. beyond their work term with a particular employer. Workers are tied to the employer who brought them to the country and can only work for that employer. Most are hesitant to report abuses because employers can freely fire (and deport) troublemakers, or decide not to re-hire them again. H-2A workers are excluded from the main employment law for farmworkers. Additionally, foreign workers generally lack knowledge of U.S. laws and employment norms and may not know when an employer is breaking the law. Terminal Impacts

Their link is based off of non-portable H2A visas Plan solves slavery in AG by giving workers freedom to leave and decreases AG power over them Ozimek 2013, January 29, Adam Ozimek : Reporter for Forbes, How to Improve Immigrant Visas,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/01/29/how-to-improve-immigrant-visas/ This analysis by Cassidy and other commentators neglects to consider there is an important problem with many of the current job related visas, including H-1B, H-2B, and H-2A: a potential immigrant is not simply permitted to work in this country, but only permitted to work for a specific employer who petitioned for the visa to hire them. This grants bargaining power to employers, and prevents labor markets from efficiently allocating workers. Under these circumstances it is no surprise then that domestic workers who compete against these visa holders sometimes complain that their wages are below market value, since the firm is effectively granted a monopoly over visa workers, and as a result able to grab a portion of the higher productivity an immigrant attains by moving here.Concepts like this have been proposed before, see this from Brandon Fuller from NYU Stern for example. There are two main benefits of this policy. First, it would greatly reduce a firms ability to keep visa holders wages below their marginal product. Instead of being tied to one firm, a worker would be free to work for whoever will hire them within a particular region, and therefore have their labor bid up by competing employers. This would be particularly important in the case of H-2A visas for agriculture, where the power firms have over workers can lead to abuse. In addition, in areas where temporary monopsony power arose and generated rents for employers it would provide firms with the incentive to locate there and bid up the below market wages until they reached the competitive level. This is in contrast to the more permanent rents arising from firms bargaining power over work visa holders.

Changes to current H2A visas can solve for abuses Nowrasteh 2013, January 28, Alex Nowrasteh: immigration policy analyst. Cato Institute
Immigration Reform The Portable Guest worker visa solution http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/economy-a-budget/279407-immigration-reform-the-portable-guest-worker-visa-solution A guest worker visa needs to have fewer regulations and government controls, not be saddled with a triumvirate. The current H-2A visa for agricultural workers is numerically unlimited but the regulations

and restrictions, administered by four different federal agencies, are so burdensome and expensive that it is practically unusable. George W. Bush's Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao reported, "Many who have tried it [the H-2A visa], report such bad experiences that they stopped using it altogether."A viable guest worker visa program, at a minimum, needs to be created to avoid future unauthorized immigration. It is imperative that such a program avoid widespread worker abuse, but a triumvirate commission combined with intensive government controls and oversight will not accomplish that goal . A portable guest worker visa that allows easy worker mobility between employers is a small government solution to union concerns.

Historically proven that abuses and slavery occurred under non-portable guest worker Visas- Plan is uniquely different Nowrasteh 2013, January 29, Alex Nowrasteh: Immigration policy analyist for the Cato institute,
Immigration plan does only half the job http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2013/01/29/immigration-plan-does-only-half-the-job/ What we need is a legal way for lower-skilled immigrants to enter the United States and a guestworker visa program is the easiest avenue.So why doesnt the proposed immigration reform include a comprehensive guest-worker program? Surprisingly, the main issue is not opposition from conservative Republicans. It is unions and their supporters who do not want it.In the 2007 immigration reform push, an amendment that would have ended the guest-worker program after five years destroyed Republican support.The then-leaders of the AFL-CIO, the Laborers International Union of North America, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers and the Teamsters all wrote letters opposing guest workers and supporting the amendment.Teamsters President James P. Hoffa wrote that he opposed a guest-worker program because it would *force+ workers to toil in a truly temporary status with a high risk of exploitation and abuse by those seeking cheap labor.Now unions say they oppose a guest-worker visa program to protect these workers from abuse. But unauthorized workers are going to come in any case, so preventing a guest-worker program can only place them in a black market where employer abuse, backed up by the threat of deportation, is far worse. If unions are honestly concerned about guest-worker abuse, the solution is making the visa portable and not tied to one employer . A World War I guest-worker visa let guest workers quit their jobs and be hired by approved employers. Guest workers simply had to tell the government about their new employer after they were hired not seek permission before switching jobs.The best labor protection is a workers ability to quit a job without legal sanction. If the government could create such a guest worker visa program 100 years ago, there is no reason why it cannot be revived today.

Slavery is the result of Illegal Immigration Aff solves by reducing it Conte 09, Ronald L. Conte, Theologian, Illegal Immigration and slavery
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/illegal-immigration-slavery.htm This next assertion is neither rhetorical, nor an exaggeration. A set of laws that seeks to deprive illegal immigrants of work, home, medical care, education, and assistance when in great need, thereby seeks to reduce those illegal immigrants to slavery. It is literally a form of slavery to deprive any person or group of persons of fundamental human rights, such as work, home, health care, education, etc.The set

of laws being proposed and in some cases enacted, in various U.S. states, depriving illegal immigrants of these fundamental human rights are essentially an unwitting attempt to reinstitute slavery in the United States of America.All persons of good will have a grave moral duty to oppose all such laws.It would be a grave sin to deport 10 million illegal immigrants, or to punish them with incarceration, or to deprive them of fundamental human rights. Therefore, the only recourse that remains is to give them citizenship.In addition to giving the current set of illegal immigrants citizenship, we should also make every reasonable effort to seal our borders to illegal immigration, so that the number of illegal immigrants does not increase to the point where grave harm occurs to many persons.

AT: Mexico Labor Drain DA

Uniqueness
Figures from Border Protection reveal Immigration are at peak levels Jeunesse 2013, April 5, William La jeunesse: reporter for Fox news, Sats show surge un illegal
immigrant border traffic despite Napolitano claims http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/05/stats-show-surge-in-illegal-immigrant-border-trafficdespite-napolitano-claims/ Newly released arrest numbers show a significant increase in illegal immigrants crossing along the southwest border, despite claims as recently as Thursday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that the border is more secure. But figures released Thursday by Customs and Border Protection to Fox News tell a different story. Arrests are actually up 13 percent compared with the same time last year. The number was 170,223 in 2012, and is 192,298 this year. "There is no statistic, metric or evidence that the border is more secure than ever. I went out there for a couple days and found multiple spots where you can see trails of people coming in. They were still apprehending massive amounts of drugs out there, this is a very porous border," Chaffetz said. The numbers back up anecdotal claims that Texas is seeing a marked surge in traffic. The increase comes as Congress prepares to debate immigration legislation, which in its draft form is expected to include a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already here. Some have expressed concern this provision could entice illegal immigrants to cross over. The stats show that in Texas, arrests in the last six months are up 53 percent in the Rio Grande Valley; up 22 percent in Laredo; and up 24 percent in El Paso. While arrest figures can be interpreted in different ways, the administration generally has seen lower numbers as a sign of better security. For the last five years, the administration claimed the border was more secure because arrest numbers declined as the economy tanked. Would-be illegal immigrants from Mexico either stayed home or went home. Now, however, arrests are actually up by 25,000. That means more traffic, and more immigrants actually getting through. According to the Government Accountability Office, up to 40 percent of those who make it over the southwest border never get caught. But a new radar drone, called "VADER," showed during a three-month test in Arizona that agents are catching fewer than 50 percent of those who successfully cross the border and then disappear into the mountains, valleys and deserts. Administration sources say, however, the system is still in a testing phase, the 50 percent figure is inaccurate and VADER alone offers an incomplete picture. Customs and Border Protection says they are using all the resources they can to crack down on the problem areas."Under this administration, DHS has dedicated historic levels of personnel, technology, and resources to the Southwest border. CBP has more than doubled the size of the U.S. Border Patrol since 2004. In FY (Fiscal Year) 2012, CBP employed over 21,300 Border Patrol agents, keeping staffing levels along the border at an all-time high. Additionally, CBP continues to deploy proven, effective surveillance technology tailored to the operational requirements along the highest trafficked areas of the Southwest Border," said Bill Brooks, the Southwest Border Branch Chief with CBP Public Affairs, in a statement to Fox News.

Border Patrol testifies immigration and incentive to move higher now Dinan 2013, April 10, Stephen Dinan: reporter for Washington Times News; Illegal Border corssings
leap ahead of immigration bill, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/10/illegal-bordercrossings-up-ahead-immigration-bill/?page=all Still, lawmakers said there is little doubt border security is better than in the middle of the last decade, when millions of illegal immigrants were apprehended each year, suggesting millions more eluded capture and crossed successfully. Apprehensions of illegal immigrants are up 13 percent this year, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol testified to Congress on Wednesday as lawmakers continued to bash the Obama administration for failing to have a way of measuring how secure the borders are. We have seen an increase in attempted entries, Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher told a Senate committee. He said part of the reason for an increase is that Congress is talking about legalizing illegal immigrants, which is luring more foreigners to try to be in the U.S. when amnesty takes effect.All sides are searching for ways to better measure border security. Chief Fisher said the administration has been working on several yardsticks and is ready to share some of those with Congress.That appears to be a reversal from last month, when another top Homeland Security Department official testified that the yardsticks the department was using werent meant to be shared with Congress or the public.

Immigration from Mexico is high Preston 2012, March 24, Julia Preston: reporter for Nytimes; Illega; Immigrants Number 11.5 million
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/us/illegal-immigrants-number-11-5-million.html?_r=0 About 11.5 million illegal immigrants were living in the United States in January 2011, a figure essentially unchanged from the 11.6 million in 2010, according to the latest estimates by the Department of Homeland Security, which were based on 2010 census figures. Georgia saw the greatest increase between 2000 and 2011, with the number of illegal immigrants there increasing by 95 percent to 440,000. The number of illegal immigrants in the country peaked in 2007 at 11.8 million, the demographers found, and has been declining.

() More evidence is in the Immigration Advantage Case File

Link
Remittances comparatively outweigh the link Hanson 07 Gordon H. Hanson, prof. Econ @ UC San Diego; Emigration, Labor Supply, and Earnings in
Mexico; May 2007; National Bureau of Economic Research, Mexican Immigration to the United States, ed. George J. Borjas http://www.nber.org/chapters/c0097.pdf RMJ Were the only eect of emigration to raise wages for migrants and for nonmigrating workers who substitute for migrant labor, the labor outow would yield static welfare losses in Mexi co. However, an additional consequence of Mexican emigration has been an increase in the return ow of remittances . In 2003, remittances from Mexican immigrants in the United States equaled 2.0 percent of Mexican GDP
(Inter-American Development Bank [IADB] 2004). These appear

sucient to more than oset the loss in GDP due

to emigration .

US ag improvements spill over to Mexico empirics Zabin and Hughes 95 Carol Zabin, PhD and researcher in labor economics, and Sallie Hughes,
researcher in Latin American political communication; Economic Integration and Labor Flows: Stage Migration in Farm Labor Markets in Mexico and the United States; 1995; International Migration Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 395-422, The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc.; http://www.jstor.org/stable/2546787 JSTOR RMJ Baja production began its sharp ascent in the late 1970s with the onset of the Mexican economic crisis, peso devaluations, falling real wage rates, and a growing Mexico-U.S. wage gap. Often in joint venture, U.S. distributors and Mexican growers invested in technological improvements in packing sheds, seeds and production technology, and pump irrigation systems. Baja became attractive because of its similarity and proximity to the San Diego region, whose competitiveness was diminishing due to rising land and water costs. Baja California fresh tomato production grew from 120,436 tons in 1980 to 187,500 tons in 1989, and exports increased by 957 percent between 1980 and 1988 (Cook, 1988; American Farm Bureau, 1991:262).

Plan reduces border security that increases remittances to Mexico and improves rural agricultural economies Jones 09 Richard C. Jones, prof. Pol Sci @ UT San Antonio; Migration Permanence and Village Decline
in Zacatecas: When You Cant Go Home Again; Professional Geographer, August 1, 2009; EBSCO RMJ
At the same time that the Third World has become more dependent on international wage-labor migration, developed countries have become less hospitable to this migration. This inhospitality is beginning to have negative repercussions on rural sending regions such as north-central Mexico. This study is based on a survey of a stratied random sample of households in Villanueva municipio (county), Zacatecas, in 1988 and again in 2002, employing the same questions and methodology. The results suggest that period

restrictive U.S. border policies

over this

have had a negative impact on village economies in the municipio. Although migrant families continued to hold a distinctive edge on nonmigrant families in terms of possessions and productive investments, there was a decline overall in levels of investment and remittances in the municipio. In the latter year, Villanueva had more nonmigrant families as well as more families with permanent migrantsboth trends leading to less money remitted to rural families and lower agricultural investments. Observations and interviews with migrants and townspeople in the municipio in 2005 and 2008
strongly corroborate these trends. Rural villages are facing depopulation, disinvestment and, it might be argued, a deterioration of hope for the future. Key Words: border restrictions, international wage-labor migration, Mexico, permanent migration. Third World countries today are more dependent than ever on wage-labor migration. Global migrant remittancesamounting to $300 billion in 2006have roughly doubled in the past decade, and in twenty less-developed countries constitute more than 20 percent of their gross domestic product (International Fund for Agricultural Development 2006). Wage-labor-sending countries often lack competitive products in global demand or are not positioned to benet from the new international division of labor because they lack the requisite infrastructure and business climate (Shafaeddin 1996;

Antonopoulou 2000); or they may be well endowed in these ways but possess lagging regions left behind by globalization. In addition, in the postCold War period, they have been ignored by the First World in terms of foreign aid and inclusion in trade blocs (Ihonvbere 1992; Peet and Watts 1993). Ironically, at the same time that the Third World has become more dependent on wagelabor migration, developed

countries have become less hospitable to this migration. This is seen in political backlash against immigrants in European Union countries like Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, and Greece; the stiffening of residence requirements in East Asia; the fortication of the U.S. border with Mexico; and so forth. This backlash has stemmed only in part from economic recession and terrorism; cultural politicsin which outsiders become convenient scapegoats in times of troubleis also to blame. These new legal and cultural barriers lower remittances in two ways: by preventing migrants from crossing in the rst place and by forcing them into a more permanent existence at the destination. In the latter case, a new transnationalism
(Levitt 2001, 415; Pries 2001; Levitt and Waters 2002) enables them to maintain contact electronically and via remittances, but increasing evidence suggests that these ties are unsustainable over long periods of time. This process appears to be playing out in the migrant hearth region of Mexico. Thomas Wolfes (1940) novel, You Cant Go Home Again, tells the tale of a man who cannot return home. That is indeed the

many undocumented Mexican migrants today. Unlike the case with Wolfes protagonist (whose home has turned against walled in by a fortied border (Massey 2006), in which, quoting Lopez-Castro (1986, 83), El sustento *esta+ en un lado y el corazon en otro (their liveli- hood is on one side, and their heart on the other). Is migration todayas it was two decades ago (Massey, Durand, and Malone 2002)a positive economic force for families in central
plight of him), however, these Mexican migrants are Mexicos migrant hearth region? Over the 1990s, a time of increasing border restrictionism, has there been a reduction of mig ration from this region and an increase in its permanence? Do these trends have negative repercussions for rural development in the region? Although studies of Mexican migrants at a given place and point in time are numerous, there are few studies that examine migrants in a given place over time. This article provides such a study.209209209209209209209209209209209209209209209

Globalization is inevitable; the plan is critical for rural Mexico to stay competitive Jones 09 Richard C. Jones, prof. Pol Sci @ UT San Antonio; Migration Permanence and Village Decline
in Zacatecas: When You Cant Go Home Again; Professional Geographer, August 1, 2009; EBSCO RMJ In the 1970s and early 1980s, criticism was leveled at international migrations role in village economies and societies. This migration was viewed as yet another form of international dependency, a capitulation to the forces of globalization and an abandonment of autonomous grassroots development schemes (see, for example, McArthur 1979; Reichert 1981; Brana-Shute and Brana-Shute 1982; Shrestha 1985). However, the realities of the late 1980s to the presentrecession and global restructuring around the principles of competitive advantagerendered many Third World regions bystanders in the development process and more dependent than ever on remittances from international migration. Since the late 1980s the functionalist school of thought has come to the fore, emphasizing the positive impacts on local growth of this migration, including higher levels of living, investment in economic and human capital, economic mobility, and the preservation of rural lifeways (see Conway 1985;
Jones 1995a; Owusu 2000; Semyonov and Gorodzeisky 2005). The positive (functionalist) view of the role of international wage-labor migration in village livelihoods and the negative feedback exerted by migration permanence are represented209209209209209209209209209209209209209209209209209 diagrammatically in Figure 1. The

core relationship proposes that migrants and migrant families are better off than nonmigrants, in the ways noted (arrow a); that is, they will have more possessions and will invest relatively more and support their community more. The facilitating mechanism for this is remittances (monetary as well as social) sent from the destination back to the origin. Finally, because migrants tend to prevail from rural areas, and these areas lag behind urban areas on most economic indicators, migrant remittances will improve the economic position of rural vis-a-` vis urban places. The positive or upper circuit of the diagram in Figure 1 is based on a substantial literature
(cited earlier; see also Ling 1984; Keely and Tran 1989; Durand, Parrado, and Massey 1996; Lowell and de la Garza 2002; Cohen, Jones, and Conway 2005; Escobar et al. 2006).209

Border control traps immigrants in the US and slashes remittances plan reverses Jones 09 Richard C. Jones, prof. Pol Sci @ UT San Antonio; Migration Permanence and Village Decline
in Zacatecas: When You Cant Go Home Again; Professional Geographer, August 1, 2009; EBSCO RMJ However, emerging research suggests that migration permanence in the United States may diminish economic ties with the origin. Ethno-surveys in Mexicos central western region show that as families cumulate migration time in the United States, remittances increase rapidly at rst but later decline as a logical consequence of the familys

becoming integrated into U.S. society (Massey et al. 1987; Cornelius 1990). Recent multivariate analyses come to the same conclusions, nding, for example, that homeward remittances drop when a spouse, children, or
both210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210 have accompanied the migrant (Lozano 1993; DeSipio 2002; Lowell and de la Garza 2002; Mooney 2004). Regarding collective (community)

remittances, however, they appear to be greater when migrants are more integrated at the destination (Goldring 2004; Mooney 2004; Marcelli and Lowell 2005). It should be noted, nevertheless, that these community remittances are only a fraction (less than 5 percent) of total remittances. Finally, there is mounting evidence that restrictive U.S. policies have more than compensated for economic push factors in Mexico (such as drought, the demise of rural development programs, and economic stagnation) to both curtail initial migration and to induce migrant families to remain permanently in the United States. Evidence for fewer rst-time migrants, longer stays, and more family members currently living in the United States is found in Binford (2003), Reyes (2004), Riosmena (2004), and Massey (2006); these changes have been attributed to hardening of the U.S.Mexican border since the early 1990s (Massey, Durand, and Malone
2002; Cohen 2004). First-time migrants must now contemplate the possibility of death in the desertor spending months in jail if they are apprehended. In a survey by Cohen and Rodriguez (2005), Mexican migrants listed the fear and cost of crossing the border as second only to family considerations as impediments that might make them rethink their decision to come to the United States. Many throw caution to the wind anyway and manage to cross their spouses and other family membersa move that increases their likelihood of permanent residence through legalization (Roberts, Frank, and Lozano-Ascencio 1999; DiSipio 2002).210210210210210210210210210210210

Immigration is the only thing sustaining rural Mexican agriculture Jones 09 Richard C. Jones, prof. Pol Sci @ UT San Antonio; Migration Permanence and Village Decline
in Zacatecas: When You Cant Go Home Again; Professional Geographer, August 1, 2009; EBSCO RMJ The results in Table 3 indicate that U.S. migration played a positive role in the economic status of families in Villanueva. Migrant families had more possessions and were more likely to invest in agriculture and in their
community than nonmigrant families, in both 1988 and 2002. Furthermore, migrant families came disproportionately from rural areas in both years. Given that urban per capita incomes exceeded rural incomes in 1990 (Table 2), the benets of migration would have tended

to reduce the income gap between rural and urban areas. Finally, as expected, the receipt of remittances is greater for migrant families in both years. The fact that some nonmigrant families receive remittances suggests a halo effect in which households receive money from extended family members working abroad. It is worth noting in Table 3
that the migrantnonmigrant ratio is not only above one for 1988 and 2002 but also increased over the period for every indicator in the table. That is to say, the

family-level benets of migration were positive and increasing over this period of time. We might be tempted to conclude that migration is sustaining rural livelihoods in the face of exogenous inuences that are eroding these livelihoods.210210210210210210

Rural economies are shifting from ag in the squo Burkham 12 Jonathan Burkham, Prof. Geogr @ U Wisc Milwaukee; The City Will Come to Us:
Development Discourse and the New Rurality in Atotonilco El Bajo, Mexico; Journal of Latin American Geography, Jan. 1, 2012; EBSCO RMJ
Nearly three decades of neoliberal reforms have resulted in profound polidcal, economic, and social changes throughout the Ladn American countryside. The support for smallholder agriculture that dominated rural development policies through the 1970s has given way to nadonal and, indeed, internadonal strategies of agricultural industrializadon and liberalizadon (Kay 2002). While some have argued that the reorientadon of rural development policy since the early 1980s has rendered peasants "superfluous" (Otero 2004) or "a residual polidcal category" (Hecht 2010), rural families continue to develop household survival strategies that deserve investigadon. Since the mid-1990s, a

growing body of literature has attempted to explain recent changes under a loose analytical framework, known as the "new rurality" or, in deference to its Latin American roots, /a nueva rura/idad (Arias and Woo 2007).
It should be noted that even the "new ruralist" might concede that most of these changes are not, in fact, new. Rural communides in Ladn America have long been implicated in processes of industrialization, urbanization, and these processes have

globalization. Rather, it is argued that intensified under neoliberal policies, and have come to dominate the development of rural Ladn American. The new rurality framework is built on empirical observations of several key transformadons that are underway in
the Latin American countryside (Arias and Woo 2007; see Kay 2008 for a concise discussion of the origin and evoludon of new rurality literature). Primary among these changes is the

shift from primary economic activity}' to pardcipation in non-farm occupations in manufacturing and services. Salaried employment and formal and informal commercial acdvit)' have

come to supplement and, in many cases, supersede the household income generated from farming (Appendini 2007). Furthermore,
the pardcipadon in non-farm economic acdvity des rural communides to urban centers where products are bought, sold, and, often, produced. Daily or weekly commutes to nearby cides for work or commerce are becoming a regular roudne for many rtiral residents (del Rosario Cota Ynez 2007). This shift in economic development has been accompanied by the feminizadon and flexibilization of the labor force (Estrada Iguiniz 2007). Women are increasingly taking part in rural non-farm commercial acdvity, pardcularly in the informal sector, reflecdng changes that have been underway in urban areas for some time (Escobar Latapi and Gonzlez de la Rocha 2002; Chant 2004).

Guest worker visas dont bring in new immigrantsdemand Schwalbe 10 (Kaleigh SchwalbeMS in Negotiation and Conflict resolution @ Columbia; research fellow at the Advanced
Consortium on Cooperation at the Earth Institute and the International Ceneter for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution Mexican immigration to the united states http://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/5521/Schwalbe%2c%20Kaleigh.pdf?sequence=1) LShen
Another fear is that by making a more open immigration policy, which less restrictive guest worker program advocates, then this would increase the overall level of immigration in the Untied States. Scholars are generally split over this issue. Daniel these fears are unfounded. He argues legalization

Griswold argues that does not necessarily mean more immigrants entering the United States, instead the most likely consequence would be the transportation of an illegal flow to a legal flow (Griswold 189). This is because the amount of immigrants entering the country will naturally be capped by the employers demand for these workers. Since immigrants come to the United States for higher wages and employment, if these options are no longer available, then there will be limited motivations for immigration.

Thumper
Mexico ag down now- low contribution to GDP and shrinking labor force- Should have triggered their impact. UNCTAD 6/26/13 (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development functions as a forum for
intergovernmental deliberations, supported by discussions with experts and exchanges of experience, aimed at consensus building Mexico's Agriculture Development: Perspectives and Outlookhttp://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=454) Agriculture remains a very important sector for Mexico. Despite the declining contribution of the sector to GDP, and the shrinking of agricultural labour force, about half of the rural population was employed in the sector in 2011. Poverty in rural areas in Mexico is high and has been increasing. In 2008, 61 per cent of the rural population (with an average annual income of 3,800 pesos) was classified as poor, as compared to a national rate of 45 per cent. In 2007, small farms represented approximately 73 per cent of total production units. Indeed, small and medium producers employ a majority of rural population but their potential to provide a decent livelihood for themselves and to constitute a viable base for expanding economic activity in rural areas is curtailed by a variety of constraints. These include rising costs of factor inputs, land possession issues, adverse climatic conditions, increasing competition from below-cost imports, structural rigidities and some public policies, which although designed to benefit small and medium holders have not had the intended impact. There is the need for public policy and private action (possibly Public-Private-Partnerships) to address the root causes of the continued economic marginalization of small holders, and of agriculture generally, in order to enhance the sectors resilience and ensure food security.

Biofuels Bad
Biofuels Trigger Food shortages and combat climate change
Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change By displacing agriculture for foodand causing more land clearingbiofuels are bad for hungry people and the environment. Converting corn to ethanol in Iowa not only leads to clearing more of the Amazonian rainforest, researchers report in a pair of new studies in Science, but also would do little to slow global warmingand often make it worse. "Prior analyses made an accounting error," says one study's lead author, Tim Searchinger, an agricultural expert at Princeton University. "There is a huge imbalance between the carbon lost by plowing up a hectare [2.47 acres] of forest or grassland from the benefit you get from biofuels."Growing plants store carbon in their roots, shoots and leaves. As a result, the world's plants and the soil in which they grow contain nearly three times as much carbon as the entire atmosphere. "I know when I look at a tree that half the dry weight of it is carbon," says ecologist David Tilman of the University of Minnesota, coauthor of the other study which examined the "carbon debt" embedded in any biofuel. "That's going to end up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when you cut it down."By turning crops such as corn, sugarcane and palm oil into biofuelswhether ethanol, biodiesel, or something elseproponents hope to reap the benefits of the carbon soaked up as the plants grow to offset the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted when the resulting fuel is burned. But whether biofuels emit more or less CO2 than gasoline depends on what the land they were grown on was previously used for, both studies show. Tilman and his colleagues examined the overall CO2 released when land use changes occur. Converting the grasslands of the U.S. to grow corn results in excess greenhouse gas emissions of 134 metric tons of CO2 per hectarea debt that would take 93 years to repay by replacing gasoline with corn-based ethanol. And converting jungles to palm plantations or tropical rainforest to soy fields would take centuries to pay back their carbon debts. "Any biofuel that causes land clearing is likely to increase global warming," says ecologist Joseph Fargione of The Nature Conservancy, lead author of the second study. "It takes decades to centuries to repay the carbon debt that is created from clearing land."Diverting food crops into fuel production leads to ever more land clearing as well. Ethanol demand in the U.S., for example, has caused some farmers to plant more corn and less soy. This has driven up soy prices causing farmers in Brazil to clear more Amazon rainforest land to plant valuable soy, Searchinger's study notes. Because a soy field contains far less carbon than a rainforest, the greenhouse gas benefit of the original ethanol is wiped out. "Corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent savings [in greenhouse gas emissions], nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years," the researchers write. "We can't get to a result with corn ethanol where we can generate greenhouse gas benefits," Searchinger adds.Turning food into fuel also has the unintended consequence of driving up food prices, reducing the access of the neediest populations to grains and meat. "It's equivalent to saying we will try to reduce greenhouse gases by reducing food consumption ," Searchinger says. "Unfortunately, a lot of that comes from the world's poorest people.""We are converting their food into our fuel," Tilman notes. " The typical driver of an SUV spends as much on fuel in a month as the poorer third of the world spend on food."

Biofuels cause food price spikes-too much supply The Guardian 8 (Leading News Source, Secret report: Biofuel caused food crisis, 7/3/8
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy)

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian. The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body. The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on

governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil. Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush. "It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday. The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels. It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the

British study will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in pushing up food prices to record levels.
that we have the full picture. While

Although it was expected last week, the report has still not been released. "Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative

politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat." Rising food prices have pushed 100m people worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation". President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher
demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases." Even successive droughts in Australia, calculates the report, have had a marginal impact. Instead, it argues that the EU and US drive

for biofuels has had by far the biggest impact on food supply and prices. Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has
had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that that will only push food prices higher. "Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period. It argues that production

of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways. First, it has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel . Second, farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production. Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher. Other reviews of the food crisis looked at it over a much longer period, or have not linked these

three factors, and so arrived at smaller estimates of the impact from biofuels. But the report author, Don Mitchell, is a senior economist at the Bank and has done a detailed, month-by-month analysis of the surge in food prices, which allows much closer examination of the link between biofuels and food supply. The report points out biofuels derived from sugarcane, which Brazil specializes in, have not had such a dramatic impact. Supporters of biofuels argue that they are a greener alternative to relying on oil and other fossil fuels, but even that claim has been disputed by some experts, who argue that it does not apply to US production of ethanol from plants. "It is clear that some

biofuels have huge impacts on food prices," said Dr David King, the government's former chief scientific adviser, last night. "All we are doing by supporting these is subsidising higher food prices, while doing nothing to tackle climate change."

Ethanol lead to water scarcity-land usage Perlman 12 (Rachael Perlman, Graduate from the Cornell school of Environment, staff writer at
Clean Air Task Force, E85 found to be Holistacally Worse for the Environment than Gasoline, 5/28/12, http://www.catf.us/blogs/biofuels/tag/water-scarcity/) This study, by Yang et al., is unique in that it uses LCA methods to comprehensively compare the environmental impact of gasoline and E85, taking into account 12 different

environmental impacts (not just GHG emissions), as well as regional differences among 19 corn-growinga states. The 12 impact categories were: global warming, human health cancer, acidification, human health respiratory, human health noncancer, ozone layer depletion, eutrophication, smog formation, ecological toxicity, fossil energy consumption, water use, and land occupation. They assumed the E85 contained corn ethanol and was produced using a dry mill

powered by natural gas. Much of their data for ethanol impacts was derived from a Life Cycle Inventory database from the USDA and applies to corn ethanol produced in 2005. Their E85 impacts vary from state to state, mainly based on differences in those states climate, soil, topography, and transportation logistics. The gasoline calculations were developed from weighted averages of crude oil data based off the oils origin and its share in U.S. oil imports. The fuel lifecyc les included the following steps: feedstock production, shipment of the feedstock to the refinery, refining/conversion, fuel shipment to the refueling station, and vehicle use. By normalizing

and weighting their 12 categories, they also combined their results to a single environmental damage score, which they tested for sensitivity to develop one useful weighted environmental impact metric. The study found that gasoline has a better environmental impact score than E85 in terms of eutrophication, water use, and land occupation, with a slight advantage for smog formation and acidification effects as well. However, E85 was seemingly
geographic standpoint,

better in terms of fossil fuel energy consumption and global warming impact, and had a slightly smaller ecological toxicity. For the two fuels, no clear difference was found for ozone layer depletion, cancer and noncancer human health, and respiratory effects. From a

E85 from different states had variable eutrophication, water use, land occupation, and global warming impacts, since regional agricultural practices (e.g. dependence on irrigation),
eutrophication impact that corn-ethanol has on the environment. In any case, though, E85 has a much

climate and topography were quite different. Consequently, there is much error in trying to determine the nation-wide water use or

larger need for water than gasoline, given that irrigation is sometimes used and water is needed for the ethanol conversion process. Yang et al. concludes that, overall, according to their weighted average, E85 has between a 6% to 108% (23% average) greater total environmental impact than gasoline, and that this range becomes 16%-188% (33% average) when indirect land use change data (associated with uncertainty) is incorporated.

Increases in Biofuel production wreck biodiversity- monocultures replace diverse rainforests United Nations Environment Programme 9(The impacts of biofuel production on

biodiversity: A review of the current literature, 12/9/9 http://www.unepwcmc.org/medialibrary/2011/03/11/628e876f/The%20impacts%20of%20biofuel%20productio n%20on%20biodiversity_final_for%20release.pdf) Much of the discussion on the biodiversity impacts of biofuel production surrounds the direct impacts of land conversion, where natural ecosystems are replaced by biofuel feedstock plantations. There is already considerable land use pressure from agriculture worldwide, and this is projected to increase over the coming decades (FAO 2008b). The land requirements for biofuel production at the scale discussed in Section 3 will be a large additional demand. One study has estimated that 0.4 Mha 114 Mha of natural land could be lost due to biodiesel production alone,
depending upon the feedstock used for production and whether current agricultural land was used (Koh 2007). It should be noted that biodiversity

loss will not be proportional to area loss, as some areas are much more diverse than others (Sala et al. 2009). Tropical forests, which are particularly vulnerable to conversion to biofuel plantations, contain a high proportion of global biodiversity (Sala et al.
some parts of Brazil (Moreira 2006). 4.1.1.1 Tropical ecosystems Biofuels can

2009). On the other hand, loss of natural land may not occur, or not occur to the extent estimated, if agricultural production is optimized and yields increased on existing agricultural land (UNEP 2009) or if energy crops are rotated with food crops as done in

be produced with the greatest efficiency in the tropics, and the lack of economic incentives for the conservation of tropical ecosystems means that they are vulnerable to replacement with biofuel crops (Doornbosch & Steenblik 2007). Indeed, the main tropical biofuel growing countries, Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia, already have significant land use pressures and, as major deforestation

hotspots, have been estimated to account for over half of forest clearance globally (Hansen et

al. 2008). They also overlap with biodiversity hotspots (Koh 2007). It has been estimated that 540 Mha (Miles et al. 2008) to 745 Mha (Stickler et al. 2007) of tropical forests are suitable for oil palm or soybean production.

Biofuels kill Biodiversity- monocultures and pesticides ESA 10(Ecological Society of America,Biofuels: Implications for Land Use and Biodiversity,

1/10, http://www.esa.org/biofuelsreports/files/ESA%20Biofuels%20Report_VH%20Dale%20et%20al.p df) Simply stated, biodiversity is the variety of life that exists in any one place at one time. Conservation work is often focused on protecting biodiversity through the establishment or maintenance of protected areas, and such efforts entail preserving the health and well-being of our planet for future generations. More and more, however, conservation is being enlarged to include the places where people live, work, and produce food and fiber. Farms have played a key role in this paradigm shift because a variety of organisms are able to persist and even thrive in agricultural landscapes. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005, agricultural systems cover nearly
one-quarter of the Earths terrestrial surface although a small fraction is actively managed or harvested in any given year. Ecologists have long posited that overall terrestrial biodiversity

is increased when there is a variety of different plants growing in one area. Environmental samenesshomogeneitytends to reduce biodiversity. There is evidence that this is true on farms as well as on other lands. For example, research in many areas has
demonstrated that sites with high crop diversity tend to have larger numbers of birds, butterflies, beetles, and spiders than sites of the same size where there was only one kind of crop being grown. The various birds and beneficial insects, in turn, provide ecosystem services including the mitigation of crop pests. Despite these biodiversity benefits, homogeneity tends to be

more efficient and less expensive for farmers, so crops such as corn are grown almost exclusively as monocultures in the US. Planting decisions also rely on the expected financial return of the crop, and so are heavily dependent on market expectations. A decision to change from diverse crops
to a single crop not only reduces the biodiversity of the areas that are planted on a farm but also contributes to the homogenization of the surrounding landscape, potentially further reducing biodiversity. Extensive

landscapes with single cropping can also increase the environmental footprint of a farm, because the lack of diversity or repetitious use of land for a single species will tend to require more chemical inputs to control pests and more fertilizer to maintain yields.

A2 Impacts

Warming Defense
( ) Warming not real- recent temperatures show no increase Happer 12
(William is a professor of physics at Princeton. Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again, Wall Street Journal, 3/27/12, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html)

What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979

( ) Warming evidence skewed urban heat island Evans 12

(David has a PhD in electrical engineering, worked from 1999 to 2006 for the Australian Greenhouse Office, an agency of the Australian government, designing a carbon accounting system- Financial Post, "Global Warming Theory Is Based on False Science.", 7 Apr. 2011, infotrac)

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way,
counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it. But the

alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality. They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decadeyet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth. One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature. The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?

( ) Not anthropogenic multiple warrants Spencer 12

(Roy, former NASA climatologist and author, Ten Years After the Warming, 2/26, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/) As can be seen,

in the last 10 years the estimated forcing has been the strongest. Yet, most if not all temperature datasets show little or no global-average warming recently, either in the atmosphere, at the surface, or in the upper 700 meters of the ocean. For example, here are the tropospheric temperatures up though a few days ago: So what is happening? You
cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too.

we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system. One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming. There are 5 possibilities for the recent cessation of warming which are most discussed: 1) cooling from anthropogenic aerosols has been cancelling
No,

out warming from more greenhouse gases 2) natural cooling from internal climate fluctuations or the sun is cancelling out the GHG warming 3) increased ocean mixing is causing the extra energy to be distributed into the deep ocean 4) the temperature sensitivity of the climate system is not as large as the IPCC assumes. 5) there is something fundamentally wrong with the GHG warming theory itself Of
course, some combination of the above 5 explanations is also possible. The 1st possibility (aerosol cooling is cancelling out GHG forcing) is one of the more popular explanations with the climate modelers, and especially with NASAs James Hansen. The even sign) of

uncertain strength (and aerosol forcing allows the climate modelers to use aerosols as a tuning knob (aka fudge factor) in making their models produce warming more-or-less consistent with past observations. Using an assumed large aerosol cooling to cancel out the GHG warming allows the modelers to retain high climate sensitivity, and thus the fear of strong future warming if those aerosols ever dissipate. The 2nd possibility (natural cooling) is a much less desirable explanation for the IPCC crowd because it opens the door to Mother Nature having as much or more influence on the climate system than do humans. We cant have that, you know. Then you would have to consider the possibility that most of the warming in the last 50 years was natural, too. Goodbye, AGW funding. The 3rd possibility
(increased ocean mixing) is one of the more legitimate possibilities, at least theoretically. Its popular with NCARs Kevin Trenberth. But one would need more observational evidence this is happening before embracing the idea. Unfortunately, how vertical mixing in the ocean

different IPCC models have widely varying strengths of mixing, and so ocean mixing is a huge wild card in the global warming debate, as is aerosol cooling. I believe much
naturally varies over time is poorly understood; the of past climate change on time scales of decades to many centuries might be due to such variations in ocean mixing, along with their likely influence on global cloud cover changing the amount of solar input into the climate system. The 4th possibility (the

climate system is relatively insensitive to forcing) is the top contender in the opinion of myself, Dick Lindzen, and a few other climate researchers who work in this field. The 5th possibility (increasing GHGs dont really cause warming) is total anathema to the IPCC.
Without GHG warming, the whole AGW movement collapses. This kind of scientific finding would normally be Nobel Prize territor yexcept that the Nobel Prize has become more of a socio-political award in recent years, with only politically correct recipients. The self-flagellating elites

humans might not be destroying the Earth. The longer we go without significant warming, the more obvious it will become that there is something seriously wrong with current AGW theory. I dont think there is a certain number of years 5, 10, 20, etc. which will disprove the science of AGW.unless the climate system
dont like the idea cools for the next 10 years. Eek! But I personally doubt that will happen.

( ) Species can adapt especially in tropical hotspots Wiley Sciences 12

(Citing research carried out at the University of Zurich led by Dr Richard Walters, David Berger now at Uppsala University and Wolf Blanckenhorn, Professor of Evolutionary Ecology at Zurich, Newsflash: tropical species adapt to temperature changes, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/16/newsflash-tropical-species-adapt-to-temperature-changes/#more-69341) In the face of a changing climate many species must adapt or perish. Ecologists

studying evolutionary responses to climate change forecast that cold-blooded tropical species are not as vulnerable to extinction as previously thought. The study, published in the British Ecological Societys Functional Ecology, considers how fast species can evolve and adapt to compensate for a rise in temperature. The research, carried out at the University of Zurich, was led by Dr Richard
Walters, now at Reading University, alongside David Berger now at Uppsala University and Wolf Blanckenhorn, Professor of Evolutionary Ecology at Zurich. Forecasting the fate of any species is difficult, but it is essential for conserving biodiversity and managing natural resources, said lead author Dr Walters. It

is believed that climate change poses a greater risk to tropical cold-blooded organisms (ectotherms), than temperate or polar species. However, as potential adaptation to climate change has not been considered in previous extinction models we tested this theory with a model forecasting evolutionary responses. Ectotherms, such as lizards and insects, have evolved a specialist physiology to flourish in a stable tropical environment. Unlike species which live in varied habitats tropical species operate within a narrow range of temperatures, leading to increased dangers if those temperatures change. When its environment changes an organism can respond by moving away, adapting its physiology over time or, over generations, evolving, said Walters. The first two responses are easy to identify, but a species ability to adapt quick enough to respond to climate change is an important and unresolved question for ecologists. The
team explored the idea that there are also evolutionary advantages for species adapted to warmer environments. The hotter is better theory suggests that

species which live in high temperatures will have higher fitness, resulting from a shorter

generation time. This may allow them to evolve relatively quicker than species in temperate environments. The team
sought to directly compare the increased risk of extinction associated with lower genetic variance, owing to temperature specialisation, with the lowered risk of extinction associated with a shorter generation time. Our

model shows that the evolutionary advantage of a shorter generation time should compensate species which are adapted to narrow temperature ranges, said Walters. We forecast that the relative risk of extinction is likely to be lower for tropical species than temperate ones. The tropics are home to the greatest biodiversity on earth, so it imperative that the risk of extinction caused by climate change is understood, concluded Walters. While many questions remain, our theoretical predictions suggest tropical species may not be as vulnerable to climate warming as previously thought.

( ) Feedbacks are net negative Spencer 8

(Roy W. Ph.D., climatologist, author, former NASA scientist, Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change (supercedes Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?), Roy W. Spencer, 12/27/08, http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/)

The comparisons modelers make between their models and satellite data are typically rather crude and cursory. They are not sufficiently detailed to really say anything of substance about feedbacks in either the models or the satellite data and yet it is the feedbacks that will determine how serious the manmade global warming problem will be. And as I have tried to demonstrate here, the main reason for the current inadequacy of such methods of comparison between models and observations is the contaminating effect of clouds causing temperatures to change (forcing) when trying to estimate how temperatures cause clouds to change (feedback). This not a new issue, as it has been addressed by Forster and Gregory (2006, applied to satellite measurements) and Forster
and Taylor (2006, applied to climate model output). I have merely demonstrated that the same contamination occurs from internal fluctuations

The bottom line from the model and observational evidence presented here is that: Net feedbacks in the real climate system on both short and long time scales are probably negative. A misinterpretation of cloud behavior has led climate modelers to build models in which cloud feedbacks are instead positive, which has led the models to predict too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
in clouds in the climate system.

Extensions No Warming
( ) No warming models are wrong, feedbacks are negative and its cyclical Evans 11
(David, doctor in electrical engineering, worked from 1999 to 2006 for the Australian Greenhouse Office, an agency of the Australian government, designing a carbon accounting system, Climate models are fundamentally flawed as they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, 3/23, http://www.ted.com/conversations/2533/climate_models_are_fundamental.html)

The core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide. This is the core of the issue. All the disagreements spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere. There is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up. Weather balloons have found no hot-spot. Not even a small one. This evidence proves the climate models are fundamentally flawed and they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide. There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers
surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off. So what is really going on with the climate? The earth has been in a warming trend since the

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 30 years at a go in each direction. Having just finished a warming phase, expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.
Little Ice Age around 1680.

Extensions Not Anthropogenic

( ) Prefer our methodology cites ice cores and monitoring Shapiro et al. 11
(A. I. Shapiro, W. Schmutz, E. Rozanov, M. Schoell, M. Haberreiter, A. V. Shapiro and S. Nyeki, researchers for the World Radiation Center, Switzerland and Institute for Atmospheric and Climate science ETH, Switzerland, A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing, 2/22, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/new-solar-reconstruction-paper-suggests-6xtsi-change-than-cited-by-the-ipcc/)

The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for the natural forcing of past climate changes on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial climate correlates positively with the solar activity. During the past 10000 years, the Sun has experienced the substantial variations in activity and there have been numerous attempts
to reconstruct solar irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied during the last several hundred years all

there is scientific controversy on the magnitude of solar forcing. Aims. We present a reconstruction of the total and spectral solar irradiance covering 130 nm10 m from 1610 to the present with
reconstructions are proportional to the solar activity an annual resolution and for the Holocene with a 22-year resolution. Methods. We assume that the minimum state of the quiet Sun in time

we use available long-term proxies of the solar activity, which are 10Be isotope concentrations in ice cores and 22-year smoothed neutron monitor data, to interpolate between the present quiet Sun and the minimum state of the quiet Sun. This determines the long-term trend in the solar variability, which is then superposed with the 11-year activity cycle calculated from the sunspot number. The time-dependent solar spectral irradiance from about 7000 BC to the present is then derived using a state-of-the-art radiation code.
corresponds to the observed quietest area on the present Sun. Then Conclusions

We present a new technique to reconstruct total and spectral solar irradiance over the Holocene. We obtained a large historical solar forcing between the Maunder minimum and the present, as well as a significant increase in solar irradiance in the first half of the twentieth-century. Our value of the historical solar forcing is remarkably larger than other estimations published in the recent literature.

Extensions Feedbacks are Negative

( ) Positive feedback models wrong, their impacts exaggerated Happer 12
(William is a professor of physics at Princeton. Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again, Wall Street Journal, 3/27/ 12, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html) The direct warming due to doubling

CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. Many lines of observational evidence suggest that this "positive feedback" also has been greatly exaggerated. There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the socalled Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warmingmuch of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciablysuggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.

Extensions Models Fail

( ) Observational evidence disproves climate models Evans 12
(David has a PhD in electrical engineering, worked from 1999 to 2006 for the Australian Greenhouse Office, an agency of the Australian government, designing a carbon accounting system, Financial Post, "Global Warming Theory Is Based on False Science.",7 Apr. 2011)

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of threeso two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide. That's the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, '80s and '90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide. This evidence first became clear around the mid1990s.

No War Impact
( ) Climate change does not cause wars or conflict between nations Tertais 11
Bruno Tertrais Senior Research Fellow at the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratgique (FRS). He graduated from the Institut d'tudes politiques de Paris in 1984. He holds a Master's degree in Public Law (1985) and a Doctorate in Political Science (1994), Summer 2011 The Climate Wars Myth http://csis.org/files/publication/twq11summertertrais.pdf

So much for climate wars. But the idea according to which climate change is nevertheless a new, important factor to be taken into account in defense and security planning is itself questionable. Of course, nothing precludes us from including it in the growing list of non-military issues that may have a bearing on global security. But this has to be done in a realistic way. It is not unreasonable to state that climate change may be a threat multiplier, for instance. However, stating this says nothing about the probability of increased violence or instability either at the
global level or for a given crisis, or about the likelihood of state failure. Such consequences depend primarily on the reaction of governments and societies a factor which is impossible to calculate in advance.

There are no data to support the vague idea that climate change can have a key role in triggering collective violence that is, be the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back, as argued by an alarmist study (citing once again the example of Darfur). Climate is one of myriad factors in a complex causal web underlying conflict, and the environment is just one of manifold and nonessential causal factors which may lead to war. The main causes of contemporary conflict are societal, not natural (in the broadest sense of the term, i.e., including man-made). Conflicts are borne out of human choices and mistakes. Could regional previsions of the impact of climate change at least inform policymakers and planners about the areas of the world which are more likely all things being equal to suffer from them? The answer is no. Regional effects are extremely difficult to predict with the degree of probability which can be
useful for planning. The IPCC itself underscores that current models do not have the ability to deliver useful previsions at a higher scale than the continental one. Nobody knows, for instance, whether African monsoons will move northwards (with positive effects on agriculture) or southwards (with negative effects). Here, as noted by a contributor to the IPCC, there is complete disagreement between the various models. And when the IPCC attempts to give regional previsions on the evolution of agricultural output, for instance, it is in a way which does not buttress the case for alarmism. Its 2007 report mentions a possible reduction by 50 percent of rain-fed agricultural output in some African countries in 2020. But the sole source it cites to support this claim is a report produced for a Canadian non-governmental organization in which

There are indeed, it seems, some causal links between climate and warfare. But they are of a seasonal nature: nations address seasonal climate change in terms of where they fight, rather than through when or whether disputes occur. . . . Fighting moves to higher latitudes in the summer, and lower latitudes during the cooler months of the year. The stakes of climate change are important and that is why this area should not be the object of intellectual fantasies or fashions. It is appropriate for defense and security planners to monitor the evolution of the scientific and political debate on its possible consequences. But there is no objective reason today to list climate change as a key issue for defense and security planning.
it is mentioned that (unpublished) studies evoke this scenario for three Maghreb countries.

A2 Econ/Illegal Immigration Impact

Oil not Ag key to Mexican economy Amadeo 2013, April 13, Kimberly Amadeo: M.S, Sloan School of Business, MIT and MS planning in
Boston College, President of World Money watch, Mexicos Economy, http://useconomy.about.com/od/worldeconomy/p/Mexico_Economy.htm Oil Production Drives Mexico's Economy. Mexico is the world's ninth largest producer of oil, exporting nearly three million barrels per day. This is less than Iran, China and Canada, but more than the Kuwait, Nigeria and Venezuela. The country's oil monopoly, Pemex, is state-owned, which means all its revenues go directly to the federal government. As a result, about one-third of the governments income is dependent on oil. Instead of investing in developing new fields, the government treats Pemex like a cash cow, and tries to maximize short-term profit. As a result, production is slipping and operations are becoming less safe.

Plan key - Guest workers directly lead to a decrease in illegal immigration Bracero proves Nowrasteh 13 (Alex Nowrasteh is the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute; BA in
Economics @ George Mason and MSc in Economic History @ the London School of Economics Guest Workers Key to Reform Published on March 5th, 2013 http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/guest-workers-keyreform?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+(Ca to+Recent+Op-eds) ) Lshen If there is a model for a successful guest-worker program, however, the Bracero Program is it. Under Bracero, immigrants could work temporarily, but they had to leave the United States every season. American farms got the labor they demanded, immigrant workers made money, and agricultural production increased. The program was so successful that it was extended until 1964. It combined enforcement that funneled migrants into a legal system with an unlimited temporary migration system. Often, Border Patrol agents enrolled unauthorized immigrants they arrested in the Bracero Program and let them return to work this time lawfully. Mexican workers thinking of entering the United States illegally overwhelmingly chose the legal Bracero option instead . Throughout the 1950s, unauthorized immigration declined by 95 percent. If a Bracero-type guest-worker visa existed today, one that allowed migrants to switch jobs and work in nonagricultural areas, unauthorized immigration would dramatically decrease.

AT: Food Prices DA

Uniqueness: High prices inevitable

Climate change causes prices will rise inevitablyplan would maintain status quo prices Sager 13
(Ira, Bloomberg Businessweek, Why Are Food Prices Rising? Check the Weather 1/10, pg online at http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/why-are-food-prices-rising-check-theweather//sd) Droughts, floods, typhoons, hurricanes, and other forms of extreme weather have devastated crops since the beginning of time. But, as the effects of climate change on our weather become more frequentand intense the worlds food supply is subject to more calamity and volatility. Erratic weather can be a significant factor in food shortages and higher prices for everything from wheat and rice to fruits and vegetables to meat and poultry. Heres a look over the last few years at the local, regional, and global effects of extreme weather on agriculture around the world. 2010 Russia Severe drought leads to the loss of one-quarter of the countrys wheat crop, and forest fires rage across
2.4 million acres. In September 2010, wheat prices reach 60 percent to 80 percent higher than at the beginning of the season in July. Estimated damage: $1.4 billion*. Pakistan

Heavy monsoon rains bring the countrys worst flooding ever recorded, destroying 5.9 million acres of land producing major crops including wheat, rice, tobacco, and cotton. The floods kill 450,000
livestock. Estimated damage: $2.9 billion. Amazon River Basin Severe drought leads the Rio Negro, a major tributary to the Amazon River, to drop to its lowest level ever recorded, hurting soybean crops. North Africa Wheat crop production for the North Africa region falls about 18 percent from 2009 levels, the result of insufficient soil moisture at planting and erratic rains from May to September in the main growing areas of Morocco and Tunisia. 2011 Horn of Africa In eastern Africa, the drought-induced humanitarian crisis, especially in famine-ravaged southern Somalia, claims tens of thousands of lives. The worst drought in several decades hurts crop production, depletes grazing areas, and causes major loss of livestock. Aid to the region is estimated at $2.5 billion. Thailand Monsoon rains and storms from July through January cause flash floods that devastate Thailand, the worlds largest rice exporter, and rattle an already thin global supply of an important dietary staple. Estimated damage: $1.3 billion. U.S. Mid-Atlantic/New England Hurricane Irene sweeps across regions that are usually unaffected by hurricanes, causing unprecedented crop damage when rivers overflow their banks. Estimated damage: $7.4 billion. U.S.

Central and Southern Plains Severe drought causes the countrys 2011 wheat output to drop significantly, costing the U.S. a projected $20 billion. 2012 Sahel In several parts of West Africa, agricultural production is hurt by late rains, long dry
spells, and significant pest infestations. Cereal production across the region is 26 percent lower than in 2010. More than 18 million people require emergency assistance, which costs an estimated $1.6 billion. U.S.

Midwest Severe drought wreaks havoc on soybean and corn crops. At the end of July, the U.S. Drought Monitor shows 88 percent of corn and 87 percent of soybean crops are in drought-stricken regions and 64 percent of the continental U.S. is under moderate to extreme droughtthe largest area in more than 50 years. Analysts expect food prices to increase, especially prices for meat.

High prices inevitableoil price increase and climate change Science Daily 12
(What's Behind Rising Food Prices, Beyond the U.S. Drought 8/29 pg online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120829103415.htm//sd) American consumers like to send a message with their money, and recently, that message has been to support "local" food. Consumers see buying from area farmers and producers as a good way to keep money and jobs close to home, improving the local economy while protecting American jobs. But does buying local really make a significant economic difference? "Everybody is looking for local food," says John Stanton, Ph.D., professor of food marketing. "But whether we like it or not, the food world is global and what happens in Brazil can have just as big an impact on U.S. consumers as what happens in Nebraska." Although many U.S. consumers were alarmed to see news reports this summer of droughts leaving shriveled crops dying in the fields, Stanton warns other factors will have a greater effect on Americans' wallets. "Price increases from the droughts are likely to have short-term effects, but global issues can have a longer and greater impact," Stanton explains, citing increasing demand from the rest of the world for crops like corn. "The biggest cost in a box of corn flakes isn't the corn," Stanton says. "It's everything from the price of oil to transport the product

to the marketing and the packaging. So something like the cost of oil will have a much more lasting effect on the price of your cereal than the supply of crops." Stanton predicts higher food prices are an inevitability, whether the local food movement is here to stay or not. "U.S. farmers are doing everything they can to keep America's food inexpensive," Stanton says. "But while I like to get my tomatoes from a local New Jersey farm stand or my mother's garden, most of the prices of the food products that I buy are likely to be just as affected by storms in China, a growing middle class in India, or drought in Argentina, as they are by a drought in the Midwest."

High food prices are resilient--Oil prices and climate change Viveros 12 (Alejandra, Editor for The World Bank Group, World Bank Warns Against Complacency
Amid High Food Prices and Hunger November 29, 2012 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pressrelease/2012/11/29/world-bank-warns-against-complacency-amid-high-food-prices-hunger\\CLans) Alt cause to prices Nonetheless, prices remain at high levels 7 percent higher than a year ago. Grains, in particular, are expensive. They are 12 percent above their levels 12 months before and very close to the all-time high of 2008. Maize, for instance, is 17 percent higher than in October 2011 and 10 percent above the record-high prices of February 2011,
despite their decrease of 3 percent between August and October. Although we havent seen a food crisis as the one of 2008, food security should remain a priority, said Canuto. We

need additional efforts to strengthen nutrition programs, safety nets, and sustainable agriculture, especially when the right actions can bring about exceptional benefits. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and others, 870 million people live with chronic undernourishment, an unchanged figure since 2007-09, and behind the necessary improvement to achieve the hunger Millennium Development Goal of halving the
number of hungry people by 2015. Furthermore, child malnutrition accounts for more than a third of the mortality burden of children under the age of five, and malnutrition during pregnancy for more than 20 percent of maternal mortality. Therefore, programs to improve nutrition, for instance, would multiply the benefits -- from improving cognitive development and learning; to contributing to the empowerment of women and maternal health; reducing the negative interaction of malnutrition and infectious diseases; and increasing economic growth. According to Food Price Watch, weather

will determine food prices in the near future, along with other factors, such as oil prices and the extent of emerging export competition all of which remain uncertain at this point.

No link: alt causes

No linkmultiple alt causes to high food prices
--Increased demand from India and China --Oil Prices --Dollar decline --biofuel production

Timmer 8
Peter, Professor of Development Studies, PhD, at Harvard University. Dean of the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at UCSan Diego. Key advisors for the World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Causes of High Food Prices in ADB Economics Working Paper Series. October. Pg online at http://econ.tu.ac.th/archan/rangsun/ec%20460/EC%20460%20Readings/Global%20Issues/Food%20Cris is/Food%20Price/Causes%20of%20High%20Food%20Prices.pdf//sd) Three fundamental factors, all interrelated, combined to drive up food prices. First, rapid economic growth, especially in the PRC and India, put pressure on a variety of natural resources such as oil, metals, timber, and fertilizers. Demand simply increased faster than supply for these commodities. Second, a sustained decline in the dollar since mid-decade added to the upward price pressure on dollar-denominated commodity prices directly, and indirectly fueled a search for speculative hedges against the declining dollar. Increasingly from 2006, these hedges were found first in petroleum, then in other widely traded commodities, including wheat, corn, and vegetable oils. Third, the combination of high fuel prices and legislative mandates to increase production of biofuels established a price link between fuel prices and ethanol/biodiesel feed stockscorn in the US and vegetable oils in Europe. Because of intercommodity linkages in both supply and demand, food prices now have a floor established by their potential conversion into biofuel. These linkages are not always tight or effective in the short runrice and corn prices can be
disconnected for some time, as the discussion above indicated (and as the Granger causality results in Appendix 3 demonstrate quantitatively). But the long-run forces for substitution in both production and consumption are very powerful.

If high fuel prices are here to stay, high food prices are, too. To complicate matters, in the short to medium run, the specifics of individual commodity dynamics
can produce divergent price paths. Rice is the clearest example, as large Asian countries act for their own short-run political interests with little or no regard to consequences for the international market or traditional trading partners. Without significant hope for binding international agreements between rice exporters and importers, this source of unique instability seems likely to last a long time.

High oil prices an alt cause to high food prices Tverberg 12 (Gail, Editor for OilPrice, The World is Suffering from High-Priced Fuel Syndrome,
October 1, 2012 http://oilprice.com/Energy/Gas-Prices/The-World-is-Suffering-from-High-Priced-FuelSyndrome.html\\CLans) Governments and economists around the world have not figured out that what the world economy is suffering from, to varying degrees, is high-priced fuel syndrome. High-priced fuel syndrome has a number of symptoms: Slow economic growth, or contraction People in discretionary industries laid off from work High unemployment rates Debt
defaults (or huge government intervention to prevent debt defaults) Governments in increasingly poor financial condition Declining home and business property values Rising

food prices Lower tolerance for immigrants Huge difficulty in funding retirement international tensions related to energy supply The countries with the most problem with high-priced fuel syndrome are the industrialized countries that are big importers of oil. This is the case because oil has been a particularly high-priced fuel in the past few years. Importing high-priced oil adds challenges of its own, since funds used for imported oil flow out of the country.
programs, programs for disabled, and regular pension plans Rising

Impact Turn: Econ

High food prices collapse the economystagnate consumer spending Von Braun 8
(Joachim, PhD in agricultural economics, FOOD AND FINANCIAL CRISES Implications for Agriculture and the Poor International Food Policy Research Institute, pg online at http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr20.pdf//sd) Links between the Food and Financial Crises New and ongoing forces drove up the prices of food commodities, causing a major food crisis in 200708. Income and population growth, rising energy prices, and subsidized biofuel production have contributed to surging consumption of agricultural products. At the same time, productivity and output growth have been impaired by natural resource constraints, underinvestment in rural infrastructure and agricultural science, farmers limited access to agricultural inputs, and weather disruptions (for details, see von Braun, Ahmed, et al. 2008). The financial crisis in the second half of 2008 stemmed from fundamentally different causes flawed regulatory regimes and subprime mortgage lendingbut the two crises have fed on each other. Fueled by capital diverted from the collapsing housing and financial market, speculation in agricultural futures, and ad hoc market and trade policies, the level and volatility of commodity prices further increased. Although the food and financial crises developed from different underlying causes, they are becoming intertwined in complex ways through their implications for financial and economic stability, food security, and political security (Figure 1).The food crisis has added to general inflation and macroeconomic imbalances to which governments must respond with financial and monetary policies. At the same time, the financial crunch and the accompanying economic slowdown have pushed food prices to lower levels by decreasing demand for agricultural commodities for food, feed, and fuel. Further, as capital becomes scarcer and more expensive and as consumer spending stagnates, the expansion of agricultural production to address the food crisis has been cut short. Because the two crises are interconnected, a coordinated response is needed to alleviate the double blow to the poor.

High prices stop economic growth through instability and shocks Timmer 8
Peter, Professor of Development Studies, PhD, at Harvard University. Dean of the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at UCSan Diego. Key advisors for the World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Causes of High Food Prices in ADB Economics Working Paper Series. October. Pg online at http://econ.tu.ac.th/archan/rangsun/ec%20460/EC%20460%20Readings/Global%20Issues/Food%20Cris is/Food%20Price/Causes%20of%20High%20Food%20Prices.pdf//sd) But most policy makers, consumers, and producers have shorter memories than implied by Figure 2. Recent price movements have been very sharp and disruptive, with an especially heavy impact on poor consumers and low-income food-importing countries. Rapid increases in food prices are adding to inflationary pressures in most of developing Asia, bringing into prospect monetary tightening and slower economic growth. After several decades of stability in world grain markets, and even steady price declines, the world looks very different in mid-2008 (Figure 3). Scarcity is back, hunger is growing, and rapid economic growth is threatened (ADB 2008b). These are difficult times.

Your authors conclude affhigh prices have a net-negative impact on growing economies Ivanic and Martin 8

(Maros, PhD in agricultural economics from Purdue. Will, PhD in Agriculture and Rural Development. Implications of higher global food prices for poverty in low-income countries November pg online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00347.x/full//sd) The findings of the study suggest that the overall impact of higher food prices on poverty is generally adverse. Although there are variations by commodity and by country, poor people generally appear to be net consumers of food and as such tend to be hurt by higher food prices. This conclusion is much more obvious for urban households where farming is much less important. Even though many rural households gain from higher food prices, the overall impact on poverty remains negative. These findings are reinforced by the results of the second simulation undertaken in this study, where we calculated the impact of the observed increases in the global food prices between 2005 and 2007. Again, we discovered that the average impact of this development was to increase poverty for a majority of the countries covered in our sample, mainly due to the negative impact of higher wheat prices, followed by the prices of rice, dairy, and maize. There was considerable variation among countries and the types of households in both the impacts of a given commodity price change, and in the effect of the particular constellation of price changes considered over the 20052007 period. While there were a few cases where higher commodity prices lowered rural poverty, in most cases povertyeven rural povertyincreased, and the sample average poverty impact was clearly adverse.

High food prices collapse the global economyprotectionism Reuters 11

(Record high food prices stoke fears for economy 1/6 pg online at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/06/us-food-idUSTRE7051JZ20110106//sd) Record high food prices are moving to the top of policymaker agendas, driven by fears it could stoke inflation, protectionism and unrest and dent consumer demand in key emerging economies. The United Nations' food agency (FAO) said on Wednesday that food prices hit a record high last month, above 2008 levels when riots broke out in countries as far afield as Egypt, Cameroon and Haiti. In Asia, official data and analyst estimates both pointed to
inflationary pressures. Chilli prices have increased fivefold in Thailand in the last year and Indonesia's president called for households to plant food in their own gardens. President Susilo Yudhoyono Bambang told a cabinet meeting people should be "creative" in planting, with Trade Minister Mari Pangestu leading the way in planting at home. "I have 200 chilli plants in flowerpots," Pangestu told a briefing on Thursday. "The agriculture ministry is informing farmers how to take care of the plant and also encouraging consumers to plant chilli in their own yards."

Surging food prices have often provoked unrest in urban areas of poor countries, where food makes up a high proportion of household purchases. Analysts say African and Caribbean economies dependent on food exports could be particularly hard hit, helping stoke unrest and potentially pushing governments toward imposing export bans and expropriating foreign-owned farmland. If Asian and other emerging consumers have to spend more of their income on food, other purchases will fall -- and that could be bad news for a global economy that has placed much of its hopes for recovery on consumption in developing economies. World Bank
President Robert Zoellick urged governments in a newspaper opinion column to avoid protectionist measures as food prices rose and called upon the Group of 20 leading economies to take steps to make sure the poor get adequate food supplies. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has asked the World Bank to conduct urgent research on the impact of food prices ahead of G20 meetings later this year, a source familiar with the matter said. INDIAN INTEREST RATE PRESSURE Food price protests were seen a factor in the ousting of Indonesia's long-term autocrat Suharto in 1998, and anger over a farmland purchased by South Korean firm Daewoo at a time of rising prices was in part blamed for a 2009 coup in Madagascar. India's food price inflation rose to a one-year high of more than 18 percent in the year to the end of December, data on Thursday showed. That, along with rising fuel prices, is the main reason analysts expect the central bank to raise rates this month. The Indian government has used a range of measures for years to ensure stable food prices, but since last year has boosted the release of national stocks of grains and has pledged to continue duty-free imports of crude vegetable oils. In

China, several cities have implemented direct controls

to limit food price increases and the central government has vowed to eliminate speculation in the country's commodities markets.
The cost of food rose 11.7 percent in the year to November, while non-food items were up just 1.9 percent. But, reflecting concerns that inflation is creeping beyond food to the wider economy, consumer goods prices and housing costs showed clear jumps. Fu Bingtao, an economist with the Agricultural Bank of China in Beijing, said in a report the price of grains, the country's most important food, would rise in 2011 by 10 percent, adding to an 11.7 percent rise in 2010. "Speculative

trading and hoarding of specific agricultural

products may continue," he said. The FAO said sugar and meat were at their highest since its records began in 1990. Prices were at
their highest since 2008 crisis levels for wheat, rice, corn and other cereals. Benchmark prices solely in Asia for rice suggested a different

picture. The region's staple food now stands at $535 per tone -- less than half its 2008 levels of more than $1,000 a tone that prompted several governments at the time to impose curbs on exports to protect their domestic markets. ASIAN POLICY DILEMMA But most experts

expect upwards price pressure to continue, particularly if countries slap on export bans and further squeeze supply, and short-term investors again buy into agricultural commodities as they did in 2008. Last year, wheat futures prices rose 47 percent, buoyed by a series of weather events including drought in Russia and its Black Sea neighbors. U.S. corn rose more than 50 percent and U.S. soybeans jumped 34 percent. Alongside bad weather in Australia, Europe, North America and Argentina, rising Asian demand is at the heart of the spike. China, for example, is expected to buy 60 percent of globally traded soybeans in 2011/12, double its purchase of four years ago. Dry, hot weather has hit soy and corn crops in Argentina, a leading exporter, fueling a rally in U.S. grains futures in recent weeks on supply fears. After an uneasy start, climate conditions have improved in neighboring Brazil, the world's No. 2 soy provider. Higher interest rates do little to ease pressure on food prices. Demand is inelastic because people have to eat, but current price pressures are largely supply-led, so tighter monetary policy would not directly help. The danger, however, is that food inflation spreads to the wider
economy. "I think there's an urgent need to be more pre-emptive in tightening monetary policy to prevent some of these inflation pressures from erupting," Neumann said. Some central banks had taken some action but more needed to be done. South Korea, like other Asian countries that run trade and current account surpluses, could give more room to its currency to rise to offset rising import costs on food. But higher

interest rates or the likelihood of a rising currency would just encourage a flood of portfolio capital from investors spurning sluggish growth in developed economies. And rising currency could hurt exports, the major pillar of many economies.

High food prices increase political and social instability Von Braun et al 8
(Joachim, PhD in agricultural economics, Shenggen Fan Director General of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Ruth Meinzen-Dick Coordinator of the CGIAR program on Collective Action and Property Rights, Mark W. Rosegrant Ph.D. in Public Policy Director of the Environment and Production Technology Division at IFPRI, and Alejandro Nin Pratt Agricultural Economist (IFPRI), International Agrictultural Research for Food Security, Poverty Reduction, and the Environment October, pg online at http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ib53.pdf//sd) The recent food crisis, combined with the energy crisis and emerging climate change issues, threatens the livelihoods of millions of poor people as well as the economic, ecological, and political situation in many developing countries. On top of these crises, the decades of shrinking global investment in agricultural research are leading to slower growth in agricultural productivity. Progress in achieving development goalssuch as cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015has been delayed significantly. In fact, the number of hungry people actually increased by at least 75 million from 2004 to 2007 and probably by even more in 2008. Investment
potential in developing-country agriculture is improving, but realizing this potential requires policy action.

High prices cause instability-- reduce purchasing power Moneycontrol 11

(Food inflation in developing nations a concern: OECD-FAO pg online at http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/economy/food-inflationdeveloping-nationsconcern-oecdfao_558199.html//sd) High food inflation is a concern for economic stability and food security in some developing countries as the purchasing power of the poor is reduced, a joint OECD-FAO report said on Friday. However, inflation is expected to remain subdued in most parts of the world in the next decade despite increasing prices of commodities, it noted. "... Recent evidence indicates that consumer food price inflation is currently rising in most countries, contributing to higher aggregate consumer price inflation. This raises concerns for economic stability and food insecurity in some developing countries as the purchasing power of poorer populations is reduced," the report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said.

Impact Turn: Russia

High prices guts russias economy2010 drought proves OneIndia 10
(Putin bans grain exports to give Russian economy breathing space pg online at http://news.oneindia.in/2010/08/06/putinbans-grain-exports-to-give-russian-economybreat.html//sd) Russian Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin has banned exports of grain after millions of acres of Russian wheat was left withered by a severe drought, drove up prices around the world and pushing them to their highest level in two years in the United States. The move is the latest of several abrupt interventions in the Russian economy by Putin, who called the ban necessary to curb rising food prices in the country. Russia is suffering from the worst heat wave since record keeping began here over 130 years ago. "We need to prevent a rise in domestic food prices, we need to preserve the number of cattle and build up reserves for next year," the New York Times quoted Putin, as saying in a meeting broadcast on television. He added: "As the saying goes, reserves don't make your pocket heavy." Putin has never hesitated to marshal the power of the state to protect Russian economic interests, and this decision showed that this has remained his prerogative even after he stepped down as president. The export ban is widely seen as one of a series of populist moves by Putin to address rising resentment over the calamitous heat wave and the fires it has spawned. (ANI)

High prices causes protectionismRussia grain export ban Walsh 12

Dean, owner and editor of World News Curator, Russia May Limit Grain Exports in Future Food Crisis http://worldnewscurator.com/2012/09/21/russia-may-limit-grain-exports/#1yIIdzkodVGh1oTR.99//sd) Russian Economy Minister Andrei Belousov said on Friday that his country may adopt measures to limit grain exports if domestic prices rise too high. Draughts in the US and Russia, draughts and wildfires in eastern Europe, excessive rainfall in Britain and other unusual weather patterns this year have hit crop harvest around the world, reducing harvests and sending the price of corn, wheat and other food staples soaring. This is already feeding through to higher food prices in shops around the world, but there are fears that the situation could get much worse by next year, growing into a full blown global food crisis as some of the poorest households across the world struggle to feed themselves and others find their expendable income squeezed to nothing by rising food prices. Experts have warned that protectionist measures such as those suggested by Russia today, in which countrys take steps to limit global trade to protect their own domestic market, could drive global prices up even higher and exacerbate any potential crisis.

High prices bad for Russiacauses export bans and protectionism GMR 12
(Global monitoring report, Food Prices, Nutrition, and the Millennium Development Goals Using Trade Policy to Overcome Food Insecurity. pg online at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1327948020811/84016931327957211156/8402494-1334239337250/Chapter-4.pdf//sd) In August 2010, in response to escalating grain prices, the Russian Federation imposed a temporary export ban on wheat, barley, rye, maize, and wheat and rye flour until the end of December 2010. In October 2010, the export ban on grain was extended until the end of June 2011; the ban on flour was allowed to expire. The export bans were originally a response to a drought that caused a shortfall in the grain harvest and associated rapid grain

price increases in both domestic and international markets. According to official estimates, farmers harvested almost 37 percent less grain than they did in 2009. The export ban was intended to insulate Russia from highly volatile grain prices by reducing exports in 201011 to the 3 million tons already shipped at that time, resulting in a drop of nearly 12 million tons of exports initially projected for the year. The export restrictions had unintended and undesirable consequences such as undermining Russias long-term policy of becoming an even more important player in the global grain market, encouraging hoarding in expectation of the bans removal, distorting prices, and affecting the investment and production decisions of its farmers.

No revival for Russian agexport bans means theyre a net food importer Gosling and Barton 10
(Tim and John, contributors to Russia Beyond the Headlines, The heat is on the Russian economy pg online at http://rbth.ru/articles/2010/08/30/the_heat_is_on_the_russian_economy04905.html//sd) The heat is on the Russian economy In 2009 Russia was the worlds third largest exporter of grain but around a quarter of the countrys farm land damaged by fires in the first half of August, according to some estimates, expectations for this years crop have plummeted to about 60m tonnes, down from last years 97m tonnes. International grain prices have already risen around 25pc since after Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced a ban on grain exports in mid-August and Russia may even be forced to import grain this year, which will force international food prices up further, although officials deny the possibility. In Britain, commentators believe the prices of basic commodities such as beer and bread could be affected. Also, there is the feeling that the ban on exports was unwise, because once Russia has left the league of top grain exporters (which includes the USA, China and the EU), it will be difficult for it to get back. Moreover, as the fires have delayed the planting of Russias winter crop which produces one and half times more than the summer crop production is expected to fall further, raising the possibility of a repeat of the food price shock that hurt economies around the world in 2008. But its uncertain what the full effect of the drought on the countrys economy will be until the harvesting is over. In the short term Russia faces a big bill to repair the damage. The state has promised to rebuild the houses that burned down. The
total repair bill is an estimated 12bn roubles ($400m), emergencies minister Sergei Shoigu said, although some say it will be closer to 33bn roubles. And the knock-on effects will only add to the price. Analysts estimate that the drought and fires could shave up to 1pc from GDP, a loss of $15bn. that started in 2008, now ; analysts estimate that as much as 127bn roubles of agricultural credits 15pc of total banking sector credits will need to be restructured, with the two state-owned banks, Sberbank and agricultural specialist Rosselkhozbank, bearing the brunt of the blow. The state has already said it plans to offer 10.5bn roubles to subsidise interest rates to farmers in 2010/11. The

Farmers, already reeling from a collapse in demand caused by the financial crisis find themselves deeper in debt due to the heat wave

nascent livestock farming is another victim as feedstock costs soars. Russia only recently become self-sufficient in chicken meat, but pork and beef farming is still being developed. The price of meat, eggs and milk are all likely to rise significantly. Food producers and retailers will need to balance higher prices from suppliers with a government desperately trying to cap inflation. Russian shipping and transport companies will also feel the heat. Following the government ban, the total volume shipped (mostly to the Middle East) is unlikely to top 4.5m tonnes in 2010 verses 21.5m tonnes last year. And the crisis has jarred a fragile economic recovery that was just getting underway. In July
industrial production was up 5.9pc year-on-year and investments was back in positive territory, up 0.8pc, but both indicators were down by 10pc month-on-month. Olga Sterina at UralSib said:

Investments fell more than anticipated *and+ the August data may also be weaker.

Impact Turn: BioD

High food prices collapse biodiversity and cause warmingnon-ag communities exploit forests FAO 11
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The State of Food Insecurity in the World How does international price volatility affect domestic economies and food security? pg online at http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2330e/i2330e.pdf//sd) Global forest area is around 4 billion hectares, and still represents about 30 percent of the total terrestrial surface of our planet.1 It is well known that forests provide many key environmental services, such as water management, conservation of biodiversity and serving as a carbon sink to mitigate global warming. In addition, forests play an important role in the food security of one billion of the poorest people on the planet by providing food
or cash income through a wide range of products such as wild yams, bush meat, edible insects, fruits, leaves, mushrooms, nuts, honey and medicinal products. Forests

also provide many non-food raw materials such as bamboo, rattan, palm fibres and resins that people who depend on forests for their food security are often very vulnerable to higher food prices because they purchase most of their food on markets. Higher food prices for these hunters and gatherers mean that they have to collect more out of the forests either for sale at local markets (in order to obtain sufficient cash to buy the more expensive food), or to exchange via barter. Higher food prices can thus have a direct impact on forest quality, conservation and the survival of key forest species (mainly fauna and medicinal plants). For these people, farming is not an option, as they do not own or have access to farmland. In view of concerns about climate change and biodiversity losses, clearing more forests is not an attractive alternative either. Thus, sustainable forest management is critical for their food security. Forests will increasingly need to be managed not only for their timber production potential, but also to produce a larger
can be used for building shelter or sold at local markets, as well as fodder for livestock.2 The and sustainable supply of edible nonwood forest products, as well as to enhance the many services forests and trees provide to the agriculture sector.

AT: Politics

No CIR

No CIR General
Wont Pass parties clashing Kelly-Woessner 7/7 (April, associate professor and chairwoman of the political science department
at Elizabethtown College, correspondent for Lancaster Newspapers Inc. Immigration reform: security, then amnesty Jul 07, 2013 http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/868108_Immigration-reform-security--then-amnesty.html) The Senate recently passed legislation for comprehensive immigration reform. It seems unlikely that the House of Representatives will adopt similar legislation or even consider the Senate bill. Although it will be easy to blame the Republican-controlled House for the failure, citing obstructionism or racial prejudice, the truth is that a real compromise has yet to be reached on the complex issues involved in immigration reform. In the Senate, legislation can be passed that is highly
favorable to Democrats, and a few moderate Republicans can be won over with personal appeals. But for legislation to pass both a Democraticcontrolled Senate and a Republican-controlled House, the concerns of both parties need to be considered. Compromise means that the majority on both sides can live with the bargain, even if the extremes on both ends are dissatisfied. This is how we achieve moderate public policy that reflects public sentiment. On the basic principles, Pew Research Center Surveys show widespread agreement among the American people. The vast majority agree that we cannot realistically deport 11 million illegal immigrants. And nearly three-quarters of Americans believe there should be a path to legal residency for current immigrants, although only 45 percent say they should be eligible for full citizenship. At the same time, 77 percent of Americans believe amnesty legislation needs to include serious border security measures. The

parties vary on which of these concerns is most important to them. Democrats are mostly focused on providing a path to citizenship for those who are already in the country. There is an element of self-interest involved, as this would enfranchise more Democratic voters. Republicans are more focused on the enforcement of law and securing the border. While the Senate bill promises stricter enforcement, many conservatives remain skeptical. Indeed, they've heard this before.

No CIR Pathway to Citizenship

Wont Pass Pathway to citizenship blocks Miller 7/6 ( Jake, columnist for CBS NewsWhat will the House do on immigration reform? July 6,
2013 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57592500/what-will-the-house-do-on-immigrationreform/) House lawmakers may insist on a more stringent set of triggers and refuse to provide an interim legal status - let alone a green card or a path to citizenship - to undocumented immigrants until the federal government fully secures the border. During the Senate
To assuage concerns among conservatives, debate, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, offered an amendment that would have instituted that additional threshold. It was broadly supported by conservatives but ultimately voted down by

Perhaps a more vexing problem, many House Republicans object to the very idea of providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. They argue that citizenship is too great a privilege to confer on people who came here illegally, that it would encourage further illegal immigration, and that it would send the wrong message to those immigrants who followed the rules. "I object" to a pathway to citizenship, Goodlatte told Bloomberg News, "because that pathway to citizenship is something that people who have gone through the process legally do not have the opportunity to have, and people who come here illegally get that special pathway to citizenship." Goodlatte
Democrats and a handful of Republicans. Whether the Senate would be willing to revisit that fight in conference with the House remains to be seen. pitched a path to legality, not citizenship, that would give undocumented immigrants "many opportunities" while avoiding the impropriety of rewarding people who cut the line. After border security and employment enforcement measures are implemented, undocumented immigrants would "get only a legal status," Goodlatte said, "It would give them many, many opportunities, but it wouldn't give them something that people who have historically immigrated to the country legally don't have, and I don't think they should have either." Boehner has not tipped his

the House and the Senate are likely headed for a collision course. Supporters of the Senate bill have warned that immigration reform without a path to citizenship will not pass Congress . Many immigration reform
cards on the likelihood of a House bill including a path to citizenship, saying he does not want to prejudice or impede the legislative mechanics underway. If Goodlatte has his way, advocates, already leery of the border security measures in the Senate proposal, have warned against any further changes viewed as hostile to immigrants.

No CIR
Wont pass path to citizenship and political risks to house republicans Steve Chapman 7/1/13, Why immigration reform probably wont pass, Chicago Tribune,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-republicans-and-immigration-reform20130701,0,2224811.column It's also because many conservative officeholders will continue to resist letting them become citizens, while constantly faulting border enforcement efforts. Liberals, by the way, may also push to loosen the terms for the path to citizenship. No one is going to move on very soon. No one is going to forget how anyone voted. If you're a Republican House member from a solidly Republican district, voting for immigration reform is an invitation for constituents to show up at meetings in your district, vehemently complaining. It's also an invitation for an opponent to run against you in 2014 or even 2016, blaming you for a process that will still be unfolding and still be controversial. There are good policy reasons to vote for reform -- but in the end, the political risks to House Republicans are likely to sink it.

No pass vote counts and tight reelection races Jim Avila et al, 7/9/13, Path to 218: Why one political scientist is skeptical the House will get the
votes to pass immigration reform, Power Players (ABC News), http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/powerplayers-abc-news/path-218-why-one-political-scientist-skeptical-house-112127290.html#more-id What are the chances that the House of Representatives will pass comprehensive immigration reform? Political scientist Tom Wong has been taking a scientific approach to answering that very question, tallying votes and crunching numbers to forecast the potential outcomes, and tells Power Players hes skeptical the House will follow the Senates lead and pass a comprehensive bill. Based on his own vote tally, Wong says there are 203 solid yes votes in the House and an additional 11 votes that are likely but not guaranteed. If we take that 203 number, add 11 more we're at 214, and we need 218 for a majority, so this ends up being a game of inches, says the assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. It could go either way in the House. The 11 votes that Wong has designated as maybe votes are for representatives who are facing tight reelection races in 2014. Wong says more than 60 percent of congressional districts are not racially diverse, with white populations making up more than 80 percent of those districts. If we just make these broad assumptions that immigration reform is going to benefit communities of color and we have a lot of representatives who don't have large communities of color in their district, then a no vote may actually reflect the preferences of one's constituency, Wong says. Wong has a track record of success in his approach to vote counting, which takes into account complex profiles for each member of Congress. As far back as March, his models predicted that the Senate would get 67 yes votes and the final tally of the Senates vote came out to 68. Wong says theres a lot of pessimism right now that the Republican-run House may decide not to consider the Senates bill at all and instead choose to address immigration reform in smaller pieces. NBC Political

No pass calendar year and lack of conservative backer Joe Saunders, 7/8/13, Meet the Press panel: Immigration reform dead in House, Bizpac,
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/08/meet-the-press-panel-immigration-reform-dead-in-house79332 Director Chuck Todd said the combination of the calendar and conservative convictions doesnt bode well for the huge package passed by the Senate in June. House Republicans are scheduled to meet

Wednesday to discuss the bill, and former President George W. Bush is scheduled to speak in support of it the same day at an immigration ceremony in Dallas. However, with no conservative champion in the House to act as a counterpart to the role U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., played in the Senate, the bills chances are poor, said correspondent Andrea Mitchell. The White House, they had been so confident they were going to sign immigration reform this year, for the first time Im hearing that there is some doubt seeping in, that they think maybe the House wont act. What they need is, they need something to sort of force (House Speaker John) Boehner like at the last minute bring it to the floor the same way the fiscal cliff deal happened. The problem is there is no trigger at the end of the year, there isnt the end of this Congress there isnt this. So I dont know how this happens at the end of this year and suddenly now the White House doesnt see a path, Todd said.. Immigration was going to be the one thing they could have pointed to, Mitchell said. And I think that conversation with John Boehner and the president, the president doesnt have a whole well of trust in Boehner saying, you know, hang with me, I can get this done by the end of the summer. They dont have a Marco Rubio on the House side who can try to work around this and bring it together. It was supposed to be Paul Ryan Todd said. Hes gone silent, Mitchell said.

No pass Boehner and path to citizenship Jake Miller, 7/6/13, What will the House do on immigration reform?, CBS News,
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57592500/what-will-the-house-do-on-immigration-reform/ If lawmakers can't bridge the divide over a path to citizenship, someone has to give, or the process falls apart. In the end, the most consequential outstanding question is how far Boehner will go in accommodating the concerns of his base as the House crafts its immigration bill. If he reaches a point at which he believes the House has moved too far away from the Senate's proposal, he will face a choice: He could risk torpedoing the reform process entirely by passing a conservative bill on a party-line vote that would likely die in conference with the Senate. Or he could move a comprehensive bill to the floor of the House for a vote, even without the support of a majority of Republicans, potentially inviting a conservative insurrection. Several House Republicans have already threatened to depose Boehner if he schedules a vote on an immigration bill without the approval of a majority of his conference. And thus far, Boehner has given no indication that he plans to move a bill without his troops behind him . "I don't see any way of bringing an immigration reform bill to the floor that doesn't have the majority support of Republicans," he told reporters in June.

No pass border security and citizenship poison pill Brian Beutler, 7/9/13, Boehner And The Right Team Up To Quash Immigration Reform, TPM,
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/boehner-and-the-right-team-up-to-quash-immigrationreform.php The already narrow path to enacting comprehensive immigration reform pretty much disappeared in the past 24 hours. At the Capitol, House Speaker John Boehner stated a specific policy preference Tuesday that will alienate the entire Democratic Party if he adheres to it, and thus doom the reform effort. And elsewhere in the Beltway, influential conservatives have grown more confident and explicit about abandoning the immigration issue, for at least a couple of years. Taken together, it means that enacting new immigration legislation will either require Democrats to cave on a key demand, or require Boehner to abandon his preference and break his word to his conference that he wont move ahead without a majority of his members in support. Its clear from everything that Ive seen and read over the last couple of weeks that the American people expect that well have strong border security in place before we begin the process of legalizing and fixing our legal immigration system, Boehner said outside the Capitol Monday afternoon. His spokesman Michael Steel explains that the statement is consistent with Boehners long-standing emphasis on border security. But it amounts to a de facto

endorsement of the conservative view that any steps to legalize existing immigrants should be contingent upon implementation of draconian border policies. As is Boehners custom, it also eschews the word citizenship, suggesting that even if Democrats agree to a trigger, he wont guarantee that it would be aimed at a full amnesty program, and, thus, eventual voting rights for immigrants already in the U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called this policy formulation a poison pill. But if conservatives get their way, well never even reach the point at which Boehner or Democrats will face pressure to cave.

No pass Boehner Chris Weigant, 7/8/13, Political writer and blogger, Boehners immigration dilemma, Huffington
Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/boehners-immigration-dile_b_3563763.html Boehner will feel the heat no matter what he does, from one wing or another of his own party. If he fails to pass a bill that the Senate can also support, then he faces the prospect of an awfully chilly reception from Republican donors who want to see immigration reform happen -- some of them with quite deep pockets. If they desert the House Republicans, it's going to have an effect on both 2014 and 2016 fundraising efforts. A core Republican constituency -- Big Business -- wants this to happen, remember. But if Boehner does pass a reasonable bill, then his own speakership may hang in the balance. John Boehner could face a challenge from within his own party for the speaker's gavel, although whether such a coup attempt could succeed is questionable (the Tea Party is loud, but they're not all that numerous, even in the House). But he would be excoriated for passing an immigration bill largely with Democratic votes, and every Republican who voted for it could expect a Tea Party challenger in the next primary. The rage would be red hot, to put it mildly. Boehner has already passed several pieces of legislation in this fashion (in Republican-speak, "breaking the Hastert Rule"), including a tax hike on upper-income earners at the beginning of this year. Passing immigration reform without "a majority of the majority" would likely be seen as the last straw. Democrats who think it'd be amusing to watch Boehner get ousted from the speakership by hotheads in his own party should sober up quick with the thought of who would replace him? Speaker Ryan? Speaker Cantor? If you think the House is obstructionist now, just contemplate for one moment what it would be like with someone to the right of Boehner in control.

No pass no vote means no bill Ginger Gibson, 7/8/13, John Boehner: No House vote on Senate immigration bill, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/john-boehner-house-immigration-vote-93845.html House Speaker John Boehner is sticking to his position: The House will not vote on the Senate-passed immigration bill. Ive made it clear and Ill make it clear again, the House does not intend to take up the Senate bill, Boehner said Monday. The House is going to do its own job in developing an immigration bill. On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pushed at Boehners insistence that he will obey by the Hastert rule, which requires a majority of the Republican caucus support any legislation before it moves to the floor. Eventually hell be forced to take the bill that we passed here, or the country will be left with no immigration reform at all. Which is a bad, bad outcome, Reid said on the Senate floor.

CIR wont pass- vote counts Avila et al 7-9-13

Avila is a member of the ABC news Power Players team, internally referencing Tom Wong, political scientist at UC, San Diego

Path to 218: Why one political scientist is skeptical the House will get the votes to pass immigration reform By Jim Avila, Richard Coolidge, and Jordyn Phelps http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-playersabc-news/path-218-why-one-political-scientist-skeptical-house-112127290.html What are the chances that the House of Representatives will pass comprehensive immigration reform? Political scientist Tom Wong has been taking a scientific approach to answering that very question, tallying votes and crunching numbers to forecast the potential outcomes, and tells Power Players hes skeptical the House will follow the Senates lead and pass a comprehensive bill. Based on his own vote tally, Wong says there are 203 solid yes votes in the House and an additional 11 votes that are likely but not guaranteed. If we take that 203 number, add 11 more we're at 214, and we need 218 for a majority, so this ends up being a game of inches, says the assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. It could go either way in the House. The 11 votes that Wong has designated as maybe votes are for representatives who are facing tight reelection races in 2014. Wong says more than 60 percent of congressional districts are not racially diverse, with white populations making up more than 80 percent of those districts. If we just make these broad assumptions that immigration reform is going to benefit communities of color and we have a lot of representatives who don't have large communities of color in their district, then a no vote may actually reflect the preferences of one's constituency, Wong says. Wong has a track record of success in his approach to vote counting, which takes into account complex profiles for each member of Congress. As far back as March, his models predicted that the Senate would get 67 yes votes and the final tally of the Senates vote came out to 68.

House is in no rush to pass the bill-No public outcry and Boehners not pushing Matthews 7/3, Laura Matthews received her Masters in journalism from Columbia University and is a U.S. Politics reporter for the
International Business Times, (Laura, July 3, 2013, Here's Why House Republicans Are In No Rush On A 2013 Immigration Reform Bill http://www.ibtimes.com/heres-why-house-republicans-are-no-rush-2013-immigration-reform-bill-1333259)nasokan

Theres no sense of urgency by House Republicans to quickly pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, because theres no public outcry as yet -- and business and religious groups are just as divided as lawmakers. The faith community is divided on this issue as well, Rep. James Lankfor, R-Okla., told the Hill. He added that
business groups are divided over the flow of future immigrants and a guest worker program. The Senate passed its comprehensive immigration reform bill last week, with a solid 68-32 vote. It was the result of bipartisan negotiations with the pro-business Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the U.S., working to find common ground on issues such as admitting foreign workers. Now

all eyes are looking at the House, where immigration reform advocates are hoping members will follow suit with a plan that also provides a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the country. Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team face a decision that will have ramifications for a generation: Block a roadmap to citizenship vote, obstruct the will of overwhelming majorities of working people and face a generation of electoral decline -- or support citizenship and embrace Americas diverse future, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said last week. But Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, is refusing to bring the Senates version of an immigration reform bill to the House floor for a vote. He is also in no hurry. the Republican conference will hold a special meeting on Wednesday. A bipartisan group in the House has been working on a comprehensive bill but is yet to produce it. So far, the House has begun working on single-issue bills that deal with border security, interior enforcement and guest worker programs. If immigration reform is going to work, its essential that the American people have the confidence that its being
done correctly, Boehner said last week. Thats how the House will approach this issue. Despite the tough talk, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and a member of the House Gang of Seven, whose bipartisan work for immigration reform mirrors the Senate's Gang of Eight, believes Boehner will compromise. He told MSNBC earlier this week that a majority of the House is ready to vote on reform, especially dozens in the Republican caucus. Boehner

is not the kind of -- how would I say it -- ideological guys, Gutierrez said. Hes not a very ideological person when it comes to pushing. He wants to reach a consensus, I believe that about him, and hes in a quandary right now with a majority of his party that doesnt want him to allow a vote for comprehensive immigration reform.

Thumpers

Obamacare Thumper
Obamacare changes kill CIR raises doubt in the house Dan Weil, 7/8/13, John Fund: Obamacare Delay Jeopardizes Immigration Reform, NewsMax,
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Fund-Obamacare-immigration-delay/2013/07/08/id/513818 The White House decision to postpone the employer mandate in Obamacare will make it more difficult for Congress to pass immigration reform, insists National Review Online columnist John Fund. "The Obama administration's instinctive dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law are finally catching up with it," he writes. "Few Republicans in the House even those who devoutly want immigration reform trust the Obama administration to enforce with consistency and integrity anything that passes Congress." Part of that stems from the White House's action on Obamacare. The act requires any company with more than 50 full-time employees to offer health insurance as of 2014 or face a fine. Last week the administration pushed back the start date of that provision to 2015. "White House aides fretted that enforcing the mandate's timetable would hurt job creation in the run-up to the 2014 midterm elections and put Democratic control of the Senate in jeopardy," Fund says. "The White House could have handled the problem as the Constitution envisioned and opened up negotiations with Congress to change the law. But it quickly concluded that the Republican House would demand too much in exchange for any adjustment to the law." Fund notes that "the greatest damage from delaying the employer mandate may come in the way it solidifies House Republican doubts about the immigration bill," a view that was confirmed by Tennessee Rep. Phil Roe. "They have shown no respect for traditional Constitutional separation of powers, and that makes it difficult to pass laws where the fear is that they will simply ignore the parts they dont like," Roe told Fund.

Obamacare changes thump CIR Brian Beutler, 7/8/13, Right Realizes It Cant Kill Immigration Reform Without An Excuse, TPM,
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/conservatives-immigration-reform-excuse.php While Republicans settle on a least-bad immigration strategy, its dawned on reform opponents and their conservative allies that if the effort dies in the House, theyll need to bring a plausible excuse to the public that is, if they hope to sidestep at least some of the blame for the debacle. And they think theyve found one. Specifically, they hope to draw a connection between the White Houses recent health care reform implementation decisions and border security measures in the Senates immigration bill to claim their opposition to comprehensive reform stems not from substantive objections but from a sense that the Obama administration will ignore parts of an immigration law it doesnt like. If you look at this Obamacare debacle that they have right now, this administration is actually deciding when and where to actually enforce the law. And thats what some of us in the House are concerned about, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), who until recently was a leading immigration reform negotiator in the House, said Sunday on Meet the Press. If you give to this administration the authority to decide when theyre going to enforce the law, how theyre going to enforce the law I can tell you that Janet Napolitano has already said that the border is secure. So whats going to happen is that were going to give legalization to 11 million people, and Janet Napolitanos goi ng to come to Congress and tell us that the borders already secure, and nothing else needs to happen.

Aff Link Turns

Plan Popular Farm Lobby

Farm lobbies are pushing for comprehensive reform which would ensure a guest worker program Chebium, 6/7 (Raju, Desert Sun Washington Bureau, Jun. 17, 2013, Growers lobby for immigration
bill: Proposed measure being debated in the Senate could prove tough sell in the House, My Desert, http://www.mydesert.com/article/20130616/ NEWS10/306160009/Growers-lobby-immigration-bill) WASHINGTON Farm groups in California, the nations top agricultural producer, are lobbying for the Senates immigration bill, which proposes bringing in thousands of new migrant workers and allowing undocumented employees already in the U.S. to become legal, permanent residents in about 10 years. But their push could hit a wall in the House, where conservative Republicans oppose what they call amnesty to 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., even though critics acknowledge California farmers have a labor-supply problem. The California farm lobby says the measure being debated in the Senate would ease chronic labor shortages that plague fruit and vegetable growers in the Coachella, Central and Salinas valley, where the bulk of the nations specialty crops are grown. The bill would scrap the unpopular H2A migrant worker visa and create a new guest worker program the W visa under which at least 336,000 migrant workers could come to the U.S. for the first five years after implementation. It would also allow hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers to apply for blue cards first and then for green, or permanent residency, cards. The full legalization process would take about 10 years for migrant workers, more
quickly than others. And the measure calls for a special employer-verification system for agricultural employers separate from the E-Verify system other industries would have to use. Congress must put

migrant farmers on the road to legalization because if they leave the states agriculture industry would collapse, according to the California Farm Bureau, Nisei Farmers
League and others who helped craft the agricultural provisions and are part of a 70-member coalition lobbying for its passage. Paul Wenger, president of the California Farm Bureau, urged the House to accept the workable solutions in the Senate bill. We

have to have a

reliable supply of labor. What we need is regulatory certainty, he said. We have a unique opportunity this year and this year alone to solve an ongoing problem. If Congress eliminates the labor provisions now it may ignore the issue for years, he warned. California growers have been waiting since the 1986 immigration law for Congress to create a stable
supply of migrant workers to fill the gaps created by the scarcity of domestic applicants for farm jobs, advocates say. Manuel Cunha, president of Nisei Farmers League, urged the House to embrace the Senates agriculture-specific provisions instead of trying to come up with a lesssuitable alternative. Were

not rubbing the Senate (bill) in their face, but were saying, Look at it. We worked for four solid months with four senators and the labor side and we came up with something, Cunha said in a recent interview in Fresno. Take away your politics and look at the issue and look at the merits of what were doing here. California Republicans from heavily agricultural districts like Rep. Devin Nunes of Tulare dont reject the
Senates agriculture provisions outright, but say they wont work as promised. Its laughable to think the measure would help California growers, he said. For one, it would sharply ratchet up labor costs, said Nunes, adding that hes working on a somewhat similar set of proposals for possible inclusion in a House immigration bill. Theres been a concerted effort by some to say, Just take the Senate bill. Ive been telling people ad nauseam that is a fatal strategy. That will kill immigration reform, Nunes said. The Senate agriculture provisions were written by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida and Orrin Hatch of Utah. Bennet and Rubio are members of the Gang of Eight, a bipartisan group of senators that crafted the overall bill. A sim ilar bipartisan effort to write a comprehensive bill is sputtering in the House, the victim of partisan bickering. House GOP leaders hope to pass a number of narrower bills and reach a compromise with the Senate later. Advocates reject a farm worker bill introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., saying it would require workers to go home periodically, heightening the possibility of a sporadic supply of workers. The Senates proposed W visa program would require growers to pay transportation costs for the workers, provide them with housing or housing allowances, and pay them wages ranging from at least $9.17 an hour for nursery and greenhouse workers to $11.87 for farm equipment operators. The wage provisions are expected to spark fierce opposition in the House. Californias minimum wage is $8 an hour, but some farmers pay more than that already. For instance, Central Valley farmers typically pay their workers at least a dollar more, Cunha said, rejecting suggestions that mandating a higher wage would ruin local growers. Migrant workers in southern Californias Coachella Valley could make up to $15-$20 an hour, according to Saul Manriquez of Rancho Harvest, a labor contracting firm that works with growers in the Coachella and Salinas valleys. Undocumented workers seek a living wage and also want to pay taxes and become part of U.S. society, he said, adding that they dont want to be separated from their families or to live in constant fear of deportation. Theyd rather be part of the system than not be here at all, Manriquez said, as his workers harvested watermelons in a southern California field. They want to do better for themselves and also for their families. They want to raise families here because ... the educational system is much better.

Growers say they are forced to depend on seasonal

migrant workers many of whom are undocumented because Americans shun the hard labor involved. For
instance, Cunha said San Joaquin Valley growers needed about 80,000 workers in the late 1990s, but were able to attract just three citizens or legal residents through Californias welfare-to-work program. Margit Chiriaco Rusche, southern district director of California Women for Agriculture, said if migrant workers are willing to work, its only fair for Congress to make them part of mainstream U.S. society. There

are so many farmers that have tried to employ ... Americans and they last maybe an hour. They cant do this work. This is a cultural thing, she said in an interview in Coachella. Its not fair to these people for us to glean from them what we need and not allow them the human dignity of becoming legal residents. Ellen Way, part owner of Californias top bell-pepper producer Prime Time International, urged Congress to stress practicality over ideology. Having food grown in the U.S. to American standards is important for national security but to do that we have to have a workforce, she said. As a voter, Im looking for Congress to grow up and to be responsible and to work together. I think Americans are sick of this bickering, Way said. Even critics of the Senates immigration bill, like Rosemary
Jenks of Numbers USA, acknowledge that American farmers have a labor problem and are justified in wanting an effective migrant-worker program. But the Senates proposed W visa is temporary in name only because workers could eventually apply for green cards, she said. And once they become permanent residents, they leave farm work for less-strenuous and better-paying work, she said. Under an ideal guest worker program, Congress would let people come in for specified periods of time and require them to return home, Jenks said. The Senate bill doesnt do that. The Senate bill says, Bring your families, well educate your kids, she said in a telephone interview Friday. Whos going to be paying for their kids education? American taxpayers. Whos going to be paying for their health care? ... American taxpayers.

Farm Lobbies want a functioning guest worker program Florido, 1/28 (Adrian, a reporter for the Fronteras Desk where he covers the U.S.-Mexico border,
immigrant and tribal communities, demographics, and culture, January 28th, 2013, Farmers And Advocates Want Guest Worker Reform, Fronteras, http://www.fronterasdesk.org/content/farmersand-advocates-want-guest-worker-reform) SAN DIEGO -- As talk of immigration reform heats up, overhauling the nations guest worker program as part of an immigration reform package has become a top priority for the nations farm lobby. They say making it easier to bring in foreign labor is more important than ever as domestic farm labor has become scarce in recent years. Noel Stehly said his organic farm is an example. Its at the end of a winding country road an hour north of San Diego. Its 200 acres, but his crops, mostly orange and avocado groves, stretch out in rows across just 110 of those acres. Ive had to cut back on what I plant in my fields. Ive decided not to harvest some things because I couldnt get the labor to do it, he said. Its been a common complaint among farmers for the last three to four years: The economy and tougher immigration enforcement have sapped the local workforce dry. In theory, this shouldnt be a problem. A federal guest worker program called H-2A allows Stehly, or any farmer in the nation, to bring in as many temporary foreign workers - say, from Mexico - as they need. But Stehly hasnt even considered it. Instead, he relies on a
core team of longtime employees to recruit friends and family for seasonal labor when its harvest time. He said the H-2A program is cumbersome and expensive. Sure the H-2A program says go ahead and bring farm workers in, but the

H-2A program doesnt

work, said Eric Larson, director of the San Diego County Farm Bureau, which represents San Diego farmers. To participate in H-2A, farmers
have to prove to the Labor Department that they tried to hire U.S. workers but couldnt. They have to transport guest workers from their home country, provide housing and three meals a day. They also have to show their guest workers wont depress local wages, among other requirements. All this means lots of money, paperwork and often, attorneys. Consequently nobody uses it, Larson said. I think we have one farmer in San Diego County that uses the H-2A for about eight workers, where in reality we have 10,000-12,000 farm workers in San Diego County. Nationally, farmers recruit about 55,000 H-2A workers each year, mostly in Florida and the Midwest. But

farmers want to

make bringing in guest workers easier . What Larson wants is simple: a card that would let Mexican farm workers cross the border when needed, and return home when farmers seasonal needs end. But that
proposal is meeting resistance, largely from groups concerned that a liberalized guest worker program could hurt workers. They point to stories like a farmer in Oceanside, north of San Diego, who wouldnt give his name so as not to jeopardize his chances of getting hired to pick tomatoes next summer. Hes picked fruit in San Diego since he arrived illegally in the 70s. He became a citizen when Ronald Reagan sig ned an amnesty, and for years hes picked on a large tomato farm that has used temporary H-2A workers. He said working alongside guest workers has increased pressure to pick fruit quickly. The contracted guest workers are young and expected to work fast, for long hours, and he said that puts pressure on older, local workers like him. The bosses tell us, move it, move it! he said. We have to keep up with the contract workers. But he said its impossible for older workers like him to keep up, and he worries that because of that, his working days on that farm may be numbered. Cynthia Rice is an attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance, which provides legal aid to farm workers. She said that workers story highlights the threat H-2A poses to both guest workers and U.S. farm workers. The

H-2A program still creates a second class of

workers, Rice said. Under H-2A, guest workers are bound to the employer that recruited them, and arent allowed to seek work elsewhere
if theyre mistreated, overworked or underpaid. Theyre legally protected against abuse, but in practice, Rice said, most workers have little recourse in such cases except to endure or go home. The H-2A worker cant really vote with his feet, she said. She said that captive work force makes it easy for an employer to impose grueling production demands on guest workers, who have no choice but to meet them. Thats also bad for older, slower workers like the one from Oceanside, who fear being replaced for not keeping up. Concerns

of

abuse and displacement of local workers are driving some advocacy groups across the country to oppose any kind of guest-worker program. They say that contrary to farmers claims, labor is available, and their focus is on legalizing the millions of undocumented people already in the U.S. so they can fill these jobs, and possibly demand higher wages. But industry and farmers say they have to remain competitive, and say their ability to bring in efficient guest workers is key to that.
A reformed and expanded guest worker program is widely expected, which is why some advocates are pushing for more worker protections. Noel Stehly, the citrus and avocado farmer, says whats clear to him is that he needs the work, and the proofs in his farm operating below capacity. How come thats so tough? Because our one recent afternoon. Now, for the first time in a long time, it

politics doesnt want to do it, he said looks like politicians are serious about tackling the issue.

Farmers plead for immigration reform- crops are being left to rot in the fields Associated Press, 13 (July 8th, 2013, Farmers worry about fate of immigration bills,
http://www.onenewsnow.com/ap/business/farmers-worry-about-fate-of-immigrationbills#.UdxwRD7wKNw)
Across the state's orchard belt, cherry trees already sag under the weight of bright-red clusters, yet many trailers and wood-frame cottages that should be bustling with migrant families stand empty. McGuire is waiting to hear whether crews will show up to pick his crop in mid-July. "We're running out of time," he said, pulling aside leafy branches to inspect his ripening fruit on gently sloping hillsides a mile inland from Lake Michigan. From Christmas tree growers in the Appalachians to Wisconsin dairy farmers and producers of California's diverse abundance of

agricultural leaders are pleading with Congress for an immigration bill that includes more lenient and less complex rules for hiring farm workers. A measure that recently cleared the Democratic-led
fruits and vegetables, Senate contained provisions that the farm lobby said were promising. The Republican-controlled House is expected to take up the issue shortly. But with agriculture's once-mighty political influence in decline as its workforce has fallen to 2 percent of the population, it's uncertain how the industry will fare. Farmers'

complaints about a shrinking labor pool are being overshadowed by the ideologically charged issues of border security and giving legal status to people in the country illegally.
McGuire, 42, a self-described conservative who usually votes Republican, was among representatives of the American Farm Bureau Federation who made their case on Capitol Hill last week. His Michigan group went to the offices of eight lawmakers and to the Senate floor, buttonholing members or their staffers. "Each office had their party speech," McGuire said, recalling one member's argument about border security. But the border must already be pretty secure, McGuire said, "because we don't have the labor in this country that we used to have." Michigan farmers hire about 45,000 seasonal workers in the typical year, many of them immigrants. Some of the asparagus

crop was left in the field this spring because too few pickers were available. In neighboring Wisconsin, immigrant workers make up more than 40
percent of the hired labor force at increasingly large dairy operations, according to a 2008 University of Wisconsin study. Kevin Krentz, who milks 500 cows near Berlin, said finding enough help locally is a constant struggle. "It's not a job that's 9-to-5," Krentz said. "It's a job that's done when the cows are fed, when the cows are milked, when the crops are harvested." The situation poses a test for the House GOP, said Tom Nassif, president of Western Growers, a trade organization that represents the fresh produce industry in California and Arizona. A Republican who held several positions in the Reagan administration, Nassif said some in the party are so concerned about illegal immigration that they're trying to sabotage any chance for reform. But if the House doesn't find something it can pass, he said, voters

"are going to lose complete faith in the party's ability to legislate. All the national statistics show the American people believe in immigration reform." The industry insists its chronic labor shortage isn't a matter of low pay, but too few Americans
willing to deal with the long hours, hot weather and other hardships of farm labor. "The truth is, not even farm workers are raising their children to be farm workers," Nassif said. The Senate bill

would enable experienced farm workers to obtain "blue cards" making them eligible for year-round residency. Applicants who entered the U.S. illegally would have to pay a fine,
catch up on taxes and pass a background check. Another new program would allow farmers to hire foreign "guest workers" who would be issued three-year visas. But such policies might be a hard sell with House conservatives who deride the idea as "amnesty." Rep. Justin Amash, whose western Michigan district includes the city of Grand Rapids and outlying farm country, is typical of Republicans feeling pressure from both sides. Home-state farmers visited his Washington, D.C., office twice last week. Mark Youngquist, an apple grower from Amash's district, later gave one of his aides an orchard tour. During a town-hall meeting the same day, the second-term Republican described the farm labor shortage as "a problem we should deal with" and called for compromise on immigration. But Amash's comment that deportation wasn't a realistic way to deal with all 11 million people believed to be in the country illegally drew angry shouts. "They're criminals," one man protested. Youngquist, 53, another staunch Republican, said he wished his fellow conservatives were more sympathetic toward immigrants who fill jobs

that no one else will take. The

more intense border enforcement appears to be taking its toll, he said. His migrant sitting on a beautiful crop of apples. Unless things change, none of it is going to get picked." labor housing that is usually half-full for the approaching apple harvest is now "at zero," he said. "We're

Farmers support the aff specific to uncapped Abbott 5-16-13

Political Journalist for Reuters U.S. grower group asks for no limit on foreign field workers May 16, 2013|Reuters By Charles Abbotthttp://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-16/news/sns-rt-usaimmigrationfarmworkersl2n0dx2g6-20130516_1_bob-goodlatte-workers-u-s-house "Farmers need the program to be uncapped," said Lee Wicker, deputy director of the North Carolina Growers Association, the largest H-2A user group in the country. Its members expect to employ 7,500 guest workers during the growing season as well as thousands of Americans. At a Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Wicker said farmers can face bankruptcy if they cannot get enough workers into the field when crops are ready to pick. Also, consumers pay higher produce prices if crops rot in the field. Goodlatte's bill would create a H-2C visa, good for up to three years and renewable for 18 months at a time, for farm, seafood and food processing employees. It would be the first time processors could hire guest workers for year-round jobs. A coalition of growers and the United Farm Workers union backs the Senate approach, which includes a path to citizenship for farm workers in the country illegally as well as a new guest worker program. It allows visas to run for up to three years at a time but does not include packing-plant workers.

Farm Lobbies Key Agenda

The agricultural industry- Farm Lobbies- are the deciding factor in the immigration bill Nixon, 4/18 (Ron, Domestic Correspondent at The New York Times, April 18, 2013, Fate of the
Immigration Bill May Hinge on Farm Districts, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/ 2013/04/19/us/immigration-bills-fate-may-hinge-on-farm-districts.html?_r=0) WASHINGTON Any chance of getting immigration legislation through the House will most likely depend on representatives like Doc Hastings. While he has not been the most outspoken about immigration issues, proponents of an overhaul are counting on Mr. Hastings, a Republican, for one reason: His Congressional district, which cuts a wide path through the center of Washington State, depends heavily on agriculture, an industry with a significant stake in the outcome of the debate. Much of Washingtons $46 billion agriculture sector is in Mr. Hastingss district, where farmers grow everything from apples to wheat. Local agribusinesses there rely on a work force largely composed of immigrants, thousands of whom are believed to be in the country illegally. A
coalition of 11 agriculture groups has launched a major lobbying campaign in support of an immigration overhaul. Members of the effort, known as the Agricultural Workforce Coalition, see representatives from districts where thousands of jobs depend on agriculture as key to any effort to pass the legislation. Agriculture

Department data shows that Republicans represent 17 of the top 20 districts where agriculture is a major industry. And farm groups are hoping that local concerns will trump national politics as
the legislation moves forward in the Republican-controlled House, where it will most likely face a tough challenge from conservatives who have been hostile to previous attempts to change the system. Republicans

from big agriculture districts will definitely be the deciding factor in getting any type of immigration reform through the House, said Dean Norton, a dairy farmer who is president of the New York Farm Bureau. There is a lot of clamoring in these districts to do something about immigration. Mr. Hastings has not said if he would support the immigration legislation introduced in the Senate, but he has backed efforts to help the farm sector in the past. Neal Kirby, Mr. Hastingss spokesman, said the congressman has long advocated for a guest worker program for agriculture that is workable and will provide central Washington farmers with the legal work force they need to fill jobs that Americans are not willing to do. Developing a workable program as a part of immigration reform is critical to central Washingtons economy, he said. The farm sector has been a core constituency of the Republican Party for many years.
the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington research group, shows that since 1990, Campaign contribution data from

agriculture interests have mostly

given to Republicans in Congress.

Last year, farm-heavy districts voted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney. Tom Nassif, president

of the Western Growers, and Chuck Conners, president of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, two of the organizations pushing for immigration legislation, were advisers to Mr. Romney during the campaign. Agricultures

main focus is on changing the H-2A visa program, which allows fruit and vegetable growers, slaughterhouses and other agribusinesses to hire temporary workers for jobs that cannot be filled by Americans. The system allows foreign workers to enter the country on a visa for no longer
than one year. But agriculture officials say the current system does not work because industries like dairy farming and meat production are year-round enterprises and are unable to fill their need for workers. They also say the program is overly bureaucratic. Among the changes the farm sector wants to see is the replacement of the seasonal visa program with one that would allow workers to accept a job under a three-year visa. The agriculture groups, which lobbied heavily on Capitol Hill as a group of senators worked to draft an immigration bill, say they will soon began a similar campaign in the House. We

will bring the weight of growers in all 50 states to the Senate and the House in support of this legislation, said Tom Stenzel, chief executive of the United Fresh Produce Association, a trade group of
fruit and vegetable growers. Despite high unemployment in Mr. Hastingss Washington district, growers and other farm interests there say they still suffer from worker shortages because of current immigration laws. Mr. Kirby, Mr. Hastingss spokesman, said the congressman had met with the farm lobbying coalition and had been in contact with growers. This

has been a longtime priority of Congressman

Hastings, he said.

Farm Lobby hold the most power in congress- Cow Tax incident proves Drum, 11/9 (Kevin, a political blogger for Mother Jones, November/December 2009 Issue

Betting the Farm Think the ag lobbywith so much to lose from global warmingmight want to help pass a climate bill? Don't be silly, Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/11/betting-farm)
You've heard the rumors that the Pentagon engineered 9/11. You know about the folks who think Barack Obama wasn't born in America. Last summer you learned every possible synonym for "death panel." But have you heard the one about the cow tax? Unless you're a farmer, probably not. This one goes back to the

waning days of the Bush administration, when the EPA, after a long fight from environmentalists, grudgingly released a preliminary notice that outlined how the Clean Air Act could be used to control greenhouse gases. Buried deep in the document, on page 44,377 of that day's Federal Register to be exact, was a comment from the USDA warning that if the proposed rules were applied to the ag sector which generates CO2 emissions in many ways, from cow burps to soil tillage"even very small" farms might be affected. The American Farm Bureau Federation leaped into action: DC bureaucrats were proposing a cow tax! It could cost producers as much as $175 for each dairy cow! Farmers freaked out. The Bush administration, of course, had no intention of regulating greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act, let alone applying any such regs to farms. Neither does the Obama administration, which never viewed the Clean Air Act as anything other than a vague fallback threat to help gain support for its own climate bill. But the lesson from the cow-tax uprising was clear anyway: Don't ever, ever get crosswise with the ag lobby. They will sink you. So when the Waxman-Markey climate bill was written, power plants were covered. Chemical factories were covered. Refineries were covered. But agriculture? Not covered. At all. Farms can emit greenhouse gases
until sea levels have risen enough to give Iowans an ocean view and never pay a dime. With agriculture fully exempt from emission caps, the farm lobby was happy. Right? Of course not. "It

really has taken on a life of its own," Farm Bureau lobbyist Rick Krause told the AP in Junemodestly understating his own role in spreading the cow-tax meme in the first place. "This is something that people understand. All that we have to say is that [cows] are the next step with these proposed permit fees. And people are still talking about it." They are indeed. Because while most industries would be happy to win a total and
unconditional victory, agriculture isn't like most industries. They still had complaints, chief among them the fact that the bill would modestly raise the price of energy and chemicals in the future, and farmers buy energy and chemicals. Everyone else does too, of course, and that's the whole point: Higher prices will provide an incentive to use less energy and fewer chemicals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing global warming. But

everyone else doesn't have the power of the ag lobby behind them. "Farm Bureau" may sound rural and heartlandish, but in reality it's a multibillion-dollar trade association cum insurance company with branches in all 50 states and close ties to agribusiness giants like Archer Daniels Midland and Novartis, not to mention a few dozen farm-state senators. With clout like that, shared sacrifice clearly isn't an acceptable
option, even in the service of fixing a problem that poses an enormous threat to farmers. (Global warming is projected to hit heartland states the hardestand even small shifts in temperature can have disastrous consequences for crop yields.) And so, the

lobby demanded compensation for those higher energy and chemical prices, even though they would mean only a tiny hit to farm
incomes1 percent at most for the next nine years, according to the USDA. The compensation they got came via something called offsets. Under Waxman-Markey's cap-and-trade provisions, you'd have to buy permits for the CO2 you emit, but you can reduce the number of permits you have to buy if you do things to reduce greenhouse gases. Some offsets are legitimate; some are smoke and mirrors. The way to support the former and weed out the latter is to have the EPA keep a close eye on things. But the ag lobby insisted that the farm-friendly USDA be put in charge of the offset program instead. Change the way you till the soil so thatmaybe, possiblyless carbon is released, and voil! You get a check. The USDA estimates that an average wheat farmer could make an extra $1,775 a year this way. But that still wasn't enough for the ag lobby. Next on their hit list was protection for ethanol. For years corn farmers have argued that ethanol has a lower carbon footprint than gasoline. It turns out that this isn't true if you take into account the land-use changes that accompany ethanol production: The corn grown for ethanol displaces feed corn, which displaces soybean crops, which causes Brazilian farmers 6,000 miles away to make up the difference by growing more soybeans on their pastureland. This in turn displaces their cattle to new pastures created by clearcutting the rainforest, thus wiping out all of ethanol's carbon benefits. The net effect, the

EPA's scientists have concluded, is that ethanol's real carbon footprint is about the same as gasoline'sor even worse. The ag lobby's response was simple and direct: They insisted that Waxman-Markey be changed to forbid federal agencies from considering indirect land-use changes when assessing the greenhouse gas footprint of ethanol. End of discussion. The
experts were agog. "This is not a close scientific call," wrote Michael O'Hare, a public policy professor at UC-Berkeley who's studied land-use issues extensively for the California Air Resources Board. "If we are willing to make stuff up and stifle the science with legislation like this, countries like India and China and the Europeans have no reason to get on board...It will be a catastrophe." In other words, by throwing their considerable weight around, the ag lobby can smash political crockery halfway across the world. But they have more subtle ways of showing their strength, too. Back in July, for example, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put a hold on Thomas Shannon, President Obama's nominee for ambassador to Brazil. There was no question about Shannon's qualifications, only about his fealty to the corn lobby: In his

confirmation hearings, Shannon had the gall to suggest that eliminating import tariffs on sugar-based ethanol (mostly from Brazil) might be "beneficial." Which it would be, since sugar ethanol is both cheaper and more environmentally friendly than domestic corn ethanol. But those are fighting words in the Corn Belt, and Grassley lifted his hold only after the White House rolled over and reassured him in writing that the ethanol tariff wouldn't be touched. They understood the score: Don't mess with the ag lobby. Not even a little bit. In fairness, farmers have some arguments on their side. Regulating their greenhouse emissions is difficult, and exempting them is a defensible position. Some offsets are useful, and the USDA might turn out to do a good job of regulating them. The anti-land-use provision is scientifically shameless, but in practice it probably won't have much effect since it sunsets after five years. Protective tariffs are in place for lots of things besides ethanol. And lobbyists in Washington have all lined up like pigs at a trough to get whatever goodies they can from the climate bill.

What distinguishes the farm lobby is the chutzpah to go back after an unconditional victory and demand even more.

Lobbies Key- They meet with Obama to discuss comprehensive immigration reform Bonner, 6/24 (Jeanne, freelance writer and radio producer based in Atlanta,June 24, 2013, Farmers
Weigh In On Immigration, GPB News, http://www.gpb.org/news/2013 /06/24/farmers-weigh-in-on-immigration) ATLANTA A Georgia farmer took part in a Washington roundtable Monday with Pres. Obama about the immigration overhaul under consideration. Blueberry grower Jason Berry represented the views of farmers from Georgias largest fruit sector. He's with Dole Berry Co. in Homerville, in southeast Georgia. He was part of a group of business leaders meeting with Obama. If passed, the bill would affect Georgia farms and other businesses that rely on immigration labor in several ways. But the guest-worker provision in the bill is the most critical, says Charles Hall, with the
Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. Thats because it would make it easier to hire temporary workers. Under the current progra m, Hall says

Georgias small farmers cant always find workers when they need them. The great need will be to maintain a reasonable guest worker program so that workers can come into the U.S. for work and that guest worker program is usable from a small grower's standpoint as well as a large grower's standpoint, he said. Some smaller farmers have struggled to fill jobs since Georgia passed an immigration crackdown in 2011. It bars companies from hiring
undocumented workers. Joe Cornelius is with the Georgia Blueberry Commission. He says the state law has made an already tight labor market even worse. And that often means you cant harvest the whole crop. Some

of the crop goes to waste. Or you take a lower quality product

and you receive a lower price for it, he said in a phone interview. He says as the blueberry sector in Georgia grows, there are more acres to harvest but fewer workers. Cornelius says farmers have few options. He says when they use the current H2A foreign guest worker program, they often can't use all of the workers the government helps them hire because they're not up to par. But he says using skilled migrant workers also presents problems. When youre dependent on migrant laborers who move from work their way up from Florida, youre always worried you wont have enough workers, he said. And he said the rumor mill has snared illegal and legal workers alike. " Just the fear of it has driven a lot of people away last year and this year," he said. Some blueberry farmers have adapted by growing varieties that can be machine-harvested. But Hall with the growers
association said that option is only possible for fruit that wont be sold directly to consumers at supermarkets. Blueberry or any kind of mechanized harvesting is going to cause the fruit to be bruised or scarred or have the skin broken," he said. "If they go to the fresh market, that harvest almost has to be done by hand. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill this week.

Farm Lobbies put pressure on congress for a guest worker program The Lima News, 3/8 (Lima Ohio Newspaper, March 8, 2013, Face time: Farmers lobby Congress on
their interests, The Farm Credit Council http://ae.cqrollcall.com/farmcredit/latest-news/farm-bill-news/face-time-farmers-lobby-congress-ontheir-interests/) March 07WASHINGTON In about 10 groups of 10, Ohio Farm Bureau members armed themselves with information packets and Buckeye candy and knocked on doors Wednesday morning, lobbying members of Congress on the Farm Bill, immigration reform and water quality regulation. Wednesday was the last of three days of
education and lobbying done by county Farm Bureau presidents gathered in Washington. Bureau members from West Central Ohio visited Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ubana, and Rep. Bob Latta, R-Bowling Green. The larger group also heard from Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Avon, and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Cincinnati. Troy Ernest, a hog farmer from eastern Allen County, had a simple message to deliver to Jordan on behalf of the organization. We

want a good reformed guest worker program for those people in agriculture who use

the guest worker program,

Ernest said. Others in the group reminded Jordan about the many fruit and vegetable growers he has

in his district, some of which is new from redistricting, especially in Sandusky and Crawford counties. Jordan sits on the Judicial Committee subcommittee thats dealing with immigration reform. True to form, he was blunt with the men in his office, who know that Jordans first priority on immigration is a secure border. Ill tell you, what the president did last week (releasing undocumented inmates from prison) doesnt help matters, Jordan said. You have to do whats right, respect the rule of law, and secure the borders first. If youre not going to secure the border, its tough to get anywhere else. In Jordans mind, border security is a large hurdle to get over, but if it can be done, hed consider other pieces of policy. If his security concerns are satisfied, than we

should look at trying to make things better for people who want to come here and work legally. Im all for that. Jordan also reminded the group hes in favor of
moving farmers away from subsidies and special programs, and moving to a market-based system for agricultural commodities, with some kind of insurance. Auglaize County Farm Bureau President Rick Tangeman said crop insurance is very important to farmers. We need to save whatever we can of the risk management through crop insurance, Tangeman said. Farmers want a new five-year bill that addresses safety net needs such as crop insurance. The current bill is actually an extension of the old one. While the Senate passed a version last year, the House did not. Instead, as part of Fiscal Cliff negotiations, Congress extended the old Farm Bill through the end of September. It was the Republican leadership in the House, according to published reports, that refused to bring a farm bill to the floor for a vote in 2012. Latta, whose 5th Congressional District is the largest agricultural district in the state, said the general dysfunction of the federal government is preventing passage of a new Farm Bill. Too

many things keep getting in the way: Making tax cuts permanent, the debt ceiling, sequestration, a budget, then the debt ceiling again, Latta said. All those other things have occupied people,
but theyve got to get the farm bill out of there. We just cant go to Sept. 30 and pass another (extension). To get all the things you want done, it has to be a new bill, you have to start over. Thats not real good news, but thats where its at. No

changes can be made to an extension; changes in the Farm Bill cant be made until there is a new five-year bill thats written from scratch. That is what the Senate plans to do, Brown told the group during a Wednesday morning speech. Brown sits on the Senate
Agriculture Committee. The Senate passed its version of a Farm Bill in 2012, but now that work will start over. Politicians are good at playing the blame game: For two days, farmers have been hearing about the Senates failure to pass a budget, but on Wednesday, Brown reminded the group it was only the Senate that passed a Farm Bill in 2012. And, in the Senate Agriculture Committee, senators agreed on savings in an attempt to avoid the across-the-board budget cuts that are happening now. Some

people dont understand the breadth of

the Farm Bill, and what you can accomplish with it,

Brown said. Its a food bill, a development bill, energy bill,

conservation bill. There were some parochial, southern interests last year in the House and the House couldnt get its act together to pass a bill. Portman voted against that Senate-passed bill in 2012, because it violated the Budget Control Act, which was passed in 2011. Much of the cost in the Farm Bill is from government nutrition assistance programs, such as food stamps. The cost of food stamps has doubled in the past eight years, Portman said. I dont think we should measure compassion by how many people we get on food stamps, Portman said. We should measure it by how many people we get off food stamps and get on to a job. Portman supported the farm pieces of the farm bill, and said he appreciated Farm Bureaus move away from advocating for direct payments. I

think its a good bill on the

commodities side, and I want to be able to support it, Portman said.

The Farm Lobby rallies congress for immigration reform Clayton, 4/13 (Chris, DTN/Telvent, April 13th, 2013, Farm Workers Rally at Capitol for Immigration
Reform, AgFax, http://agfax.com/2013/04/11/farm-workers-rally-at-capitol-for-immigrationreform/#sthash.Tboe94zN.dpuf) Holding signs that said Farm Workers Feed the World, members of United Farm Workers union were among a privileged few who got to be on stage Wednesday as thousands of people, mostly Hispanics, rallied at the Capitol for immigration reform. Farm workers are among those with heightened expectations that the Senate negotiators could
unveil a new immigration proposal as early as next week that would seek to legalize up to 11 million people. If negotiations advance, the full Senate could take up its legislation before Memorial Day. House negotiations are quieter, but the House also is expected to unveil a package soon. Immigration reform leaders in Congress repeatedly cited the role of farm workers during the rally. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., one of the gang of eight negotiating on a deal, talked about farm

workers and fruit pickers as being among those who help keep the country going. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., talked about the chronic injuries from laboring for the people who put food on your table every day and pick our fruits and vegetables. Diana Tellefson
Torres, national vice president for the United Farm Workers, said about 120 farm workers came from 30 states to lobby members of Congress. She fired up the crowd, speaking in Spanish, by talking about a sea of hope in reforming immigration law. In lobbying Congress, Tellefson

Torres said she thought it was important for members of Congress and staffers to hear from farm workers who were citizens, permanent residents and in the country illegally. Yet, talks about the agricultural guest-worker component have been one of the final roadblocks to completing a deal in

the Senate. United Farm Workers opposes a broad guest worker program for agriculture while major farm lobbies say such a program will be critical to maintain the food supply . Because of the nature of their
situation, its unknown exactly how many farm workers are now in the country illegally. Numbers range anywhere from 500,000 to 1 million, but farm groups fear that once those employees gain legal status they will move on to new jobs and crops will go unpicked unless a new, easierto-use guest worker program is created. At a forum for agricultural reporters earlier this week, Craig Regelbrugge, co-chairman of the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform, said the current H-2A guest worker program for agriculture largely fails and provides only 5% or so of all agricultural labor in the country. Moreover, the program doesnt address farms such as dairy operations that need a stable, longerterm workforce. Regelbrugge said agriculture faces another variable. Regelbrugge cited Florida, saying tomato, citrus and strawberry growers are on the bubble in trying to remain competitive with foreign growers who export almost unlimited product into the U.S. If

we get this issue wrong, we risk sending those industries off shore rapidly, Regelbrugge said. Regelbrugge cited the challenges
faced by farmers as states have implemented tighter laws meant to force illegal immigrants out of their states. That has led to increased

what is different about agriculture is it is our food supply, not to mention the downstream economic impacts, he said. Regelbrugge was challenged on that statement by Eric Ruark,
situations of crops rotting in the fields. I just want to be clear director of research for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. FAIR opposes immigration reform bills and argues wages for farm workers would go up through stronger enforcement. He also disputed claims that crops rotted in states such as Alabama and Georgia because of tighter state laws. I know a lot of these claims simply dont pan out. They simply are not true. Regelbrugge also touched on an issue that could affect commodity prices. If fruit and vegetable farmers cant find the labor, they will convert to mechanized crops such as corn, soybeans and the like to continue farming their land. Speaking Tuesday to reporters, Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, said the unemployment rate has been high for more than four years now, so it is becoming obvious that Americans arent willing to take some of those jobs such as farm labor. Conaway said an agricultural guest worker component would likely be part of what the House does as well. Whatever we do in immigration reform we need to make sure it is in Americas best interests, Conaway said.

temporary worker program for ag is clearly in our best interest . UFW, however, balks at a broader, newer guest
worker program. UFW likes a plan comparable to the one agreed to by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO labor union that would allow 20,000 guest workers in the first year and gradually increase to up to 200,000 annually. The agribusiness group wants to start off with 200,000 guest workers. Tellefson Torres said there are already 1.6 million professional farm workers in the country, even though an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 of them are in the country illegally. She said the number could be as much as 1 million farm workers in the country illegally. Supporting an unlimited number of foreign workers on top of the 1.6 million we have here now would increase the competition for farm workers and depress the wages and conditions for farm workers, she said. Tellefson Torres said some farm workers under a labor contract have held the same job for decades. Some of those workers earn over $30,000 a year. Yet, after the 1986 immigration reform bill, one of the problems for farmers after most of those workers were legalized is that they left the fields for less-intensive labor. Ruark said if farmers cant find employees, then it is because farm businesses arent offering enough incentives for legal Americans to take those jobs. Weve seen claims over the last 30 years from agribusinesses that there is a shortage of farm workers available to do these jobs, he said. Going back to 1990, Ruark said wage increases for farm workers have not kept up with profit margins for agricultural operations. The call for a new guest worker program for agriculture is a reflection that farmers arent responding to the market signals that farm wages are too low. Most of the workers are being employed by larger commercial farmers who can afford to pay these workers more, he said. On issues such as dairy, Ruark dismissed the market volatility, calling dairy farmers highly profitable and able to afford to pay domestic workers. Ruark noted dairy farmers are subsidized. He said perhaps farm programs should be reversed then to subsidize the dairy workers rather than the farmers. When we are talking about the dairy industry, this is a very profitable industry, a very subsidized industry, Ruark said. So, we could have a conversation about taking subsidies that go to agribusinesses and growers and giving them to the workers. That might be an option to think about. If

you are having trouble paying farm workers, lets subsidize the farm workers and not the farmers.

Plan Popular - General

Ag-First Guest worker program avoids politicsexplicitly rejects pathway to citizenship Hinyub 12
(Chris, history and political science major from the Palm Beach Atlantic University, Agriculture & Voters Keen on Guest Worker Program 5/10/12, pg online at http://ivn.us/2012/05/10/agriculture-voterskeen-on-guest-worker-program///sd) Attempts to tackle comprehensive immigration reform at the state level has wounded agriculture and exposed an unavoidable issue for farm-state lawmakers seeking election in 2012. Because U.S. citizens, by and large, will not work in farm fields and because partisan gridlock over amnesty has kept comprehensive immigration reform off Congress to-do list, agricultural stakeholders are pleading with lawmakers to reform the countrys immigration policy to accommodate an ag-centric guest worker program. Last year, farm labor shortages gripped states that had passed stringent immigration reforms. Since then the symptoms have spread, as entire regions are feeling the pinch. Industry insiders have voiced concern that its only a matter of time before the promised papers please crackdowns of individuals detained in Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia coupled with e-verify mandates for employers in those states translate to higher food prices at the grocery storebut not before the failure of many American farms. To avoid this scenario, a coalition of 100-plus farm organizations led by the California-based Western Growers farm/trade group are floating an idea to invite foreign guest workers into the U.S. to harvest and process crops without giving them a path to citizenship. Industry leaders hope the plan could operate
parallel to the current H2A program in which migrants enter the U.S. for 12 months to work in agriculture before they are supposed to return home. Under the new proposal, immigrant workers could renew their work credentials for another year, but would not be allowed to bring their families into the states. I dont think there

is an appetite for comprehensive immigration reform (nationally) so thats why were trying an ag-first proposal, said Tom Nassif, Western Growers President and Chief Financial Officer
during a conference call with reporters late last March. A Tarrance Group-conducted poll (PDF), which surveyed a broad cross section of the American electorate in January, found that 70

percent of voters back such a plan. The survey showed overwhelming support for a streamlined ag-first guest worker program from all likely voter groups including Republicans, Tea Party supporters, Democrats and Independents. During an Agriculture Department press conference last summer, American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman called for new, innovative approaches like programs where biometric identifiers can be provided (to guest workers) who want to, frankly, do the jobs that American workers will not do. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack reaffirmed Stallmans claim that farmers are hard pressed to find legal employees, urging Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform to prevent
farm labor shortages. While some American citizens step up and take (farm) jobs, the truth is even when farmers make their best effort to recruit a domestic workforce, few

citizens express interest. In large part thats because this is hard, tough

work Simply put, our broken immigration system offers little hope for producers trying to do the right thing and make a living. But again and again good faith efforts to fix this broken system from leaders of both parties fall prey to the usual Washington political gains. Most of Washingtons political gains (at least on the right of the spectrum) have hinged on the treatment of immigration reform proposals that include amnesty or citizenship pathways as anathemas. The revised guest worker plan pitched by agricultural interests grew up from that volatile soil. It bans any such pathway outright. Nassif made it clear that his group does not want to attach immigration reform language to the next Farm Bill, which has already been jeopardized by budgetary partisanship in the earliest phases of its deliberation. Expect the agricultural industry to pitch its guest worker program to Congress before fall elections. According to Stallman, between $5 billion and $9 billion per year of production is dependent on workers whose legal status has not been verified and who are assumed to be working illegally. He says that California accounts for almost $3 billion and Florida for $1 billion of that
total. Most of that is in specialty crops like fruits and vegetables. But the livestock sector, particularly dairy, is also affected, Stallman said. In the debate over comprehensive immigration reform its difficult to gain a broad enough perspective not to disqualify one, if not more valid points of view. This owes to the complexity of a political issue which holds livelihoods and the integrity of family units in its balance. But the practical necessity of maintaining a constant and safe food supply while keeping American farms competitive and profitable is an issue of

pressing concern for all voters. If

farm labor shortages continue through the summer, a refined ag-first guestworker program will likely be a national election issue.

Plan is key to relations and doesnt link to politics has support in Congress already Shifter 13 (Michael, Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown
University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue, A More Ambitious Agenda February 2013 http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf\\CLans) Second, practical approaches are needed to manage the complex issues related to immigration. Both governments have acknowledged the economic value of appropriately regulated immigration. US and Mexican policy should be directed toward increasing the role of immigration in economic expansion and job growth in the two countries, ensuring that individual rights of all immigrants are respected, and curtailing violations of immigration laws. Since the US presidential election in November, these have become attainable goals, endorsed by the White House with good prospects for majority support in the US Congress.

Plan Popular Republicans

Republicans want a guest-worker program Johnson, 13 (Fawn, correspondent, May 29th, Republican Platform Calls for Guest-Worker Program,
National Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-conventions/republican-platform-calls-forguest-worker-program-20120821) Republicans are attempting to balance their party's disparate opinions on immigration by taking a tough stance on illegal immigrants in the United States while at the same time calling for a new temporary foreign worker program. The Republican National Committee's 2012 platform on immigration, adopted on Tuesday, calls for a "legal and reliable source of foreign labor through a new guest-worker program ." "It wasn't even attacked,"
crowed Brad Bailey, a Texas restauranteur who lobbied heavily for the inclusion of a guest-worker program in the document. Bailey was expecting immigration hard-liners to go after the proposed temporary worker program because a standard GOP campaign line says that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. Businesses dispute that statement, saying there are many jobs (like roofing and fruit-picking) that Americans won't do. The Republican platform also seeks long-term detention for "dangerous but undeportable aliens" and proposes to make gang membership a deportable offense. It is typical of electoral policy platforms to be vague on details--this isn't legislation, after all. It's the tone that counts. Note the crime-related wording when it comes to gangs and detention, reinforcing an idea important to Republicans: that they are tougher on illegal immigration than President Obama. "Complaining

about the problem is no longer working. Republicans need to lead in repairing our nation's immigration policy," Bailey said on Monday in an e-mail to
supporters of a guest-worker program. The Hispanic vote is in play in the general election, and how Republicans handle the immigration question will be a critical factor in determining whether conservative Hispanic voters can be convinced to cast their votes for Mitt Romney.

Hispanics as a group tend to be more conservative than traditional Democrats; half identify themselves as "independent," according to a recent Gallup poll. But two-thirds of them voted for President Obama in 2008, in part because he promised to push for a broad immigration overhaul that would create a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Some Republican strategists worry that harsh rhetoric from Republicans about immigration will scare those independent Hispanics away. The inclusion of a guest-worker program in the GOP platform marks a victory for business-oriented Republicans who are worried that a strict "enforcement-only" approach to immigration will ruin certain industries, such as agriculture, which relies heavily on undocumented immigrant labor. "It was brutal," said Bailey, the founder of the free-market nonprofit group The
Texas Immigration Solution, who is lobbying aggressively for businesses' access to foreign labor at the Republican National Convention. "I'm a rookie. I didn't know anybody. I was stopping people during bathroom breaks." Bailey is flaming a tinder box within a party that has struggled for years with its commitment to "the rule of law," which sometimes conflicts with businesses' consistent use of immigrant labor--both legal and illegal. With

some 12 million illegal immigrants working in the United States, it is difficult to imagine the government committing the resources to extricating all of them. Yet Republicans chafe at any policy that would ease
off on punishment for immigration violations. "We are a party that recognizes that illegal means illegal," said Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a platform committee member and outspoken immigration hard-liner who was the brains behind Arizona's tough immigration law. "If you want to open a job tomorrow, you can remove an illegal immigrant today." Kobach's considerable influence was on display at the Republican platform committee meeting on Tuesday, as he shot down several suggestions from other members who questioned the necessity of mandating electronic verification of workers or asked for market-based quotas on foreign workers. At Kobach's request, the committee added language to the platform calling for mandatory electronic verification of workers, a border fence, and an end to "sanctuary cities" and instate tuition for illegal immigrant college students. Bailey knew he was fighting an uphill battle when he brought his proposal for a temporary worker program to the Republican convention. He is one of many business leaders who say enforcement-minded Republicans should adopt a broader view of immigration to acknowledge their need for labor.

Many business leaders want more than a guest-

worker program. Texas has advocated work visas for undocumented immigrants who are already in the country. But that idea goes too far for GOP members who are squeamish about giving any legal status to illegal aliens. "When you are
sitting in the back of the room and have no relationships with anyone on the subcommittee, you are fighting an uphill battle," Bailey wrote in his e-mail. "We

understand that this is NOT a perfect document. But sometimes in life and in politics we have to compromise and negotiate."

Plan popular with house republicans Parker, 2/26 Ashley Parker is a Washington-based reporter for The New York Times, and has also written for The New York Times
Magazine. Previously, she worked as a researcher for Maureen Dowd, a Times columnist (House Republican Expresses Support for Guest-

Worker Program, 2/26/13, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/house-republican-expresses-support-for-guest-workerprogram/?_r=0)

Representative Robert Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, appeared willing to carve out a sliver of middle ground on Tuesday in the debate over the future of the nations immigration system, offering up the possibility of a guest worker program as a trial case for how the country handles both legal and illegal immigration. At a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the topic of agricultural workers, Mr. Goodlatte, the chairman of the full committee, said that he could support a measure that would offer at least temporary legalization for illegal immigrants who are currently in the country working in the agriculture industry. A guest worker program should help farmers who are willing to pay a fair wage for law-abiding, dependable workers not punish them, Mr. Goodlatte said. And for this reason I support replacing the H-2A program and implementing new policies that will bring our illegal agricultural workers out of the shadows , as a first
step in the process of overhauling our nations immigration system. An H-2A visa allows workers into the country to perform temporary or seasonal agricultural work. As Mr. Goodlatte

acknowledged, the vast majority of farmworkers in the United States as much as 70 percent of the farm labor force, according to growers groups are immigrants here illegally. Mr. Goodlatte, a former
immigration lawyer, has previously taken a hardline stance on an immigration overhaul, opposing a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants already in the country illegally. But he

has also said he is open to finding some middle ground between deportation and full citizenship. The agriculture guest worker program, he implied on Tuesday, could be a first step. Addressing the complex labor issues of the relatively small agriculture sector can help us understand how we can build our
broader immigration laws and enforcement mechanisms in order to enhance the U.S. economy and make our immigration laws more efficient and fair for all involved, he said. Visas

for lower-skilled workers have proved a divisive issue in past immigration debates, pitting the business community which favors allowing guest workers into the country to help employers fulfill
their labor needs against the labor community, which worries that immigrant workers could depress wages and take away jobs from

labor and business groups jointly called for a visa system that would meet labor market demands while protecting American workers. The tone of Tuesdays subcommittee hearing was far less heated
Americans. But last week, than a full-committee hearing on broad immigration proposals earlier this month, and several members expressed optimism that, at least on this topic, an agreement could be reached. Still, some House Republicans remained hesitant about the logistics of reforming the temporary worker program. Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, said

that a true guest worker program would

have to be a short guest worker program, seeming to rule out the possibility of any form of legalization for the workers. And Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, suggested a program that would bond workers; employers, he
explained, would be forced to post a bond of sorts much like the bond system in criminal court to ensure that their workers would ultimately return home. Im going to guess from the look on your face that you havent discussed that, Mr. King said, shortly after making the suggestion. On Wednesday, the subcommittee is set to look at the record of the E-Verify program, the current tool to help employers determine the legal status of newly hired workers.

Attitude shiftGOP supports guest worker initiatives National Journal 5/29 (Republican Platform Calls for Guest-Worker Program Last Updated on May
29th, 2013 http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-conventions/republican-platform-calls-for-guestworker-program-20120821) L S The Republican National Committee's 2012 platform on immigration, adopted on Tuesday, calls for a "legal and reliable source of foreign labor through a new guest-worker program." "It wasn't even attacked,"
crowed Brad Bailey, a Texas restauranteur who lobbied heavily for the inclusion of a guest-worker program in the document. Bailey was expecting immigration hard-liners to go after the proposed temporary worker program because a standard GOP campaign line says that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. Businesses dispute that statement, saying there are many jobs (like roofing and fruit-picking) that Americans won't do. The Republican platform also seeks long-term detention for "dangerous but undeportable aliens" and proposes to make gang membership a deportable offense. It is typical of electoral policy platforms to be vague on details--this isn't legislation, after all. It's the tone that counts. Note the crime-related wording when it comes to gangs and detention, reinforcing an idea important to Republicans: that they are tougher on illegal immigration than President Obama. "Complaining

about the problem is no longer working. Republicans need to lead in repairing our nation's immigration policy," Bailey said on Monday in an e-mail to supporters of a guest-worker program. The Hispanic vote is in play in the general election, and how Republicans handle the
immigration question will be a critical factor in determining whether conservative Hispanic voters can be convinced to cast their votes for Mitt Romney. Hispanics

as a group tend to be more conservative than traditional Democrats; half identify themselves as "independent," according to a recent Gallup poll. But two-thirds of them voted for President Obama in 2008, in part

because he promised to push for a broad immigration overhaul that would create a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Some Republican strategists worry that harsh rhetoric from Republicans about immigration will scare those independent Hispanics away. The inclusion of a guest-worker program in the GOP platform marks a victory for business-oriented Republicans who are worried that a strict "enforcement-only" approach to immigration will ruin certain industries, such as agriculture, which relies heavily on undocumented immigrant labor.

No link: GOP wants federal guest worker program Serrano 12

(Alfonso, senior editor at TIME, Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws 9/21 pg online at http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billiondollar-losses-on-immigration-laws///sd) With the federal government sitting on the sidelines, some state legislatures in response to that pressure have started to consider enacting guest-worker programs, often after heavy lobbying from agricultural and business groups.
Utah, for example, recently approved a program that, starting this year, will allow undocumented immigrants to work in the state legally as long as they pass background checks.

The measure, though, is subject to federal approval. Several other states, considered similar legislation. In Texas last year, Republicans signed off on a party platform that calls for a national guest-worker program. And just before the GOP convention in August, the R epublican
including California, Oklahoma and Vermont, have

N ational C ommittee approved a platform on immigration that calls for a guest-worker program . there has never been a greater need for federal leadership for immigration reform , says Walden. The United States farmer is still the most efficient in the world, and if we want to be in charge of our food security and our economy and add favorably to our balance of payments, we need to support a labor force for agriculture.
We feel strongly that

AT: Piecemeal Links

Double-bind either CIR wont pass absent the plan, or plan pop with Republicans Narvette, 2/19 - Ruben Navarrette is a CNN contributor and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers
Group (Guest worker issue may kill immigration reform, 2/19/13, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/opinion/navarrette-immigrationreform)

All those who are hoping that comprehensive immigration reform is going to happen this year -- Latinos, businesses, churches, agriculture industry, law enforcement and others -- are in for a rude awakening. The trick for politicians will be
to look as if they're doing something, when really they're doing nothing. But, regardless of how it looks, it's a long shot that Congress will pass immigration reform this year. That's bad news for those who want to give the undocumented a chance to get right with the law and develop a sensible, fair and efficient policy for future immigrants. But it's good news for those who resist legalizing the undocumented because they're afraid of foreigners -- either because of competition with their work ethic, or that they're changing the culture and complexion of the country. Is enforcement key to fixing America's immigration system? The problem isn't just Republicans, who can't get on the same page about whether they want to be reformers. It's also Democrats, who seem to be playing the immigration reform camp for chumps. The signs are everywhere, if you know where to look. For instance, a few days ago, a draft of President Obama's immigration reform plan

was leaked. It took four years to write, and yet its key points fit on a cocktail napkin with room to spare. Here's what is in the plan: more border security, a requirement that employers use an electronic system to verify if prospective hires are eligible to work, and a long path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Obama's immigration plan leaked Obama: Harvest immigrants' talents How long? The undocumented could immediately
apply for a special protective status to avoid deportation, but it would take them about eight years to get legal permanent residency (a green

Here's what is not in the plan: a guest worker program . Republicans have repeatedly insisted that this needs to be in the mix for them to vote for any reform package . The fact that it was left out tells us that Obama isn't serious about reform and ensures that his plan would be, as Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said, "dead on arrival" in Congress. The idea would be to bring in a few hundred thousand temporary "guest workers" to do the hard and dirty jobs that Americans won't do at any wage. When the work is done, and the workers have been paid a fair salary, they go home. And another batch is
card) and another four or five years to become a U.S. citizen. brought in. It's not a perfect solution. But you won't find any of those in the immigration debate. The first U.S. president to push for guest workers was Abraham Lincoln. Industries were facing labor shortages during the Civil War and, with Lincoln's support, Congress in 1864 passed The Act to Encourage Immigration. The bill allowed employers to recruit foreign workers and pay their way to America. There were more guest workers during World War I. But the concept really became popular during World War II and the Cold War. From 1942 to 1964, under the Bracero program (as in "brazo", which is Spanish for arm as in someone who works with his arms and hands), nearly 5 million guest workers came in and out of the United States. In fact, arguably, the reason the Braceros stopped coming was because journalist Edward R. Murrow -- in the 1960 CBS documentary, "Harvest of Shame" -- exposed the horrible treatments the workers received at the hands of employers, including low wages, unsanitary conditions, dilapidated housing, etc. Congress pulled the plug soon thereafter. But exploitation

doesn't have to be part of the deal, and not every guest worker program is run as badly as that one. There are apple
growers in Washington State who don't have to scramble for pickers at harvest time because the same crews return every year. The growers lure them back by paying decent wages and providing clean living quarters. Everyone is happy. Well, maybe not everyone. Many in organized labor hate the concept of guest workers because their leaders are busy peddling the fantasy that the hard and dirty jobs in question are sought after by union members. Sure. Then why aren't they doing them now? Answer: Because they're hard and dirty. It's

time for Congress to create a new guest worker program for the agriculture industry where employees can have decent wages, access to health clinics, livable housing, workers comp in case of injury, and legal protection so that they aren't
exploited. Of course, there's the catch. If growers have to pay for all that, labor economists say, it might well kill the incentive for them to participate. But it's those same growers who are now complaining that they aren't able to find American workers who are willing to pick a variety of crops that can't be harvested by machine -- peaches, plums, apples, lettuce, tomatoes, avocadoes, nectarines, strawberries, blueberries, apricots, table grapes, etc. So those employers will have to make some tough choices. If they want a reliable labor supply, it'll cost them. That's the way it should be. There is no free lunch. Either way,

it's a guest workers program that will make or break the prospects for immigration reform. I'm betting it's the latter.

Ag guest worker progam and piecemeal reform are both popular with republicans News Press 7-1-13

Immigration bill: Florida reps not receptive to Rubio Fellow Republicans: Senate bill too broad, poorly prioritized. July 1, 2013 http://www.newspress.com/article/20130702/NEWS/307020021?odyssey=mod%7Cmostcom Rep. Tom Rooney, an Okeechobee Republican who represents portions of Lee County, said the Senate bill tries to do too much. The House is addressing immigration reform one step at a time, starting with securing the border, he said. Im hopeful that we can at least pass legislation to provide a functional guest worker program for our farmers, and to improve border security. After that, its anyones guess. The sentiments of Radel and Rooney echo those of House leaders, including Speaker John Boehner, ROhio, who favor a narrower, more piecemeal approach to changing the law -- one that doesnt include a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants-- than the approach taken by the Senate bill.

Piecemeal links are non-unique piecemeal efforts in the House now Schepers 7-8-13
Reporter for Peoples World, civil and immigrant rights activist, and doctorate in cultural anthropology from Northwestern University What next for immigration reform legislation? by: EMILE SCHEPERS july 8 2013http://peoplesworld.org/what-next-for-immigration-reform-legislation/ Several Republican representatives say they are going to present bills to solve the immigration problem piecemeal. These will be concentrated on new mechanisms of repression and new temporary guest worker programs, and probably will not offer citizenship or perhaps even legalization to the estimated 11 million undocumented. Congressman Goodlatte says he is open to offering citizenship to people who were brought to this country without papers when they were children, but will oppose it for other undocumented immigrants.

Unions arent against the planthey want guest workers to fill undesirable jobs Elias 13
(Thomas, masters in journalism from Stanford, Farm labor shortages may drive immigration changes Sandiego Source, newspaper, May 10, pg online at http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?SourceCode=20130510tza&Commentary_ID=109&_t=F arm+labor+shortages+may+drive+immigration+changes#.Ucypofkphsk//sd) There has been some dispute over whether the labor shortages California farmers reported over the last few years are real. It turns out they are very real, but that doesnt quiet the skeptics. We are told that unless we allow
criminals, illegal aliens *the+ freedom to take American jobs, our agriculture will be destroyed, wrote conservative blogger Steve Frank, former president of the California Republican Assembly, last year. Like most other statements of the lamestream media, that is a downright lie. He used the fact that this states farm profits were up in 2011 from $11.1 billion the previous year to $16.1 billion to call the reported shortage phony. Those profit numbers came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But the USDA also reports on crop produc tion and some of those numbers tell a different story, while also implying that the added profits may have been a result of smaller supplies. For example,

California growers produced 1.5 million tons of raisin grapes last year, compared with 1.8 million in 2011, causing prices to increase while grape-harvesting expenses dropped. Prices were also up for table grapes from $306 per ton to $358 and the price of canned apricots went from $330 to $419 per ton, while production was down. So theres more to the farm profit picture than just the bottom line. The price per pound or ton also counts for a lot. And both
wholesale prices and profits rose last year, making it an outstanding year for agriculture. With 2011-12 a relatively wet winter and prices at or near peaks for almost all crops, there

was only one reason for production to be down last year: a shortage of labor. This was caused in part by stricter enforcement of immigration laws, with the Obama administration already having deported more
illegal immigrants than the George W. Bush administration did in its full eight years. Farm labor problems persisted in 2012, although theyve sometimes been hard to quantify. The Western Growers Association said last fall that its members were reporting 20 percent fewer laborers available than the year before. At the same time, the California Farm Bureau Federation put the shortage between 30 per cent and 40 percent of the workforce needed. Those numbers are not official, but the group said U.S.

workers were not taking the vacant jobs. That was consistent with the results of an experiment conducted several years ago by Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne

Feinstein, who had every Employment Development Department office in the state list farm jobs as available. Fewer than 10 unemployed U.S. citizens applied for that work, even though it paid well over the states hourly minimum wage. One Santa Barbara County farmer with crops as varied as lemons and strawberries reported that he had to leave some
of his produce to rot in the field last summer and fall. Similar waste occurred in Kern, Butte and Riverside counties, among others. One reason: A high percentage of California fruit and vegetable pickers are illegal immigrants. Farm bureau organizations in other states report similar labor shortages. So farmers want any immigration changes coming from Washington, D.C. this year to include a guest-worker program. Agriculture organizations that usually support Republican politicians have pushed several years for a system allowing temporary hiring of foreign workers if employers cannot find U.S. citizens or legal residents to take their jobs. Organized labor

has long opposed such a revival of the old bracero program that allowed U.S. employers to bring in unskilled foreign workers during and after World War II, the unions claiming it could deprive U.S. citizens of work. But the nations largest labor group, the AFL-CIO, has now worked out a deal with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business interests that would allow workers to be imported as needed to fill jobs that otherwise would go unfilled. The proposed visa would not specify a single employer for each worker, so that employers could no longer discipline migrant workers by threatening to have them deported if theyre not docile. It would also include wages above the federal minimum and require decent working conditions. The Chamber
also agreed to the unions idea of setting up a new government bureau to curtail work visas when unemployment rises to as-yet unspecified levels. Two

things are clear from all this: Its highly likely that any major immigration change legislation passing Congress this year will have a guest-worker component. And that this is happening mainly because of the labor shortages here and in other big farm states.

AT: Unions Link

Labor already on board Stiles 6-21-13
Political reporter at National Review Immigration: Democrats on Board By Andrew Stiles 6-21-13 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351666/immigration-democrats-board-andrew-stiles Notably, the AFL-CIO, which opposed the 2007 legislation, is backing the Gang of Eight, having struck a deal with Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and the Chamber of Commerce on the issue of guest workers. By signing on to the Gangs proposal, the powerful union (with its supersized campaign war chest) has given most Democrats a green light to support it. A top Republican senator tells National Review Online he wouldnt be surprised if every Democrat voted for the proposal, given the strong desire to pass it with at least 70 votes and put pressure on the GOP-controlled House.

Impact D

AT: Hegemony Impact Yes Heg

Their authors are all hypeUS hegemony is stronger than everthree reasons prove Drezner 12 (Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts, senior editor at The National Interest, Regarding Global Leadership, http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/category/wordpress_tag/hegemonic_stability_theory, June 4, 2012) So, America is doomed, right? To be honest, this sounds like a lot of pious baloney. As Michael Beckley points out in a new article in International Security, "The United States is not in decline; in fact, it is now wealthier, more innovative, and more militarily powerful compared to China than it was in 1991." The whole article is worth a read, and a good cautionary tale on the dangers of overestimating the ease of national catch-up: The widespread misperception that China is catching up to the United States stems from a number of analytical flaws, the most common of which is the tendency to draw conclusions about the U.S.-China power balance from data that compare China only to its former self. For example, many studies note that the growth rates of Chinas per capita income, value
added in hightechnology industries, and military spending exceed those of the United States and then conclude that China is catching up. This

focus on growth rates, however, obscures Chinas decline relative to the United States in all of these categories. Chinas growth rates are high because its starting point was low . China is rising, but it is not catching up. What about the future? One could point to the last few months of modestly encouraging economic data, but that's ephemeral. Rather, there are three macrotrends that are worth observing now before (I suspect) they come up in the State of the Union: 1) The United States is successfully deleveraging . As the McKinsey Global Institute notes, the United States is actually doing a relatively good job of slimming down total debt -- i.e., consumer, investor and
public debt combined. Sure, public debt has exploded, but as MGI points out, that really is the proper way of doing things after a financial bubble: The deleveraging processes in Sweden and Finland in the 1990s offer relevant lessons today. Both endured credit bubbles and collapses, followed by recession, debt reduction, and eventually a return to robust economic growth. Their experiences and other historical examples show

two distinct phases of deleveraging. In the first phase, lasting several years, households, corporations, and financial institutions reduce debt significantly. While this happens, economic growth is negative or minimal and government debt rises. In the second phase of deleveraging, GDP growth rebounds and then government debt is gradually reduced over many years.... As of January 2012, the United States is most closely following the Nordic path towards deleveraging. Debt in the financial sector has fallen back to levels last seen in 2000, before the credit bubble, and the ratio of corporate debt relative to GDP has also fallen. US households have made more progress in debt reduction than other countries, and may have roughly two more years before returning to sustainable levels of debt. Indeed, the deleveraging is impressive enough for even Paul Krugman to start sounding optimisti c:
the economy is depressed, in large part, because of the housing bust, which immediately suggests the possibility of a virtuous circle: an improving economy leads to a surge in home purchases, which leads to more construction, which strengthens the economy further, and so on. And if you squint hard at recent data, it

looks as if something like that may be starting: home sales are up, unemployment claims are down, and builders confidence is rising. Furthermore, the chances for a virtuous circle have been rising, because weve made significant progress on the debt front. 2) Manufacturing is on the mend . Another positive trend, contra the Harvard Business School and the GOP presidential candidates, is in manufacturing. Some analysts have already predicted a revival in that sector, and now the data appears to be backing up that prediction. The Financial Times' Ed Crooks notes: Plenty of economists and business leaders believe that US manufacturing is entering an upturn that is not just a bounce-back after the recession, but a sign of a longer-term structural improvement. Manufacturing employment has grown faster in the US since the recession than in any other leading developed economy,
according to official figures. Productivity growth, subdued wages, the steady decline in the dollar since 2002 and rapid pay inflation in emerging economies have combined to make the US a more attractive location. Over the past decade, the US has had some huge gains in productivity, and we have seen unit labour costs actually falling, says Chad Moutray, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers. A lot of our members tell us that it sometimes is cheaper to produce in the US, especially because labour costs are lower. Now, whether this boom in manufacturing will lead to a corresponding boom in manufacturing employment is much more debatable. Still, as The Atlantic's Adam Davidson concludes: "the still-unfolding story of manufacturings transformation is, in many respects, that of our economic age. Its a story with much good news for the nation as a whole. But its also one that is decidedly less inclusive than the story of the 20th century."

3) A predicted

decline in energy insecurity . British Petroleum has issued their Energy Outlook for 2030. The Guardian's Richard Wachman provides a useful summary: Growth in shale oil and gas supplies will make the US virtually self-sufficient in energy by 2030, according to a BP report published on Wednesday. In a development with enormous geopolitical implications, the country's dependence on oil imports from potentially volatile countries in the Middle East and elsewhere would disappear, BP said, although Britain and western Europe would still need Gulf supplies. BP's latest energy outlook forecasts a growth in
unconventional energy sources, "including US shale oil and gas, Canadian oil sands and Brazilian deepwater, plus a gradual decline in demand, that would see [North America] become almost totally energy self-sufficient" in two decades. BP's chief executive, Bob Dudley, said: "Our report challenges some long-held beliefs. Significant

changes in US supply-and-demand prospects, for example, highlight the likelihood that import dependence in what is today's largest energy importer will decline substantially."

Other countries are looking for power, but America far exceeds them American strength is incomparable Beckley 11 (Michael Beckley, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2011-2012,
Christian Science Monitor, Dont Worry, America: China is Rising But Not Catching Up, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/21624/dont_worry_america.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpr oject%2F58%2Fquarterly_journal%3Fparent_id%3D46, December 14, 2011) As President Obama made clear during his recent tour of Asia, the United States is committed to countering China's rise in the region. But can it succeed? Most people think not, and understandably so. While China's economy grows at 9 percent per year,
the US reels from economic recession and political paralysis. US opinion polls consistently show that majorities of Americans believe China is the world's dominant economic power. And according to the Pew Research Center, pluralities in 15 out of 22 countries believe that China will

But this widespread view is wrong , a fabrication based on sloppy analysis and outdated conceptions of national power. People who believe that China is overtaking the US make at least one of three mistakes. First, they confuse growth rates with total growth. Since 1991, China's per capita income grew 15
overtake the US as the world's superpower. percent annually, and its military spending rose 10 percent annually. By contrast, America's per capita income and military spending grew at annual rates of 4 percent and 2 percent respectively. Yes, 15 is greater than 4, and 10 is greater than 2. What could be simpler? But growth

rates are not comparable. The average Chinese income in 2010 was $7,500. Fifteen percent of $7,500 is actually less money than 4 percent of $47,000, the average American income that year. Despite China's higher growth rates, the average Chinese citizen is $17,000 poorer compared with the average American today than he was in 1991. Over the same time period, Chinese military spending declined by $140 billion relative to America's, even when excluding funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. China's growth rates are high because its starting point was low. China is rising, but it is not catching up. Second, many observers rely on flawed indicators to gauge Chinese economic power.
For example, some analysts believe that China is the world's "leading technology-based economy" because it exports more high-technology products than any other country. But Chinese

high-tech exports are not very Chinese and not very high-tech: Over 90 percent are produced by foreign firms and consist of imported components that are merely assembled in China. These percentages have increased over time, a trend that suggests Chinese firms are falling further behind foreign competitors.
Indeed, in any category research and development, patents, profits Chinese high-tech firms have fallen further behind their American counterparts over the last two decades. Another misleading statistic is China's debt-to-GDP ratio, which the Chinese government lists at 17 percent. America's debt-to-GDP ratio, by contrast, will remain above 60 percent through 2020. But most Chinese state spending is not reported in official figures because it is funneled through investment entities connected to local governments. Studies that account for this spending place China's debt-to-GDP ratio between 75 and 150 percent. And

things are only likely to get worse for China. Because of the one-child policy, China will soon suffer the most severe aging process in human history. The ratio of Chinese workers per retiree will plummet from 8:1 today to 2:1 by 2040. The fiscal cost of this swing in dependency ratios alone may exceed 100 percent of China's GDP. The American working-age population, by contrast, will expand by 17 percent over the next 40 years. Americas fiscal future may not be bright, but it is brighter than China's. Finally, people tend to conflate size with power. China will soon boast the largest economy in the world, and many observers interpret this event as a power transition between the United States and China. But size is not power . After all, China was the world's largest economy during its "century of humiliation" when it was ripped apart by Western
powers and Japan. Britain, by contrast, ruled a quarter of the globe in the 19th century but was never, even at its peak, the largest economy. In

fact, Britain's GDP was half the size of China's and far smaller than India's when it invaded and subjugated both nations. Of course, China's size makes it an important player on transnational issues, particularly climate change and trade. Moreover, China's military can threaten the United States without catching up, compensating for technological inferiority with asymmetric strategies and a greater willingness to take risks and bear casualties. But

China is not an emerging superpower in the mold of the Soviet Union, nor is it a great power like early-twentieth century Germany. It is a large developing country and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Americans, therefore, should not fear China . But neither should they shy away from competing
with this rising power for influence in Asia.

AT: Hegemony Impact Heg Resilient

US hegemony is extremely resilient Ajami 08 (Fouad Ajami, MacArthor Fellowship winning, Lebanese-born US professor and writer on Mid
East issues, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford,It is not yet time to pen "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire", http://www.usnews.com/opinion/fajami/articles/2008/10/29/fouadajami-the-resilience-of-american-power, 10-29-08)
So this great imperial democracy of ours has been financing its deficits, and its consumer society, with the savings of the sovereign wealth funds of China, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Great powers throughout history, we know, were creditor nations, whereas ours is the quintessential indebted society. We could hear the gloating of America's critics and enemies as soon as the subprime loan crisis descended upon us. From Malaysia to Venezuela, and from Europeans we had badgered about their brand of a capitalism more regulated than ours, there were unsparing critics who savored this moment. For them, we had gotten our comeuppance. Our Masters of the Universe, with their financial "derivatives" and new "instruments," were only pretenders. There can be no doubt that we were due for our moment of reckoning. But Edward Gibbon wannabes should proceed with caution. It

is not yet time to pen The Decline and Fall of the American Empire. Rome was long dead and buried when Gibbon, working in London, published his first volume of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1776. The destiny of the American empire is still unfolding. The bailout package, a
staggering $700 billion, is only 5 percent of our national output; the country could afford it. While some may seek to write the obituaries of the American imperial republic, a survey of universities placing in the top 500 globally, conducted by Shanghai University, gave the United States a huge lead in such institutions: 159 versus 31 in Japan, 30 in China (the data include Hong Kong and Taiwan), and 2 in India. For

all the talk about the rise of China and India, these societies, long mired in poverty and squalor and handicapped by dominant traditions of inequality and caste, are in no position to inherit the American place in the order of nations. They lack the openness of the United States, its sense of obligation to other lands, its willingness to defend the global order. After the partisanship in our country subsides, Americans know that the alternative to the American order in the world is not the hegemony of China or Russia or India but rather outright anarchy. The Chinese, shrewd about the ways of the world, acknowledge this. They are content to work and prosper, and move large numbers of their people out of poverty, under American primacy and tutelage. The Chinese hold
well over a trillion dollars in American treasury securities. They are not about to bring the house down. The Chinese know Asia's bloody history.

American hegemony has been benign, and the alternatives to it are infinitely worse. Likewise in the volatile
Persian Gulf: The commerce of that vital region and the traffic of its oil depend upon the American Navy. No one in that tinderbox wants a Pax Iranica, and the Indians and the Europeans are not contenders to assume what has been America's role.

AT: Economy Impact Econ Resilient

The economy is resilientfour reasons Newman 13 (Rick Newman, writer for US News, Thank the Fed for the Resilient Economy,
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/03/05/thank-the-fed-for-the-resilienteconomy, March 5, 2013)
It's getting awfully hard to argue that the Federal Reserve isn't helping the economy. The Fed began its controversial quantitative easing strategy more than four years ago, and a lot of people have been wondering when it's going to work its magic. Most Fed critics point to the unemployment rate, which is still highly elevated at 7.9 percent. Plus, the economy is still growing slowly and the recovery we're supposedly in is the weakest in 70 years. [READ: Disgusted by the Sequester? Blame Yourself] But the

economy is, in fact, showing tangible improvement in four key areas, and Fed policies are at least partly responsible. In general, the Fed has used a variety of tactics to
push interest rates to abnormally low levels, in order to spur borrowing, force investor money out of bunker-mentality securities like Treasury bonds, and stimulate normal types of economic activity after a panicky recession. There's no modern precedent for what the Fed has done, so nobody really knows how long it's supposed to take for quantitative easing to work. But it is working, finally. Here's the evidence:

1. The

housing market has turned around . The housing bust began in 2006 and ended in 2012. Average prices fell by about 31 percent during that time, according to the Fiserv Case-Shiller index. But housing has now flipped from a drag on the economy to a sector that's creating jobs and contributing to growth, which is one of the indirect ways the Fed hopes to lower the unemployment rate. Three factors are now powering the housing sector: More affordable prices, easing credit standards that allow more buyers to qualify for mortgages, and low interest rates engineered by the Fed. It took a long
time for the housing market to recover, but there was probably no other way to work through millions of foreclosures and allow prices to find

2. Auto sales are strong . Annual auto sales peaked at more than 17 million in 2005, then fell by 40 percent from that level during the recession. This year, automakers are likely to sell about 15.5 million cars, which represents a solid recovery that's helping bring back jobs and contribute to growth. The car industry is recovering faster than housing, because lenders have been more willing to grant auto loans than mortgagesincluding to subprime borrowers. As with housing, low rates have lured buyers, and even prompted them to spend more, since the monthly payments are lower than they'd otherwise be. TrueCar.com reports that
an equilibrium. Without low interest rates, it almost certainly would have taken longer. the average price of a new car has risen by more than $2,000 during the last three years, to nearly $31,000. [PHOTOS: The 2013 Geneva Motor Show]

3. The stock market is booming . The S&P 500 index has soared by 132 percent from the low point it

reached in March 2009, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has even eclipsed the prior all-time high set in Oct. 2007. During the last four years, the rising market has almost directly coincided with intensifying QE announcements from the Fed. That makes sense, since QE is designed to force investor money out of low-yielding bonds into riskier assets like stocks. It seems to have worked, and the stock-market rebound has restored virtually all the financial wealth lost during the market plunge in 2008 and 2009.

4. The

economy is weathering fiscal austerity . Forget the invisible hand. The Fed is more like an invisible fork lift that's propping up the economy at the same time politicians in Washington are harming it. The tax hikes that went into effect at the start of the year and the "sequester" spending cuts that just began will help reduce federal deficits, but they'll also
cut GDP growth by a full percentage point or so this year. Upcoming battles over the expiration of government funding and the federal borrowing limit could represent further hits to the economy. Yet the committed to its easing strategy.

stock market has remained buoyant and other indicators show the economy continues to hum alonglargely because Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has said the Fed is

Econ resilientrecent studies prove Reuters 6-20 (U.S. activity gauge at five-year high, shows economic resilience,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/us-usa-economy-index-idUSBRE95J0S820130620, 6-20-13)

(Reuters) - A

gauge of future economic activity touched its highest level in nearly five years in May as a strengthening housing market continues to lend support to the overall economy. The Conference Board said on Thursday that its Leading Economic Index increased 0.1 percent to 95.2 last month, the highest level since June 2008. While the increase in the index was less than economists' expectations for a 0.2 percent gain, it followed a solid 0.8 percent rise in April. "Despite the month-to-month volatility, the LEI's six month growth rate remains steady, suggesting that conditions in the economy remain resilient ," said Ataman Ozyildirim, an economist at The Conference Board. "Widespread gains in the leading indicators over the last six months suggest there is some upside potential for economic activity in the second half of the year."

The American economy has been through a lot and has remained resilient Oxley 04 (Michael G. Oxley, Congressman Michael G. Oxley is serving his eleventh term in the United
States House of Representatives and is Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, America on the Rebound: The Resilience of the U.S. Economy, http://ashbrook.org/publications/onprin-v12n1-oxley/, April 2004) America is on the rebound. No other economy in the history of the world could take the setbacks that we have endured and respond with such amazing resilience. We have overcome the devastation of 9/11, the betrayal of Enron and WorldCom, and the disappointment of the tech bubble, all of this while fighting the war on terrorism. Even with all of that, our economy is showing new life. We have successfully met every challenge
presented to us in this new, young century, just as we did in the last. For nearly one hundred years, there was a battle over which economic system was bestone based on free markets or one based on government control. During the Great Depression, some thought capitalism was fatally flawed. The power of the state was on the rise, with the Soviet Union in the forefront trying to spread communism. Other countries turned to heavy regulation, nationalizing key industries, and creating welfare states. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev actually said, "We will bury you." He wasnt talking about war. He was convinced that communism would outgun the free market. But the system built on central planning and oppression was the one that failed. The world didnt know just how badly the Soviet Union and its satellites had deteriorated until the fall of the Berlin Wall. But the West was suffering from its own problems. The 1970s brought stagflation, a miserable mix of high inflation and unemployment. Nationalized industries were bloated and inefficient. Taxes, subsidies, and overregulation were causing us to slowly sink into an economic swamp. People no longer believed that government had all the answers. After years on the fringes, a school of free market thought led by economist Milton Friedman gained new credibility. I remember reading Friedman at Miami University in the 1960s and thinking: hes right. The powerful ideas of privatization, supply side tax cuts, and free trade would make their comeback, first in Great Britain under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and in 1980 in the U.S. with the election of Ronald Reagan as President. Americans were tired of the wellintentioned overspending of the 1970s that had wrecked the economy. They were tired of endless inflation and high interest rates, and they were ready for Ronald Reagans tough medicine. The American people stayed the course through a difficult recession because they knew the medicine of less government, less spending, and tax cuts would work. They knew that taxing and over-regulating business simply meant fewer jobs. They knew that too much government spending sapped the nations economic strength. And they knew that erecting trade barriers would simply close us out of markets where people wanted to buy American products. By 1983, the economy had turned toward prosperity. In his Farewell Address to the nation, President Reagan told the story of an economic summit that year, when one of the world leaders turned to him and said, "Tell us about the American miracle." The American miracle is really common sense economics. Whats miraculous, though, is that we actually put those ideas in practice, which is a rarity around the world. As we all know, its easy to say but hard to do. I came to Congress in 1981, just after Ronald Reagan swept in a new class of Republicans in 1980. I cast my first vote proudlyyea from the Fourth District of Ohio in favor of the Reagan tax cut. We were proud to be called Reagan Robots. President Reagan was also right about the Soviet Union. His defense policies played a huge role in bringing down the Soviet empirepeacefully. When communism collapsed, countries returned to capitalism, equating it with freedom. During the 1990s, a global economy based on free enterprise and trade blossomed. The U.S. was, and is, the dominant economic power and a beneficiary of open markets. The Dow Jones Average has risen from 800 in the early 1980s to more than 10,000not a bad investment. One of the most notable books describing the effects of globalization is The Lexus and the Olive Tree, written by the columnist Tom Friedman. Friedman explains how the whirlwind expansion of free enterprise and open markets is changing the world. Nations that are part of the international trading system generally have higher standards of living. Those that are open tend to be freer. To bring investment to a country, business demands a stable set of laws, transparent finances, safeguards against corruption, and openness. Democracy and freedom go along with that or arent far behind. The Asian Tigers were the first to catch on to this, and the economies of South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore took off. Ironically, the financial markets are bringing about reforms in countries that the United Nations never could. Technology has, of course, made a huge difference. The Internet has made this a smaller world, permitting companies to operate virtually anywhere. The proliferation of information sources has made it harder for totalitarian societies to maintain control through censorship. This hit home for me during the trips I made to China. My first visit came some time after the student uprising at Tiananmen Square, a revolution conducted in part by fax. It was a sobering time. Although China was making progress with economic reforms, it appeared that the hardliners who ordered the crackdown wanted to return to the bad old days. But the reforms had deep roots. During my next visit, I met with the Mayor of Shanghai, who sounded like the worlds biggest capitalist. The entrepreneurial spirit was incredible. Chinas explosive

growth continues to this day. We have many issues with China, and theyre not where they need to be on human rights. But this is the largest market of the new century: 1.3 billion people. If we ignore it, others will gladly replace us. Some

look at China and ask if the U.S. can compete in the global economy. We can, because we have an innate ability to adapt to new conditions. Our economy is more agile than ever, and Id offer the following reasons why. Call it my five-part formula for economic resiliency. A first principle is sound economic policy having a clear understanding of the proper role between government and the private sector. Tax policy is important. As far back as President John F. Kennedy, tax cuts have created growth. If you look at President Bushs two tax cuts, the package in 2001 came just in time and
prevented the turndown caused by the horrible terrorist attacks of 9/11 from being even more severe. The 2003 tax cuts sparked new growth. Theres a simple reason behind this: individuals will almost inevitably

spend a dollar more productively than the

federal government. Wise monetary policy fits in here. Weve been fortunate to have knowledgeable stewards in Federal Reserve
Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and, before him, Paul Volcker. Theyve made informed decisions on interest rates that have helped to keep

deregulation and privatization . The shift from regulation to competition has saved consumers money, promoted innovation, and given rise to entirely new industries. Weve now had
inflation low. A second principle is more than two decades of experience with deregulation, starting with airlines, trains, and trucking and moving to energy, telecommunications, and financial services. A joint Brookings Institution/Mercatus Center study found that consumers

have saved from 10 to 25 percent from the deregulation of network industries, and the array of new services is astounding. Perfect markets dont
develop overnight. Sometimes government confounds the problem with poor policy, like the failed electricity restructuring law in California. There are those who long for a return to the days of command-and-control. But I dont think that consumers really want to give up the services and savings that have come from competition. A third bedrock of a resilient economy is

free trade . Ive alluded to how it lifts

economies and promotes freedom. But because a single plant closing often gets more attention than the diffuse benefits of free trade to the general public, lets discuss in plain terms why its good for the U.S. First, virtually every other country has higher tariffs than we do. So the U.S. automatically gains in any trade deal by winning more access for our products. Exports are deeply ingrained into our economy. Twenty-five percent of our recent growth has come from exports. One in five jobs in the U.S. is now export-related. And those jobs pay better than the averagewages are typically 13 to 18 percent higher. The choices created
by trade save the average consumer as much as $2,000 annually. Until the recent approval of Trade Promotion Authority, the U.S. was in danger of slipping. The Europeans were sealing more trade deals, establishing holds in emerging markets that we might not have been able to break. Its interesting to me that after ten years, NAFTA still stirs such emotions. It has a good record. While the rhetoric is all over the map, impartial studies admit that U.S. exports to Mexico have risen substantially, especially in high value products. Mexico is more stable and democratic and a lucrative North American trading zone has formed. In fact, Canada and Mexico are by far the largest export markets for Ohio. The Buckeye State has a big stake in international trade. Were the sixth-largest exporting state, sending nearly $28 billion in goods to other countries in 2002. Our factories ship cars, rubber, glass products, machinery, plastics, paper, and medical instruments all over the world. You can trace 20 percent of Ohios manufacturing jobs to exports; and on the farm, every third row of corn and soybeans is sent overseas. Ohio has also been the beneficiary of foreign investment that has created 200,000 jobs. Perhaps the most dramatic example is Honda. Governor Jim Rhodes showed great foresight when he traveled to Japan to persuade Honda to build a new automobile plant in Ohio. Approaching its 25th year of manufacturing in the U.S., Honda directly employs 13,000 people in four Ohio facilities and thousands more in its supplier chain of 125 companies. Honda realized it needed a presence in the U.S. in order to succeed in this market. As a result, workers in my congressional district are drawing a good paycheck, and the standard for vehicle manufacturing has been raised substantially. A fourth factor of resilience is the

adaptability and creative spirit of Americans . Were always willing to experiment with new and more efficient technologies, from the assembly line to e-commerce. Wal-Mart gained its edge by using computers to track inventories.
Factories have cut their costs through just-in-time manufacturing. Chairman Greenspan has said that the growth in productivity is one reason why the U.S. sustained a long period of both low inflation and low interest rates. While higher productivity is probably temporarily responsible for a job lag, its a must for lasting prosperity. In the end, we

succeed because of the entrepreneurial skills of our people. Maybe the Horatio Alger stories sound corny to some people. But America is a place where great software companies do begin in a
garage, and where people are willing to take great risks in order to succeed. Its not easy to teach innovation like this, but it has always been part of our society. I think it

starts with a basic belief in freedom, that people are able to pursue their dreams. So, when Im asked about the economy, I am optimistic. We overcome our challenges. But theres
no denying that some of these changes are unsettling. We have gained jobs from globalization, and have also lost them. But the solution isnt what the WTO protestors did in Seattle, which was to trash the Starbucks coffee shop, or to revert to knee-jerk protectionism. Some forget that the Depression was made even worse by the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs. There are things immediately under our control, such as improving our own competitiveness. Regulations, lawsuits, outdated work rules, and health and energy expenses add about 22 percent to U.S. manufacturing costs. By passing energy legislation and even modest tort reform, we can start to get a handle on those costs. Look at the asbestos mess. Legitimate victims deserve compensation, but we now have a system where runaway lawsuits are driving companies into bankruptcy. Owens-Illinois is a major employer in the Toledo area that has been sued 300,000 times. But despite even the urging of the courts, efforts in Congress to come up with an equitable and scientific solution to asbestos compensation have been blocked by the powerful trial lawyers lobby. We

also need to emphasize worker training. Our competitive advantage over developing countries is adding

value to the products we make, and it takes a skilled workforce to do that. When companies do move, the workers left behind need access to education and retraining programs. In nearby Mansfield, we were able to get a $100,000 federal grant for technology training at North Central State College. To compete successfully, our citizens need a more thorough understanding of how the global economy works. The media can do a better job here, because a lack of balance is unfair and even harmful. Why do a few hundred protestors get more coverage than the actual details of an agreement that could benefit millions of poor people? Why is a factory closing front-page news, but stories on companies quietly adding 10, 20, or 50 new jobs due to expanded markets less compelling? There is a fifth and final principle of economic resiliency:

the

ability of our system to reform, to move forward, to solve problems, and to become more efficient . An important part of the American miracle is the political will and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Over the years that I have been involved in economic and business issues, we have been willing to modernize our markets and remake our economy. We are willing to change, to throw out things that dont work, even though the future might be uncertain. America would never allow itself to sink in quicksand like the German economy or get bogged down by bad bank loans like Japan. The principles of democracy and fairness apply to our government, and they also govern our marketplace. People in America wouldnt stand for zero competition in the telecommunications
business; they wanted choice and better service and better prices. So the telecommunications business changed, and the 1996 Telecom Act was passed. Consequently, the amount and accessibility and speed of information have exploded. In spite of the burst bubble that set the industry back, telecommunications is now on a track of sustained growth. The individual investor looms large in the capital markets as well. The markets are constantly evolving, constantly becoming more democratic. Investors were paying too much in spreads under the old system of fractional pricing, and we were able to prevail upon the exchanges to implement dollars-and-cents decimal pricing. Now, you see your stock price in dollars and cents, and you pay less to Wall Street when you buy or sell.

Economy wont collapsefive reasons Roche 11 (Cullen Roche, writer at Pragmatic Capitalism, 5 REASONS THE U.S. ECONOMY WONT
COLLAPSE, http://pragcap.com/5-reasons-the-u-s-economy-wont-collapse, 9-9-11) I keep repeating that the debate over a double dip is meaningless. Why? Because weve been in one long balance sheet recession this entire time. So, a good way to think about this is to think of the U.S. like a boxer. We were knocked flat on our back in 2008 and have since struggled to one knee. We never got back to our feet though. So these conversations that imply we might be on the verge of falling down again are rather pointless. Sure, we might fall down again, but we already have one knee on the canvass! The point is, with this much slack in the economy, its unlikely that any economic downturn from here will be substantial. Does that mean I think the
U.S. economy cant contract from here? No, but I would be very surprised if we were to experience another blow similar to the 2008 recession where real GDP fell 5%. To put this argument in some perspective, analysts

at ING tend to agree. They see the economy as muddling through, but not collapsing. They cite 5 reasons for this perspective: Cyclical sensitive sectors, namely the housing sector and the auto sector, are already weak and are unlikely to contract much more. Households balance sheets have improved since the global financial crisis. Lower rates over a considerable period of time benefit net borrowers. Most US households will benefit from low borrowing rates. The trade deficit is likely to narrow due to slower import growth, decline in energy and commodity prices and a weak trade weighted dollar. Decline in commodity prices will check headline inflation and could lift households purchasing power. Investors fears are based on their most recent experience. The unpleasant memories of the global financial crisis
are biasing investors sentiments. Equity markets could be a bit of a different story here. I am actually becoming increasingly concerned about a potential profits recession in the USA as international growth tapers off (remember, the market is not the economy). But with all of this doom and gloom in the air, I think its important to keep things in some perspective. The

downside for the US economy as a whole isnt enormous here. We just dont have that much further to fall because we never really got up. Source: ING

AT: Economy Impact Doesnt Turn Democracy

Economic collapse doesnt destroy a democracy Luttwak 07 (Edward Luttwak, reviewing Niall Fergusons The War of the World: Twentieth-Century
Conflict and the Descent of the West, The War of the World by Niall Ferguson, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-war-of-the-world-by-niall-ferguson/, March 2007) But economic volatility did not undermine the democratic systems of the English-speaking countries or of France, the low countries, Scandinavia, or Switzerland. Not only that, but some countries that remained democratic, like Australia and the U.S., actually underwent greater economic dislocation than did countries
like Japan and Spain that lost whatever democratic institutions they had. To be sure, one does not demand of a historian that he provide scientific explanations covering every single case, but these exceptions do nevertheless greatly weaken Fergusons thesis. In general, no

matter how plausible economic explanations of political change may appear, on closer examination it always turns out that the stronger determinant is the prior political culture. Although a societys political health is certainly influenced by its economic system and that systems performance, this influence is felt only over the span of generations; short-term volatility has a much smaller impact . In particular, democracies that are solid enough can overcome
almost

anything including not only economic collapse but prolonged foreign occupationwhile experimental democracies

sustained only by enlightened minorities are much more easily fractured. This seems obvious and in some ways tautological, but no less true for that.