Unnamed: 0
int64 0
241k
| Full-Document
stringlengths 96
265k
| Citation
stringlengths 1
50k
| Extract
stringlengths 34
30.6k
| Abstract
stringlengths 8
8.56k
| #CharsDocument
int64 96
265k
| #CharsAbstract
int64 8
8.56k
| #CharsExtract
int64 34
30.6k
| #WordsDocument
int64 20
41.6k
| #WordsAbstract
int64 4
1.34k
| #WordsExtract
int64 11
4.68k
| AbsCompressionRatio
float64 0
0.99
| ExtCompressionRatio
float64 0
1
| OriginalDebateFileName
stringlengths 19
104
| DebateCamp
stringclasses 30
values | Tag
stringclasses 15
values | Year
stringclasses 11
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3,200 |
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) urged their House Republican colleagues to pass immigration reform legislation in a closed-door meeting Wednesday, with the Speaker arguing his conference would be “in a much weaker position” if it failed to act.¶ A divided House Republican conference met for more than two hours in the basement of the Capitol to begin hashing out a response to the sweeping immigration bill the Senate passed last month.¶ Boehner spoke at the outset of the meeting and reiterated his pledge that no immigration bill, including a final House-Senate conference report, would come to the floor without the support of a majority of the House GOP. But both he and Ryan, the House budget chief and the GOP’s vice presidential nominee in 2012, made the case that the House GOP should take action on immigration in a way that reflected the party’s principles, Republicans in the room said.¶ Boehner “said we’d be in a much weaker position if we didn’t act,” according to Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). “He clearly wants to act, thinks something needs to get done. Frankly, our principles are probably closer to where the American people are, but it’s incumbent upon us to act.”¶ The party leadership did not lay out a timetable for floor votes in the meeting, though members indicated leaders could develop a timeline in the coming weeks.¶ Members said it was likely that the House would wait until after the August congressional recess to act, although votes on individual border security and interior enforcement bills that have passed out of committee were possible before then.¶ Following the meeting, Ryan said he was optimistic the House would act.¶ “I think our members are ready to tackle this issue. It needs to be fixed,” he told reporters. “There is an emerging consensus that our immigration system is broken, that we need to fix it, and we need to do it in a very thorough way.¶ “I feel very good. I feel we are in very good position to do it the right way. We don't want to rush anything,” he said before diving into a crowded elevator.
|
Berman 7/10/13 (Russell, “Boehner warns House GOP will be weaker without immigration reform”, http://thehill.com/homenews/house/310259-boehner-gop-would-be-in-much-weaker-position-without-action-on-immigration, CMR)
|
Boehner and Ryan urged their House Republican colleagues to pass immigration reform legislation Boehner clearly wants to act, thinks something needs to get done it’s incumbent upon us to act members indicated leaders could develop a timeline in the coming weeks. Following the meeting, Ryan was optimistic the House would act our members are ready to tackle this issue There is an emerging consensus that our immigration system is broken, that we need to fix it, and we need to do it in a very thorough way
|
Will pass – Boehner and Ryan are building momentum
| 2,079 | 51 | 506 | 358 | 9 | 87 | 0.02514 | 0.243017 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,201 |
I jumped the gun last month when I wrote a piece with the unfortunate headline "IT'S OVER: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is Going To Pass."¶ Obviously, immigration reform is on the rocks. But its death is being greatly exaggerated in the media.¶ Republicans and Democrats in Congress both have reasons to signal inflexibility on the content of an immigration bill, regardless of how inflexible they actually are.¶ Speaker John Boehner needs to convince Democrats that Republicans are willing to kill the bill without major policy concessions. Democrats, like Chuck Schumer, need to convince Republicans that they are willing to let the bill die rather than give up desired elements like the pathway to citizenship.¶ Jon Ward of the Huffington Post lays out how this needle could theoretically be threaded. It would involve replacing the Path to Citizenship which so alarms many House Republicans with something less, along the lines of Sen. Rand Paul's "No New Path To Citizenship" proposal.¶ You can call it a Pathway to Legalization—unauthorized immigrants would get the right to stay in the country legally and could pursue citizenship if they become eligible through existing legal channels, but would not get a separately established right to apply for Permanent Resident status after 10 years.¶ I spoke this afternoon with Sean West, Director of Eurasia Group's U.S. practice, who is reiterating his call that there is a 60% chance of immigration reform's passage this year. But he thinks the bill that passes may not involve a path to citizenship.¶ There are two key questions about this approach: Could it be acceptable to a majority of House Republicans, and could Democrats swallow hard and accept it? The answer to both is maybe.¶ Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee and is generally viewed as an immigration skeptic, favors such an approach. So does Paul, who ended up voting against the Senate bill because of concerns about the path to citizenship and border security.¶ A path to legalization without citizenship would satisfy the needs of Republican-aligned business interests, which just want to be able to hire immigrant workers. And it could calm worries among Republicans wary of granting citizenship to members of a likely Democratic voting block.¶ Of course, Democrats have repeatedly insisted that immigration reform isn't comprehensive if it doesn't contain a path to citizenship. But if they're presented with a bill that serves most of their other goals, will they really turn it down? There are a few reasons they shouldn't.¶ Legalization would lead to a major advance in quality of life for unauthorized immigrants even if it didn't come with a path to citizenship. A substantial fraction of newly-legalized immigrants would later become eligible for citizenship through existing channels, such as marriage to a citizen or sponsorship by a relative, even without a special path.¶ Perhaps most importantly, legalization would bring formerly unauthorized immigrants out of the shadows and enable them to lobby for a path to citizenship in the future. Even the path to citizenship in the Senate immigration bill wouldn't lead to the creation of any new U.S. citizens until 2026. Democrats will almost surely control the whole federal government at some point between now and then, so if there's no path to citizenship in an immigration bill passed this year, they will likely be able to enact one later.¶ Of course, that reason for Democrats to accept a bill with no path to citizenship is a reason for Republicans to resist passing one. But there are still good reasons for House Republicans to feel they have to pass something.¶ Business interests and the Republican elites that align closely with them desperately want an immigration bill. They haven't given up: Grover Norquist, Al Cardenas and Doug Holtz-Eakin came out with another letter yesterday urging Boehner to pass something.¶ If the House doesn't pass any immigration bill, they will have to take all of the blame for reform getting defeated, alienating not just Hispanics but many of the top funders of Republican politics.¶ When I asked this morning on Twitter about the last time Republican elites fought so hard for something and got rebuked by their own elected officials, the proffered examples were not on point: TARP. "Plan B" for the fiscal cliff. This year's farm bill.¶ House Republicans defected on TARP and changed their mind less than two weeks later. When Plan B got defeated, Boehner had no choice but to let a substantively similar (actually, farther left) bill pass with mostly Democratic votes. Everybody expects the House to eventually pass a farm bill, too. In each case, the elites eventually got (or will get) more or less what they want.¶ If House Republicans pass a bill with no path to citizenship, they'll be able to accurately tell business interests that they passed legislation addressing their priorities, Hispanics that they voted for a bill that changes immigration in a way that substantially betters the lives of immigrants, and conservatives that they didn't just roll over to Democratic priorities. The politics are drastically better than not passing anything at all.¶ And passing such a bill would put Democrats in a challenging political position. Can Schumer really make good on his threat not to go to conference with a House bill that doesn't have a path to citizenship? If he did, he'd give Republicans an opening to credibly declare that Democrats killed immigration reform because they'd rather have a political issue than a law that advances many, if not all, of their policy objectives.¶ A lot of the discussion around immigration reform has focused on two possible outcomes: passage of a bill substantially identical to the Gang of Eight approach, or no bill. But the possibility of a bill that is more limited in scope and more attuned to Republican interests should not be discounted. Don't call immigration reform dead yet.
|
Barro 7-10 (Josh, Politics Editor for Business Insider, “IT'S ALIVE: Stop Saying Immigration Reform Is Dead,” http://www.businessinsider.com/its-alive-stop-saying-immigration-reform-is-dead-2013-7, ME”
|
immigration reform is on the rocks. But its death is being greatly exaggerated in the media. Speaker John Boehner needs to convince Democrats that Republicans are willing to kill the bill without major policy concessions Democrats are willing to let the bill die rather than give up desired elements like the pathway to citizenship how this needle could theoretically be threaded. It would involve replacing the Path to Citizenship with a Pathway to Legalization—unauthorized immigrants would get the right to stay in the country legally and could pursue citizenship if they become eligible through existing legal channels, There are two key questions about this approach: Could it be acceptable to a majority of House Republicans, and could Democrats swallow hard and accept it? The answer to both is maybe A path to legalization without citizenship would satisfy the needs of Republican-aligned business interests . And it could calm worries among Republicans wary of granting citizenship to members of a likely Democratic voting block Democrats have repeatedly insisted that immigration reform isn't comprehensive if it doesn't contain a path to citizenship. But if they're presented with a bill that serves most of their other goals, will they really turn it down? they shouldn't A substantial fraction of newly-legalized immigrants would later become eligible for citizenship through existing channels, such as marriage to a citizen or sponsorship by a relative, even without a special path most importantly, legalization would bring formerly unauthorized immigrants out of the shadows and enable them to lobby for a path to citizenship in the future here's no path to citizenship in an immigration bill passed this year, they will likely be able to enact one later. Republicans to feel they have to pass something Republican elites that align closely with them desperately want an immigration bill If the House doesn't pass any immigration bill, they will have to take all of the blame for reform getting defeated, alienating not just Hispanics but many of the top funders of Republican politics the elites eventually got (or will get) more or less what they want.¶ the possibility of a bill that is more limited in scope and more attuned to Republican interests should not be discounted. Don't call immigration reform dead yet.
|
The bill will pass- multiple reasons
| 5,999 | 36 | 2,334 | 976 | 6 | 373 | 0.006148 | 0.382172 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,202 |
Congress is back from their 4th of July recess this week, and many — perhaps millions — are waiting anxiously to see what happens to immigration reform in the House of Representatives.¶ While some — such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — are optimistic about the House passing immigration reform soon, Republican attitudes in the chamber they control indicate the fight is going to be tougher than anticipated.¶ But although some House Republicans have been outspoken in their opposition to the pathway to citizenship and other aspects of the immigration reform bill passed by the Senate, conservatives in and outside Washington are making it clear that they support immigration reform, and it is time for Congress to get its act together.¶ A familiar face resurfaces¶ Former President George W. Bush has been quiet in the years after leaving office, with only few details about his life after the White House surfacing. Most recently, Bush was in the news when his presidential library was inaugurated. Now, he’s stepping back into the spotlight to support immigration reform.¶ The Republican — who supported Sen. Harry Reid’s immigration reform proposal in 2007 — is set to deliver keynote remarks at a citizenship ceremony held at his presidential library on Wednesday, and he is expected to make the case for immigration reform.¶ Bush has already begun advocating for comprehensive immigration reform this time around when he appeared yesterday on ABC’s “This Week.”¶ “I think it’s very important to fix a broken system, to treat people with respect, and have confidence in our capacity to assimilate people,” he said.¶ Meanwhile, the conservative American Action Network just launched a new ad focused on supporting the border surge included in the Senate immigration reform package.¶ Although this isn’t the first time the group supports immigration reform this way, it is the first time they focus on getting this bill through the House. The ad urges citizens to call Congress and support “conservative immigration reform.” Titled “Surge,” it will run nationwide during primetime on Fox News and will be complemented by a digital ad campaign in Washington, D.C.¶ Activists in place to defend and promote immigration reform¶ Groups lead by CASA in Action have planned a manifestation to take place outside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday afternoon — when the House Republican Conference is set to have a special meeting during which it is expected the group will decide how to proceed on immigration reform. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) already said he will not move forward to consider the Senate bill or other immigration reform measures such as S.744 if the majority of Republican representatives don’t support it.¶ CASA in Action is expecting hundreds of families to gather on the Hill for the “Rally for Citizenship.” In a press release, organizers emphasized that the fact that conservatives — such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) — are standing behind immigration reform underscores the “growing recognition” that Republicans need to pass immigration reform for them to survive.
|
Gonzalez 7/8/13 (Rocio, “Conservatives stand behind immigration reform at crucial moment”, http://www.voxxi.com/conservatives-support-immigration-reform/#ixzz2YaGpjFx1, CMR)
|
While some are optimistic about the House passing immigration reform soon, Republican attitudes indicate the fight is going to be tougher than anticipated But conservatives are making it clear they support immigration reform, and it is time for Congress to get its act together Former President Bush he’s stepping back into the spotlight to support immigration reform. the conservative American Action Network just launched a new ad focused on supporting the package it is the first time they focus on getting this bill through the House. that conservatives such as Gov Bush McCain and Rubio are standing behind immigration reform underscores the “growing recognition” that Republicans need to pass immigration reform
|
Will pass due to momentum – but not without a fight
| 3,148 | 52 | 717 | 507 | 11 | 111 | 0.021696 | 0.218935 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,203 |
Pro-reform groups are keeping up efforts to maintain momentum. ¶ Organizations like the Evangelical Immigration Table, a coalition of faith groups supporting immigration reform efforts in Congress, are working to broaden support for House action. According to Matt Staver, the chairman of Liberty Counsel, about a half dozen religious organizations, including the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Council and the Southern Baptist Association, are lobbying House members to move forward with some kind of legislation, whether it’s the Senate bill or a separate House effort.¶ “As long as they’re [the House members] willing to engage in the dialogue and keep moving forward, I’m okay if they want to start over again,” said David Cooper, a Christian school president and another member of the coalition. “I’m not endorsing a single bill that’s out there right now, but I am standing behind the general principle that the Evangelical Immigration Table has put forward.”¶ Republican proponents of comprehensive reform also haven't given up the fight for a bill that includes a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants – a central tenet of the Senate bill and a non-negotiable component of any legislation for Democrats on both sides of the aisle.¶ Three prominent conservatives – Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Al Cardenas of the American Conservative Union – implored Boehner in an open letter to "to take up a comprehensive package of immigration reforms – be it one bill or many – that secures our border, increases the legal flow of workers, and deals sensibly with the undocumented population."
|
Dann 7/9/13 (Carrie, “After Senate immigration marathon, House signals narrow path”, http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/09/19374503-after-senate-immigration-marathon-house-signals-narrow-path, CMR)
|
Pro-reform groups are keeping up efforts to maintain momentum Organizations are working to broaden support for House action a half dozen religious organizations, are lobbying House members to move forward with legislation Republican proponents haven't given up the fight for a bill that includes a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants Three prominent conservatives implored Boehner to take up a comprehensive package of immigration reforms
|
Will pass due to momentum – proponents are building support
| 1,677 | 60 | 451 | 264 | 10 | 65 | 0.037879 | 0.246212 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,204 |
WASHINGTON -- The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is targeting House Republicans with an ad on immigration reform that serves as a greatest hits of sorts of Republicans' controversial statements on the topic, from disparaging "wetbacks" to dismissing "anchor babies."¶ House Republicans are holding a meeting on Wednesday to discuss their approach to immigration reform, after the Senate passed a bipartisan bill 68 to 32 last month. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has vowed not to take up the bill, and there are indications his conference won't agree to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants -- possibly dooming reform because Democrats say they can't support a bill without it.¶ Democrats believe some Republicans can be convinced to support reform, and the congressional campaign committee will run its ads Tuesday and Wednesday in districts of those perhaps persuadable GOP members. The video mockingly predicts some of the things that might come up in the meeting, based on quotes from the members who will be in the room. "This is how we imagine the conversation will go," it begins.
|
Foley 7/9/13 (Elise, “Democrat Immigration Campaign Targets House Republicans”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/democrat-immigration-campaign_n_3568271.html, CMR)
|
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is targeting House Republicans House Republicans are holding a meeting to discuss their approach to immigration reform Democrats believe Republicans can be convinced to support reform the congressional campaign committee will run its ads in districts of those perhaps persuadable GOP members
|
New campaign by Democrats will sway House Republicans
| 1,119 | 54 | 339 | 177 | 8 | 47 | 0.045198 | 0.265537 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,205 |
Reform advocates and Democrats on the Hill are not ready to give up just yet, and they are quietly circulating a new memo that details a list of House Republicans they believe may — may — be gettable in support of reform.¶ The list and memo, which you can check out right here, is meant as a very broad, and admittedly optimistic, look at the full range of House Republicans whose support should not be completely ruled out just yet.¶ The idea here is that if Speaker John Boehner does, in the end, allow a vote on the Senate bill, or something else that does contain a path to citizenship, you would need only a few dozen House Republicans to support it for it to pass, since most House Dems would vote for it. Boehner has publicly ruled that out, but there are some grounds for doubting whether a decision has actually been made. From the memo:¶ If there is a vote on comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship in the House, it will pass with a bipartisan majority. If all but a handful of the House Democrats vote yes, and at least 20 Republicans from the list below come along, reform can easily clear the 218 necessary to pass the lower chamber. Looking at the list of 99 House Republicans below, it’s clear that capturing those 20 or so Republican votes is well within reach. Our target list includes several different groups of Republicans, such as:¶ * Republicans with growing numbers of Latino and Asian constituents. While redistrictring has temporarily insulated many House Republicans from the “demographic cliff” their party faces if it caters only to white voters, at least 38 Republican members of Congress represent heavily Latino districts — and approximately 25 GOP memberes are in diverse swing districts where the growing Latino, Asian, and immigrant vote is crucial. These include California Republicans Jeff Denham, David Valadao, Gary Miller, Buck McKeon and Devin Nunes; Colorado Republican Mike Coffman; Florida Republicans Mario Diaz-Balart and Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (both of whom are longtime supporters of immigration reform); New York Republicans Peter King and Michael Grimm; and Nevada Republican Joe Heck.¶ * Republicans with agricultural or high-tech interests in their districts. Both the agriculture and high-tech sectors urgently need immigration reform to secure a 21st Century workforce. Republicans who should support reform for the economic well being of their districts include Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Spencer Bachus, and Sam Johnson, all of whom represent agriculture-heavy districts, and Darrell Issa, whose district includes tech interests.¶ The memo goes on to list several leading figures in the House GOP who have already backed immigration reform for the long term good of the party, such as Paul Ryan, Greg Walden, and Raul Labrador. The full list is here.
|
Sargent 7/8/13 (Greg, “Can immigration reform pass the House? Maybe.”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/08/can-immigration-reform-pass-the-house-maybe/, CMR)
|
Reform advocates are not ready to give up they are circulating a new memo that details a list of House Republicans they believe may be gettable in support of reform support should not be ruled out yet if Boehner does allow the Senate bill, or a path to citizenship, you would need only a few dozen House Republicans for it to pass since most House Dems would vote for it reform can easily clear the 218 necessary to pass the lower chamber capturing 20 Republican votes is well within reach. Our target list includes Republicans with growing Latino and Asian constituents Republicans with ag or high-tech interests several leading figures have backed immigration reform
|
New memo will create a path for House passage – vote count
| 2,831 | 59 | 668 | 465 | 12 | 114 | 0.025806 | 0.245161 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,206 |
Former President George W. Bush pressed lawmakers to act on comprehensive immigration reform and expressed confidence they were “making some progress” on the contentious issue during an interview aired Sunday on ABC’s "This Week."¶ “I think it's very important to fix a broken system, to treat people with respect, and have confidence in our capacity to assimilate people,” Bush told ABC’s Jonathan Karl in an interview taped last week during his visit to Africa. “It's a very difficult bill to pass because there's a lotta moving parts. And the legislative process is-- can be ugly. But it looks like they're making some progress.”¶ The Senate last month passed a comprehensive immigration bill, but Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) says the House will adopt its own legislation. Immigration reform faces an uphill climb in the House, where many Republicans are opposed to efforts to grant illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship and say the bipartisan Senate proposals do little to tighten border security.¶ A bipartisan House group is working on its own proposal, but Boehner has warned he will not move legislation unless it has the support of a majority of the GOP conference.¶ During his presidency, Bush sought to pass immigration reform, but his proposal was defeated in Congress.¶ Bush said that failure had left him “frustrated.”¶ “I thought the plan I'd laid out on both was reasonable. But sometimes it takes time for some of these complex issues to evolve. And it looks like immigration's, you know, has a chance to pass.”¶ Many Republicans are pressing their party to join with Democrats to pass immigration reform, arguing that failing to do so could cost them Hispanic voters in national elections. Bush said that the political calculus did not enter into his decision to support reform.¶ “Well, the reason to pass immigration reform is not to bolster a Republican party, it's to fix a system that's broken,” said Bush. “Good policy yields good politics as far as I'm concerned.”
|
Mali 7/7 (Meghashyam, contributor to The Hill, “Bush sees lawmakers ‘making progress’ on immigration reform,” http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/309449-bush-heartened-to-see-congress-making-some-progress-on-immigration, ME)
|
Bush pressed lawmakers to act on comprehensive immigration reform and expressed confidence they were “making some progress” on the contentious issue “It's a very difficult bill to pass because there's a lotta moving parts. And the legislative process is-- can be ugly. But it looks like they're making some progress.”¶ but Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) says the House will adopt its own legislation. Immigration reform faces an uphill climb in the House, where many Republicans are opposed to efforts to grant illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship and say the bipartisan Senate proposals do little to tighten border security.¶ A bipartisan House group is working on its own proposal, but Boehner has warned he will not move legislation unless it has the support of a majority of the GOP conference it looks like immigration's, you know, has a chance to pass.”¶ Many Republicans are pressing their party to join with Democrats to pass immigration reform, arguing that failing to do so could cost them Hispanic voters in national elections.
|
Immigration will pass if with bipartisan agreement
| 1,996 | 50 | 1,044 | 328 | 7 | 169 | 0.021341 | 0.515244 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,207 |
On immigration, it’s instructive to talk to strategists of the two parties: Republicans are squirming over the House leadership threat to kill the Senate-passed bill, and Democrats are unified and exuberant. Senate Democrats unanimously supported the bill, as did 30 percent of Republicans, including some conservatives such as Arizona’s Jeff Flake, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida.¶ A majority of the House today almost certainly supports a measure that would resemble the Senate legislation. The rationale of the Republican leadership is that it needs a majority of the majority party. Try selling that to voters, especially in the Hispanic community.¶ The Senate bill, which probably involved more political concessions than necessary, is a step forward and commands support from an impressive coalition: the business community, especially the high-tech industry; labor, Hispanic and civil rights groups; top current and former Republican governors; many evangelicals, and even a few right-wingers.¶ Immigration Momentum¶ House Republicans will feel the heat from this diverse crowd. This isn’t a reprise of 2007; immigration reform won’t die.
|
Hunt 7/7 (Albert, Bloomberg View columnist, “U.S. Tilts Progressive on Immigration and Gay Marriage,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-07/u-s-tilts-progressive-on-immigration-and-gay-marriage.html, ME
|
Republicans are squirming over the House leadership threat to kill the Senate-passed bill, and Democrats are unified and exuberant. Senate Democrats unanimously supported the bill, as did 30 percent of Republicans, A majority of the House today almost certainly supports a measure that would resemble the Senate legislation. The rationale of the Republican leadership is that it needs a majority of the majority party. Try selling that to voters, especially in the Hispanic community. The Senate bill, which probably involved more political concessions than necessary, is a step forward and commands support from an impressive coalition: the business community, especially the high-tech industry; labor, Hispanic and civil rights groups; top current and former Republican governors; many evangelicals, and even a few right-wingers.¶ House Republicans will feel the heat from this diverse crowd. immigration reform won’t die.
|
Will pass now- many groups pushing
| 1,161 | 34 | 924 | 173 | 6 | 136 | 0.034682 | 0.786127 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,208 |
FIRM recently joined a coalition of several groups—including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Mi Familia Vota—to spend more than $1 million on a pro-immigration reform campaign.¶ The campaign, which launched Tuesday, consists of organizing congressional office visits, registering people to vote for the 2014 midterm election and launching radio ads. Those efforts are focused on 11 House Republicans who will be key in passing immigration reform. Seven of them hold important leadership positions and four of them are in purple districts that have a sizable population of Latino voters.¶ Among the House leadership targets are: Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of California, Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam of Illinois, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa of California, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden of Oregon and House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington.¶ The other four House Republican targets include: House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon of California, Mike Coffman of Colorado, Dan Webster of Florida and Michael Grimm of New York. All four face reelection in purple districts where Latinos account for about 20 percent of the population.
|
Nevarez, 7/5 (Griselda, July 5, 2013, “Immigration Reform Advocates Prepare For The Tough Road Ahead”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/immigration-reform-advocates_n_3550153.html, 7/8/2013, PB)
|
FIRM recently joined a coalition of several groups to spend more than $1 million on a pro-immigration reform campaign.¶ The campaign , consists of organizing congressional office visits, registering people to vote for the 2014 midterm election and launching radio ads. Those efforts are focused on 11 House Republicans who will be key in passing immigration reform. four of them are in purple districts that have a sizable population of Latino voters.¶
|
CIR will pass, groups are pressuring Republicans who are likely to vote for it
| 1,352 | 78 | 452 | 198 | 14 | 72 | 0.070707 | 0.363636 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,209 |
Additional groups have their own plans to push for immigration reform next week, as the immigration debate heats up in the House.¶ One of those groups is America’s Voice. The pro-immigration reform group will join the polling firm Latino Decisions next week to release survey results that will show several competitive congressional races where the Latino vote could swing the elections. The survey results will help advocates know which House members to pressure to support immigration reform.
|
Nevarez, 7/5 (Griselda, July 5, 2013, “Immigration Reform Advocates Prepare For The Tough Road Ahead”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/immigration-reform-advocates_n_3550153.html, 7/8/2013, PB)
|
Additional groups have their own plans to push for immigration reform One of those groups is America’s Voice. The pro-immigration reform group will release survey results that will show several competitive congressional races where the Latino vote could swing the elections. The survey results will help advocates know which House members to pressure to support immigration reform.
|
CIR will pass, several republicans have a sizable Latino population and will vote yes on CIR to be reelected.
| 494 | 109 | 381 | 77 | 19 | 57 | 0.246753 | 0.74026 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,210 |
They’re going to feel a desire to get this done quickly,” an architect of the Senate bill, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), said on “Fox News Sunday.” He argued the House would be unable to pass its own bill and would eventually relent and accept the Senate proposal, a scenario Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has ruled out in no uncertain terms.
|
Berman 7/3 (Russell, July 3, 2013, “No pressure on House Republicans to tackle immigration reform”, http://thehill.com/homenews/house/309049-no-pressure-on-gop-to-tackle-immigration, 7/8/2013, PB)
|
They’re going to feel a desire to get this done quickly, the House would be unable to pass its own bill and would eventually relent and accept the Senate proposal
|
CIR will pass, Republicans will agree to a compromise when they realize that they can’t pass their own Immigration Reform Bill
| 343 | 126 | 162 | 60 | 21 | 30 | 0.35 | 0.5 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,211 |
The immigration reform bill that cleared the Senate resulted from a compromise between moderate Republicans and Democrats. Democrats agreed not to push the issue of same-sex spouses’ eligibility for family reunification visas. The recent Supreme Court ruling that stroke down the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) has made liberal democrats more optimistic about the prospects of future Supreme Court rulings that would end all type of federal discrimination against same-sex couples. Since the number of states legalizing same-sex marriage is likely to increase, liberal democrats were willing to acquiesce to excluding same-sex marriage provisions from immigration reform. After all, if same-sex marriage continues to make progress at the state level, eventually immigration laws will also catch up. Liberal democrats are willing not to put the immigration reform under attack from Republicans if they expect that the Supreme Court will eventually rule that the federal government cannot discriminate against same-sex couples.
|
Navias 7/9 (Patricio, 7/9/2013, “Immigration reform faces same-old hurdles”, http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/135569/immigration-reform-faces-sameold-hurdles, 7/9/2013, PB)
|
Democrats agreed not to push the issue of same-sex spouses’ eligibility for family reunification visas. The recent Supreme Court ruling that stroke down DOMA has made liberal democrats more optimistic about the prospects of future Supreme Court rulings that would end all type of federal discrimination against same-sex couples if same-sex marriage continues to make progress at the state level, eventually immigration laws will also catch up. democrats expect that the Supreme Court will eventually rule that the federal government cannot discriminate against same-sex couples.
|
CIR will pass, Democrats are no longer pushing for same-sex provisions in the bill
| 1,025 | 82 | 578 | 150 | 14 | 85 | 0.093333 | 0.566667 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,212 |
Washington (CNN) - One day after the Senate passed a full-spectrum immigration bill with overwhelming support, the chairman of the Republican National Committee re-emphasized the need for reform but said the final contours of the legislation are far from settled.¶ "We need comprehensive immigration reform," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told CNN in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. "I don't think we can continue to drift along with this mess of immigration laws that we have. And a mess that in many regards has been the results of our government not even enforcing the laws that are in place. There is plenty of blame to go around for why we are in this position, but I think it's about time that we address it."¶ The immigration overhaul would create a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, raise the cap on visas for high-skilled workers, and boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border, was approved Thursday by a 68-32 vote, with 14 Republicans supporting the measure.¶ The Senate bill, though, is not expected to pass muster in the Republican-controlled House, where a conservative-dominated caucus stands waiting in staunch opposition to the measure.¶ Despite that reluctance – and outspoken criticism from some leading conservative figures and Senate Republicans who opposed the bill - Priebus said "it's clear that there is pretty broad consensus in the party, in the Republican Party, that we need comprehensive immigration reform."¶ Priebus said that House Speaker John Boehner is unlikely to take up the Senate bill and instead craft a package that could be approved by the House before being taken back to Senate negotiators.¶ "My understanding is that the House is going to draft its own version of an immigration bill that they see as either a better fix for comprehensive immigration reform, or something that is reflective of the Republican majority of the House, and then potentially go to conference, and potentially have a conclusion," he said.¶ "I know the leadership in the House is committed to putting something pretty comprehensive together that's going to address the issue," he said.¶ Priebus, challenged with making his party appealing to a Hispanic electorate that favored President Obama by a stunning 3-1 ratio in the 2012 election, credited Republicans for helping push the immigration bill over the Senate finish line.¶ He pointed specifically to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's decision to work inside the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that crafted the legislation before taking it to the full Senate.¶ "One thing I think is pretty clear," Priebus told CNN. "We wouldn't have been in this place without Republicans being at the table pushing for immigration reform. And I think this conversation would never be happening without Marco Rubio."
|
Hamby, 2013 (7/1) (Peter, bachelor's degree in English from Georgetown University and a master's degree in journalism from New York University, “GOP chief: 'We need comprehensive immigration reform'” CNN: Political Ticker, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/gop-chief-we-need-comprehensive-immigration-reform/, LL)
|
the chairman of the Republican National Committee re-emphasized the need for reform We need comprehensive immigration reform I don't think we can continue to drift along with this mess of immigration laws that we have The immigration overhaul would create a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, raise the cap on visas for high-skilled workers, and boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border it's clear that there is pretty broad consensus in the party, in the Republican Party, that we need comprehensive immigration reform I know the leadership in the House is committed to putting something pretty comprehensive together that's going to address the issue Marco Rubio's decision to work inside the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that crafted the legislation before taking it to the full Senate We wouldn't have been in this place without Republicans being at the table pushing for immigration reform. And I think this conversation would never be happening without Marco Rubio
|
Republicans are quickly getting onboard with the idea of immigration reform as they come to realize the net benefits of the bill.
| 2,800 | 129 | 997 | 451 | 22 | 157 | 0.04878 | 0.348115 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,213 |
As House Republicans convene this week to discuss their next steps on immigration reform, former President George W. Bush underscored the importance of fixing a "broken system." While noting the political controversy surrounding the bill, he said immigration reform "has a chance to pass."¶ "It's a very difficult bill to pass because there are a lot of moving parts, and the legislative process can be ugly, but it looks like they are making some progress," Bush told ABC in an interview taped in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Bush has been in Zambia to help renovate a clinic that serves as a cervical cancer screening and treatment center.¶ Asked if it will hurt the GOP if Republicans fail to pass the bill, Bush said, "The reason to pass immigration reform is not to bolster a Republican Party, it's to fix a system that's broken."¶ "Good policy yields good politics as far as I'm concerned."¶ The former Republican president tried but failed to pass immigration reform during his second term in the White House, thanks in part to opposition from members of Congress from his own party.¶ Bush will deliver a speech on immigration at his presidential library in Dallas at an event titled "What Immigrants Contribute" on Wednesday, the same day House Republicans will meet to discuss their next steps on the issue.¶ Bush was also asked whether his views have evolved on same-sex marriage in light of recent Supreme Court decisions, but insisted he's "not going to wade back into those kinds of issues."¶ "I'm out of politics. The only way I can really make news is either criticize the president, which I don't want to do; criticize my own party; or wade in on a controversial issue," Bush said.¶ The former president met with President Barack Obama in Tanzania on Tuesday before the interview to talk about the Emergency Program for AIDS Relief, a program started by Bush during his first term. The two attended a wreath-laying ceremony commemorating the 1998 U.S. Embassy attack in Dar es Salaam, which killed 11 people, wounding hundreds. On the same day, a separate blast at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killed more than 200 people and wounded close to 5,000.¶ Bush said when he spoke to Obama, he reminisced about similar, long trips during his own presidency.¶ "I remember how tired I used to get, and I said, 'You've got to be kind of worn out.' He said, well, he's had a great trip, looking forward to getting back home."¶ "And I asked him about his little girls - were they having a good time? He said, 'You bet,'" Bush said of Obama's daughters, Sasha and Malia, who accompanied first lady Michelle Obama and the president on the trip.¶ "I remember bringing our daughters on some of these trips, and how meaningful it was to be with them," Bush said, adding that there was no talk of policy.
|
Steinhauser, 2013 (7/7) (Paul, “Bush pushes for progress on immigration” CNN, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/07/bush-pushes-for-progress-on-immigration/, LL)
|
While noting the political controversy surrounding the bill, he said immigration reform looks like they are making some progress The reason to pass immigration reform is not to bolster a Republican Party, it's to fix a system that's broken." "Good policy yields good politics as far as I'm concerned
|
Bush states that the immigration reform bill is on the path of being passed which will cause other Republicans to support the cause.
| 2,806 | 132 | 299 | 487 | 23 | 49 | 0.047228 | 0.100616 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,214 |
Yesterday morning (Australian time) the United States Senate held its first vote on comprehensive immigration reform. It wasn’t on the bill itself, only a motion to proceed to debate – no-one thinks that the current bill is going to be the final version – but it was still an impressive success: with 60 votes needed, the closure motion had 82 in favor and only 15 (all Republicans) against.¶ For their different reasons, both sides want a reform bill passed. For the Obama administration it would be another significant legislative achievement and would provide a path to citizenship for millions of unauthorised immigrants – who, not irrelevantly, might be expected to eventually vote Democrat. For the Republicans, it’s an essential step to try to prove to the voting public, particularly Hispanics, that they are not a bunch of crazy racists.¶ Speaking shortly before the Senate vote, the president pushed strongly for reform, calling the present system “broken” and saying it “hasn’t matched up with our most cherished values.” He made it clear that the bill as it stands is a compromise – “nobody is going to get everything that they want” – but indicated that he was basically happy with it and that, as he put it, “there’s no reason Congress can’t get this done by the end of the summer.”¶ Getting something like the present bill through the Senate won’t be very difficult. The problem is the House of Representatives, where the Republicans hold a majority and where Republican representatives tend to be further to the right and more beholden to nativist voters than their colleagues in the Senate.¶ Even so, the numbers are almost certainly there in the House as well, given that if the Democrats vote solidly they only need 17 Republicans to vote with them for a majority. But the Republican leadership, and particularly speaker John Boehner, have the power to prevent a measure they disapprove of being put to a vote.¶ So the current manoeuvring on the bill is mostly about what needs to be done to win over the House Republican leaders. Interviewed on ABC News this week, Boehner said “I would expect that a House bill will be to the right of where the Senate is,” but seemed clearly open to the idea of a bill being allowed to pass the House with only minority support among Republicans. There is a limit to how far he can go in this direction without alienating his rank-and-file, but if they are going to overthrow him then immigration is probably not the most likely issue.¶ The question then arises whether Republican attempts to amend the bill in the Senate, by the likes of John Cornyn and Rand Paul (both of whom voted to let debate proceed), are genuine moves for a compromise that’s necessary for its ultimate passage, or are really intended to sink reform by producing a bill that Democrats will be unable to support.¶ Molly Ball in the Atlantic looks at just that question, concluding that although some Republicans are irreconcilable, some like Paul are willing to support real reform: “reform proponents aren’t giving up on getting Paul’s vote, though they wonder how high a price they’ll be forced to pay for it.”¶ Jon Chait at New York magazine, who of course is no friend to the Republicans, is more confident that the party has no choice but to accept comprehensive reform:¶ [C]onservatives have not generated anything like the kind of outrage on immigration reform they need to overcome their party elite’s desire to pass a bill. In particular, they have oddly failed to organize around the one chokehold they control, Boehner’s ability to keep a bipartisan bill off the floor. It’s almost as if [Rush] Limbaugh and other conservative entertainers are themselves going through the motions, trying to maintain the loyalty of their own audience while failing to apply the pressure they actually need against the party leadership.
|
Richardson 6/13/13 (Charles, “Immigration reform edges forward in the US”, http://blogs.crikey.com.au/worldisnotenough/2013/06/13/immigration-reform-edges-forward-in-the-us/)
|
both sides want a reform bill passed the bill as it stands is a compromise there’s no reason Congress can’t get this done by the end of the summer Getting the present bill through won’t be very difficult the numbers are certainly there in the House given if the Democrats vote solidly they only need 17 Republicans But the Republican leadership have the power to prevent a measure Republicans are willing to support real reform the party has no choice but to accept comprehensive reform [C]onservatives have not generated outrage they need to overcome desire to pass a bill
|
CIR will pass both houses
| 3,859 | 26 | 573 | 654 | 5 | 99 | 0.007645 | 0.151376 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,215 |
Later this week, the Senate will pass comprehensive immigration reform, and that’s supposed to give the bill momentum in the House. "We’re working to get a very substantial bipartisan majority," said Republican Sen. John Hoeven. "That’s going to help in terms of actually getting the bill all the way through the House and into law." Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, a member of the Senate Gang of Eight that has crafted the bill, and also a former member of the House, says that, "Having a significant number of Republicans will change the dynamic in the House."
|
Dickerson 6/24 (John, “An overwhelming majority of senators hopes to bully the house into passing immigration reform”, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/senate_immigration_reform_vote_how_a_70_vote_bipartisan_majority_might_not.html, CMR)
|
Later this week, the Senate will pass immigration reform to give the bill momentum in the House We’re working to get a very substantial bipartisan majority That’s going to help in getting the bill all the way through the House and into law. Having a significant number of Republicans will change the dynamic in the House
|
Will pass – bipartisan momentum
| 561 | 32 | 320 | 95 | 5 | 56 | 0.052632 | 0.589474 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,216 |
Momentum Theory is based on the principle that the more votes the bill gets in the Senate, the better the bill is. The rare coming-together of both parties in the Senate might make low-information voters think the bill is in the category of other unassailable good things senators support in large majorities: the American military, national holidays, and Social Security checks. If people don't see Republicans and Democrats collapsing into their usual predictable squabbles—particularly on such a contentious issue—that must mean the path they've agreed on is a wise one. If Momentum Theory is true, polls should show voters increasingly behind the measure. That would pressure those House members whose opposition to reform is not absolute but flavored with some concern about the public will or the national image of the Republican Party. This is why supporters of reform are pushing to run up the Senate vote total to build the bandwagon feeling. On CNN, Schumer took this theory to its stratospheric conclusion, claiming that if the Senate bill is blocked it would result in a protest of “a million people on the Mall in Washington.”¶ A big Senate victory would also give supporters a way to minimize future debate about the controversial portions of the bill. The House is expected to pass a series of smaller immigration bills but no path to citizenship, which is the heart of the Senate effort. If a House Republican takes issue with a particular element of Senate reform, a supporter will claim the issue was already debated and resolved in the Senate. Charges of bigotry are always just below the surface in the immigration debate. If the perception is that the Senate has already worked through the tough issues, then House skepticism will be easier to frame as being motivated by bigotry instead of policy concerns. The charges won't be coming just from liberals. The Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page has conveyed that sentiment already about those who oppose reform. Since a number of Republicans worry about how the party is perceived by voters as it debates this issue in public, fear of looking intolerant will be pronounced, putting even more pressure on lawmakers in the House to ratify the Senate version. ¶ Those who oppose comprehensive immigration reform have already lost in the Senate. Their best chance to defeat the bill is to make the Senate process the enemy. “I cannot support an amendment cobbled together at the eleventh hour that doubles the border patrol without knowing how much it will cost or whether it is even the right strategy, said Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas. This opposition seeks to jujitsu the successful Senate vote, turning it into an argument against the legislation.
|
Dickerson 6/24 (John, “An overwhelming majority of senators hopes to bully the house into passing immigration reform”, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/senate_immigration_reform_vote_how_a_70_vote_bipartisan_majority_might_not.html, CMR)
|
the more votes the bill gets in the Senate, the better the bill is. . If people don't see Republicans and Democrats collapsing into their usual predictable squabbles that must mean the path they've agreed on is a wise one That would pressure those House members whose opposition to reform is not absolute but flavored with some concern about the public will or the national image of the Republican Party This is why supporters of reform are pushing to run up the Senate vote total to build the bandwagon feeling A big Senate victory would give supporters a way to minimize future debate about the controversial portions of the bill. If a House Republican takes issue with a particular element of Senate reform, a supporter will claim the issue was already debated and resolved in the Senate If the perception is that the Senate has already worked through the tough issues, then House skepticism will be easier to frame as being motivated by bigotry instead of policy concerns Since a number of Republicans worry about how the party is perceived by voters as it debates this issue in public, fear of looking intolerant will be pronounced, putting even more pressure on lawmakers in the House to ratify the Senate version. Those who oppose immigration reform have already lost in the Senate. Their best chance to defeat the bill is to make the Senate process the enemy
|
Momentum theory confirms our argument – strong Senate passage will overcome all existing hurdles and lock-in House passage
| 2,748 | 123 | 1,367 | 454 | 18 | 236 | 0.039648 | 0.519824 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,217 |
Former President Bill Clinton is “bullish” that Congress will pass comprehensive immigration reform. Speaking to Alex Wagner on NOW Friday, Clinton expressed optimism about the legislation but suggested Speaker John Boehner would need to break the so-called Hastert rule to do it.¶ The former president believes there will be enough votes to pass an immigration reform bill, but asks, “Will [Speaker Boehner] allow a bill to be brought to the floor of the House that does not have the support of a majority of his own caucus, but clearly would get a big bipartisan majority in the House?”¶ So far, Boehner isn’t showing his cards. The Speaker said Tuesday there was “no question” that immigration reform would be passed in the House and Senate and signed by the end of this year. But he started walking that back on Thursday, saying “I don’t intend to bring an immigration bill to the floor that violates what I and what members of my party–what our principles are.”
|
Chaffee 6/14/13 (Joshua, “Bill Clinton on immigration: “55 or 60%”chance it will pass”, http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/14/bill-clinton-on-immigration-55-or-60chance-it-will-pass/)
|
Clinton is “bullish Congress will pass c i r Clinton expressed optimism there will be enough votes to pass a bill, Boehner said there was “no question” reform would be passed in the House and Senate and signed by the end of this year
|
Pass both houses – momentum ensures vote count
| 966 | 47 | 233 | 165 | 8 | 44 | 0.048485 | 0.266667 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,218 |
Senate proponents of the legislation have said they hope to win up to 70 votes to pressure the GOP-controlled House to accept the major components of the bill. Advocates also said they were encouraged by Obama’s return to the issue after months of focusing on gun control, the budget and foreign policy.¶ In his speech, the president highlighted a broad swath of support for the bill, appearing with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue, former George W. Bush administration commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez, business executive Steve Case, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro (D) and others.
|
Nakamura 6/11/13 (David, “Obama reenters immigration-reform arena as Senate begins debate on bipartisan bill”, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-11/politics/39887343_1_immigration-overhaul-president-obama-senate-group)
|
Senate proponents of the legislation hope to win 70 votes to pressure the GOP House to accept the major components of the bill Advocates were encouraged by Obama’s return to the issue after months of focusing on gun control, the budget and foreign policy the president highlighted a broad swath of support for the bill appearing with AFL-CIO President U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Gutierrez Case Castro and others
|
Growing support – strong Senate pressure ensures House acceptance
| 637 | 66 | 419 | 100 | 9 | 69 | 0.09 | 0.69 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,219 |
After years of rancorous debate and at least one election in which Hispanics flexed their political muscle, an immigration reform bill is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. On Tuesday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly, 84-15, to begin final debate on the “Gang of Eight” — four Democrats and four Republicans — immigration bill.¶ The compromise is really about two issues: border security and a path to citizenship. Republicans demanded the former, Democrats the latter. The fate of immigration reform will ultimately depend on the willingness of each side to find the right compromise.¶ That’s why Senate Republicans and Democrats have consistently crossed party lines to vote down amendments that would tip the balance too far one way or the other.
|
Sunday Dispatch 6/15/13 (“Hope of progress on immigration bill”, http://psdispatch.com/news/otheropinion/600551/Hope-of-progress-on-immigration-bill)
|
an immigration reform bill is moving forward the Senate voted overwhelmingly 84-15, to begin final debate on the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill The fate of immigration reform will ultimately depend on the willingness of each side to find the right compromise. That’s why Senate Republicans and Democrats have consistently crossed party lines to vote down amendments that would tip the balance too far one way or the other
|
Will pass – atmosphere of bipartisanship ensures momentum and compromise
| 749 | 73 | 423 | 120 | 10 | 69 | 0.083333 | 0.575 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,220 |
In recent months, key Republican leaders in the Senate and House have stepped up to the plate to draft an immigration reform bill and other Republicans have endorsed the legislation. Democrats have also been key in drafting the bill and garnering support for it.¶ There’s also a growing list of individuals who up until recently, were unlikely supporters of immigration reform. The list includes Tea Party leaders, evangelicals and conservative lawmakers.¶ What’s more, support for immigration reform among the general public is perhaps the strongest it’s ever been. A poll released Thursday shows there is overwhelming bipartisan support for the immigration legislation proposed in the Senate by the “Gang of Eight.” In the 29 states polled, public support for the bill ranges from 61 percent to 78 percent.¶ “This is the best chance in a generation to enact immigration reform with a path to citizenship,” Sharry said during a call with reporters Thursday. “The American people strongly support the effort, it is in the best interest of both parties to deliver on the promise of reform, and our movement is getting stronger every day.”
|
Nevarez 6/15 (Griselda, “Deferred action seen as turning point in fight for immigration reform”, http://www.voxxi.com/deferred-action-immigration-reform/#ixzz2WOQIpTNL)
|
In recent months, key Republican leaders have stepped up to the plate to draft an immigration reform bill Republicans have endorsed the legislation Democrats have been key in drafting the bill and garnering support for it There’s a growing list of individuals who up until recently, were unlikely supporters of immigration reform Tea Party leaders, evangelicals and conservative lawmakers This is the best chance in a generation to enact immigration reform with citizenship it is in the best interest of both parties our movement is getting stronger every day.”
|
Growing bipartisan support – passes both houses
| 1,137 | 48 | 561 | 184 | 7 | 89 | 0.038043 | 0.483696 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,221 |
The “Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act,” a nearly 900-page reworking of the nation’s 27-year-old immigration law, faces a tough fight in the Democratic-held Senate and an even harder battle in the more conservative House of Representatives later this year.¶ At its core is a plan to move 11 million people residing in the United States illegally – many of whom came from Mexico years ago – out of their illegal status and onto a 13-year path to citizenship.¶ At the same time, the legislation would spend around $6 billion more to strengthen border security and would change the way temporary visas are issued, putting more emphasis on helping U.S. farmers and high-tech industries get foreign labor.¶ “It is gratifying to see the momentum behind this package of common-sense reforms, which will make our country safer and help 11 million undocumented immigrants get right with the law,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.¶ While he promised to give senators ample opportunity to change the bill – a few dozen amendments are expected – Reid also warned that he would not allow opponents to debate the measure endlessly. Work on the bill will be wrapped up before the July 4 recess, Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said.¶ The bill’s handling of the 11 million undocumented residents is particularly problematic for many Senate Republicans who see it as rewarding people who broke the law by entering the United States illegally while others waited in foreign lands for their applications to be processed.¶ “We can’t reject a dutiful, good person to America and then turn around and allow someone else who came in illegally to benefit from breaking our laws to the disadvantage of the good person,” said Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.¶ Sessions, who has been a leading voice against the legislation, added: “It will definitely give amnesty today” to the 11 million.¶ Sessions and other senators are expected to push for greater border security efforts and are also likely to try to eliminate the pathway to citizenship for the 11 million.¶ Nevertheless, backers of the bill were confident that it will pass within a few weeks, putting the onus on the Republican-controlled House to tackle the immigration overhaul, a top issue to Hispanic voters who mainly backed Obama in last year’s election.¶ Republican Senator John McCain, a member of the “Gang of Eight” that wrote the legislation, said he remains optimistic that there are at least 60 votes in the 100-member chamber to pass the bill, the number needed to clear any procedural roadblock.¶ “We’ve got over 60 votes. I’m confident of that,” McCain told Reuters.¶ He said he believed that by the time the amendment process ends, backers will have 70 votes on passage, the number supporters are aiming for to put pressure on the House to act.¶ “There are some real concerns about border security that we have to work through, but I’m confident that we will be able to do so,” McCain said.
|
Cowan 6/7 [Richard, Columnist focused on Congressional policy, “Immigration Reform Backers Insist Bill Will Pass Within a Few Weeks”, Reuters, 6/7/13, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/07/immigration-reform-backers-insist-bill-will-pass-within-a-few-weeks/, CMR]
|
immigration faces a tough fight in the Democratic-held Senate and an even harder battle in the more conservative House of Representatives later this year It is gratifying to see the momentum behind this package of common-sense reforms, Reid promised to give senators ample opportunity to change the bill Reid also warned that he would not allow opponents to debate the measure endlessly Sessions, who has been a leading voice against the legislation, added: “It will definitely give amnesty Sessions and other senators are expected to push for greater border security efforts and are also likely to try to eliminate the pathway to citizenship Nevertheless, backers of the bill were confident that it will pass within a few weeks putting the onus on the Republican-controlled House to tackle the immigration overhaul, a top issue McCain said he remains optimistic that there are at least 60 votes i I’m confident of that,” McCain told Reuters. He said he believed that by the time the amendment process ends, backers will have votes on passage, to put pressure on the House to act There are some real concerns that we have to work through, but I’m confident that we will be able to do so
|
Will pass but its tight
| 2,990 | 23 | 1,187 | 497 | 5 | 201 | 0.01006 | 0.404427 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,222 |
The question isn't whether comprehensive immigration reform will pass the Senate; the question is when and by what margin.¶ A sweeping bill to overhaul the nation's immigration system cleared its first major hurdle late Tuesday night, with the 18-member committee charged with completing a first round of legislative edits voting to advance the amended bill to the full Senate.¶ The vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee was 13-5.¶ Three Republicans - Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah -- joined the panel's 10 Democrats to vote in favor of the bill.¶ The floor debate will begin shortly after Memorial Day, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters yesterday the Republican leadership will not use procedural tactics to try to block the legislation. It raises the possibility of an extraordinarily rare sight: major legislation receiving an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor without a GOP filibuster.¶ That said, yesterday's success was not easy, and it came at a cost. Most notably, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) pushed for an amendment to allow U.S. citizens to apply for permanent resident status on behalf of their same-sex partners. Republicans threatened to kill the entire reform package if Democrats approved Leahy's measure, and while Democrats supported the amendment, they weren't willing to derail the entire bill over this provision. Left with no good options, Leahy grudgingly pulled his amendment, rather than force his Democratic colleagues to vote against the measure they liked.¶ It was a reminder that the bipartisan reform bill, despite its strengths, is "imperfect."¶ So, what happens now?¶ The "Gang of Eight" bill is expected to remain intact and appears to be on track for passage. Whether there's a Republican filibuster or not, the votes are in place, and "Gang of Eight" members continue to lobby their on-the-fence colleagues in the hopes of creating an even larger majority.¶ Why bother if the bill already has the votes needed to pass? Because proponents want to send a signal to the House by running up the score -- it's one thing for the lower chamber to look askance at a partisan bill that ekes out a narrow victory in the Senate; it's something else for the House to kill a bipartisan Senate bill that passes with 70 or more votes.¶ And at this point, that's apparently the goal. The legislation reportedly enjoys the unanimous support of the Democratic caucus (55 votes), plus the Republicans on the "Gang of Eight" (4 more votes), plus the likely support of some GOP moderates (Collins + Kirk = 2 more votes), and proponents believe as many as 10 other Republicans, including Hatch and Cornyn, are in play.¶ The goal is to put as much pressure as possible on the House, and at this point, the plan is coming together nicely.
|
Benen 5/22/13 (Steven, “Immigration reform advances with bipartisan backing”, http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/22/18418751-immigration-reform-advances-with-bipartisan-backing?lite, CMR)
|
The question isn't whether c i r will pass the Senate; the question is when and by what margin. A sweeping bill to overhaul immigration cleared its first major hurdle Three Republicans joined the panel's 10 Democrats to vote in favor of the bill Republican leadership will not use procedural tactics to try to block the legislation It raises the possibility of an extraordinarily rare sight: major legislation receiving an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor without a GOP filibuster Leahy pushed for an amendment to allow citizens to apply for permanent resident status Democrats weren't willing to derail the entire bill over this provision It was a reminder that the bipartisan reform bill, despite its strengths, is "imperfect." The "Gang of Eight" bill is expected to remain intact and appears to be on track for passage the votes are in place Gang of Eight" members continue to lobby their on-the-fence colleagues in the hopes of creating an even larger majority proponents want to send a signal to the House by running up the score it's one thing for the lower chamber to look askance at a partisan bill that ekes out a narrow victory in the Senate; it's something else for the House to kill a bipartisan Senate bill that passes with 70 or more votes that's the goal. The legislation enjoys unanimous support of the Democratic caucus (55 votes), plus the Republicans on the "Gang of Eight" (4 more votes), plus the likely support of some GOP moderates 2 more votes proponents believe as many as 10 other Republicans are in play The goal is to put as much pressure as possible on the House at this point, the plan is coming together nicely
|
Immigration reform will pass – strong, bipartisan passage in the Senate will clear the way for House passage
| 2,865 | 109 | 1,645 | 474 | 18 | 286 | 0.037975 | 0.603376 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,223 |
Congress may be on the verge of striking a long-awaited deal on immigration reform when it returns to work after the Memorial Day recess, but lawmakers caution that a final compromise is far from assured.¶ Democratic Senate leaders pledge to take up a bipartisan compromise authored by the Gang of Eight senators in June. But a separate bipartisan group is crafting a House version of the bill that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said could be merged with the Senate version before Congress' summer recess in August.¶ "We are optimistic about the prospects," Pelosi said.¶ House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he is "confident that we'll have a solid work product that we can go to conference with the Senate."¶ House lawmakers working on their own immigration bill were buoyed last week when the Senate Judiciary Committee backed the Senate plan by a wide margin. The Senate bill couples new border security measures with a path to citizenship and instant legalization for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before 2012.¶ After the Senate panel cleared the measure, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced he would not block efforts to bring the bill to the Senate floor.¶ "I think the Gang of Eight has made a substantial contribution to moving the issue forward," McConnell said. "And so I'm hopeful we'll be able to get a bill that can pass here in the Senate."¶ The Senate committee's approval also provided "wonderful momentum" for House negotiators, said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who is helping write the House immigration bill.
|
Ferrechio 5/27/13 (Susan, Chief Congressional Correspondent, “House, Senate nearing showdown over immigration reform”, http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-senate-nearing-showdown-over-immigration-reform/article/2530506?custom_click=rss, CMR)
|
Congress may be on the verge of striking a deal on immigration reform but lawmakers caution a final compromise is far from assured a separate bipartisan group is crafting a House version of the bill that Pelosi said could be merged with the Senate version before August We are optimistic about the prospects House Speaker Boehner is "confident we'll have a solid work product that we can go to conference with the Senate." The Senate committee's approval provided "wonderful momentum" for House negotiators
|
Momentum ensures compromise deal that passes both houses
| 1,573 | 57 | 506 | 258 | 8 | 83 | 0.031008 | 0.321705 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,224 |
WASHINGTON — House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who hits Chicago this week along with President Barack Obama for fund-raising events to benefit Illinois House Democrats, told me Monday that there is enough “general agreement” on bipartisan immigration reform for a measure to pass — and she laid out an aggressive timetable, saying a bill could be sent to Obama to sign by August.¶ Pelosi also underscored in our interview that she wants the House to have its own bipartisan immigration bill. The Senate bipartisan measure is already out of committee and set to hit the Senate floor in June. If people in Washington thought otherwise — that she wanted to wait on the Senate (and I have read some stories with that suggestion) — they are wrong.¶ “We can be working simultaneously,” she told me in the phone interview, speaking from San Francisco, where she marked Memorial Day.¶ While the House bipartisan immigration proposals will likely end up being more conservative than the legislation already advanced in the Democratic-controlled Senate, Pelosi wants a House bill for a practical reason: To get to 218 votes in the GOP-run House — and assuming massive Democratic support — there has to be something in the immigration bill to get the support of about 30 Republicans.¶ That’s also the pragmatic position of Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), one of eight members of the House bipartisan task force. Gutierrez “has really been our champion,” Pelosi said. “He has been a real force.”¶ Pelosi lands in Chicago on Tuesday for two days of fund-raising and, time permitting, the Rolling Stones concert Tuesday night at the United Center.¶ On Tuesday, Pelosi will be the keynoter at a “Women for Brad” reception at the Hilton Northbrook for freshman Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), who is heading toward a 10th District rematch in 2014 with former Rep. Bob Dold, a Republican. The chief co-hosts are the four Democratic women in the Illinois delegation: Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Tammy Duckworth, Cheri Bustos and Robin Kelly.¶ On Wednesday morning, Pelosi will team up with Schakowsky and Kelly at Loyola University for a forum with Women Employed, the Women’s Business Development Center and other related groups to discuss creating more jobs for women.¶ Obama flies here Wednesday for two major fund-raising events to help the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the House political operation. The tab ranges from $1,000 for a ticket to $50,000 for those who can “bundle” donations from their own social, professional or political contacts.¶ The main event is at the Chicago Hilton, 720 S. Michigan. Major donors are invited to a dinner hosted by BettyLu and Paul Saltzman. BettyLu Saltzman holds an important place in Obama’s political history: She was one of the first major fund-raisers and Democratic activists who saw in him — when he was starting his political career in Chicago — a future president.¶ For the 2014 cycle, Obama so far has agreed to headline eight events for the DCCC — two of them to be held jointly with the Democratic Senate political shop.¶ Chicago will be the third stop on that commitment; Obama has appeared at DCCC events in San Francisco and New York this year.¶ House Democrats had a great year in Illinois in 2012: The 18-member delegation has 12 Democrats and six Republicans. The National Republican Congressional Committee has targeted four Illinois Democrats elected last year for defeat in 2014: Reps. Schneider, Bill Foster, William Enyart and Cheri Bustos.¶ Pelosi and the DCCC are defending those seats — and have targeted GOP Illinois freshman Rep. Rodney Davis for defeat, raising money for former Madison County Judge Ann Callis.¶ “Money raised in Illinois,” Pelosi said, “stays in Illinois.”¶ As for immigration, Pelosi is optimistic that obstacles that may loom large now can be bridged — after the House and Senate pass their own bills and the two chambers come together to reconcile the different versions.¶ In predicting August passage, Pelosi said support “may be not by everybody, but by enough.”
|
Sweet 5/27/13 (Lynn, “Lynn Sweet: Immigration-reform deal could pass by August: Pelosi”, http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/20378242-452/lynn-sweet-immigration-reform-deal-could-pass-by-august-nancy-pelosi-says.html, CMR)
|
Pelosi told me there is enough “general agreement” on bipartisan immigration reform for a measure to pass a bill could be sent to Obama to sign by August. Pelosi wants a House bill for a practical reason: To get to 218 votes in the GOP-run House there has to be something in the immigration bill to get the support of about 30 Republicans. Pelosi is optimistic that obstacles that may loom large now can be bridged after the House and Senate pass their own bills and the two chambers come together to reconcile the different versions. In predicting August passage, Pelosi said support “may be not by everybody, but by enough.”
|
Reconciliation ensures compromises that resolve existing issues – passes both houses by August
| 4,061 | 95 | 626 | 664 | 13 | 111 | 0.019578 | 0.167169 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,225 |
Immigration reform is making its way slowly, deliberately, sometimes painfully — almost surprisingly civilly — through the U.S. Senate. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed Senate Bill 744 on a 13-5 bipartisan vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he will bring it to a vote of the full Senate in June.¶ It could be the most sweeping immigration reform in two decades. Just as significant as what it does for immigration is what it might do for governance, bipartisanship and civility on Capitol Hill. The bill, drafted by a “Gang of Eight” that included four Republicans and four Democrats, was shepherded by fully half the gang — Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona and Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois.¶ For five days and through 300 proposed amendments (fully 200 of which were actually debated), the four fended off efforts, intentional and unintentional, to submarine the bill. Not even the committee chairman, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, was immune. He wanted to include a provision that would have allowed same-sex couples to have the same immigration rights as heterosexual couples. Seeing it as a deal-breaker, Democrats joined Republicans in defeating the amendment.¶ Similarly, poison pill amendments by Texas’ own Ted Cruz were voted down on a bipartisan basis. One of the GOP senator’s amendments would have stripped the path to citizenship; another could have banned U.S. citizens from receiving welfare benefits if they’d ever entered the country illegally.¶ Overall, we applaud the Senate’s bipartisan efforts — a refreshing example of collaboration over conflagration. This newspaper is disappointed, though, that once again Texas’ senators weren’t part of those efforts. Cruz and Sen. John Cornyn cast two of just five votes against the immigration bill. By distancing themselves from the bipartisan compromise, they show a lack of leadership on an issue of vital importance to our state.¶ The day after the Judiciary Committee pushed the Senate bill forward, the House Committee on the Judiciary held its own immigration hearing. With no bill before it the hearing — titled “S. 744 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: Lessons Learned or Mistakes Repeated?” — did more to amplify conflicts than resolve differences. The House seems to know what it doesn’t like (Senate Bill 744) but hasn’t a clue about what it does (an as-yet-undetermined House bill).¶ We urge both chambers to get on with the business of crafting bipartisan immigration reform. The country and our state desperately need a fix for the dysfunction that passes as our current immigration system.
|
Dallas News 5/24/13 (“Editorial: Bipartisan progress on immigration reform”, http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130524-editorial-bipartisan-progress-on-immigration-reform.ece, CMR)
|
Immigration reform is making its way surprisingly civilly through the Senate Senate Majority Leader Reid will bring it to a vote in June Just as significant as what it does for immigration is what it might do for bipartisanship and civility on Capitol Hill The bill, drafted by a “Gang of Eight” that included four Republicans and four Democrats, was shepherded by fully half the gang the four fended off efforts to submarine the bill Leahy wanted to allow same-sex couples to have the same immigration rights as heterosexual couples Seeing it as a deal-breaker Democrats joined Republicans in defeating the amendment. poison pill amendments were voted down on a bipartisan basis we applaud the Senate’s bipartisan efforts a refreshing example of collaboration over conflagration We urge both chambers to get on with the business of crafting bipartisan immigration reform
|
Immigration reform will pass – spirit of bipartisanship resolves remaining obstacles
| 2,710 | 85 | 873 | 434 | 11 | 140 | 0.025346 | 0.322581 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,226 |
Just when Congress was giving the impression that the best it could do was investigate administration scandals, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-5 Tuesday to advance a bipartisan bill on immigration reform, the first real action in a generation.¶ No issue has been more contentious. To his credit, former President George W. Bush proposed legislation that made humanitarian and economic sense, only to see it shot down by xenophobic figures in his own Republican Party. It took the re-election of President Barack Obama with the help of aroused Hispanic voters to bring more sage counsel that makes a deal possible.¶ The problem remains as it was -- more than 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. The need too is the same, only a little more urgent -- to regularize these shadow dwellers so that they can live normal lives, pay taxes and generally contribute to American society. And the solution too hasn't changed -- a path to legal status that does not reward illegal behavior and at the same time beefs up border security.¶ After five days and 301 amendments offered, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act (S 744) does pretty much meet this challenge, although, as with many products of the political sausage machine, its parts will not be to the taste of everybody.¶ It would apply to those who arrived in the United States before Dec. 31, 2011; have maintained continuous physical presence here; and have remained out of serious trouble with law enforcement. After paying a $500 fine, those immigrants would be granted provisional immigrant status lasting six years, renewable for another $500.¶ It would take a decade for such an immigrant to become eligible for a green card if he or she met other conditions, including being up to date on taxes. The immigrant would also have to pay a $1,000 fine and wait another three years to apply for citizenship.¶ While cries of "Amnesty!" may not be stilled, this is decidedly lowercase amnesty. The legislation has sections laying out a "Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy" with more border patrol guards and the use of state National Guard troops if needed.¶ One of the last obstacles was agreement on a compromise allowing more visas for highly skilled foreign workers, which would benefit high-tech firms in places such as Pittsburgh. But the whole package almost unraveled when Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, sought to give same-sex spouses the same rights as heterosexual couples under immigration law -- but backed down after pressure from Republicans and Democrats.¶ This was a final reminder that the consensus is fragile. The bill's fate in the full Senate is uncertain, and then there's the fractious Republican-led House. But at least immigration reform is moving again. If it does not pass, that will be its own scandal.
|
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 5/27/13 (“On the move: Immigration reform gets a bipartisan boost at last”, http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/editorials/on-the-move-immigration-reform-gets-a-bipartisan-boost-at-last-689264/, CMR)
|
the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-5 to advance a bipartisan bill on immigration sage counsel makes a deal possible. One of the last obstacles was agreement on a compromise allowing more visas for highly skilled foreign workers the whole package almost unraveled when Leahy sought to give same-sex spouses the same rights as heterosexual couples but backed down after pressure from Republicans and Democrats This was a final reminder that the consensus is fragile
|
Will pass – but bipartisan consensus is fragile
| 2,853 | 48 | 470 | 467 | 8 | 74 | 0.017131 | 0.158458 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,227 |
When House members left for the July Fourth recess, the prospects for an immigration overhaul in the lower chamber were slim. When members return this week, they will be greeted by the full attention of a coalition of advocates who helped push the Senate bill to completion and who are now turning their sights to the House.¶ The coming campaign will include efforts to mobilize grassroots actions through town-hall meetings and voter registration drives aimed at Latinos, television and radio ads, and lobbying from representatives of crop growers, high-tech employers, religious leaders, and more. ¶ Several advocacy groups say between 20 and 40 Republican members are ripe targets for aye votes, particularly those whose districts have a growing Hispanic population. The National Council of La Raza is zeroing in on 20 to 26 members, many of whom represent districts where 20 percent or more of voters are Hispanic. Frank Sharry, the executive director of the pro-reform group America's Voice, estimated that 35 Republicans are "vulnerable to demographic shifts." At the end of June, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel, D-N.Y., circulated a list of 23 "persuadable Republicans," including 12 in districts in which more than 10 percent of the voting-age population is Hispanic. The districts, all of which President Obama won with at least 46 percent of the vote in 2012, are in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.¶ "I think the idea is to pressure the House Republicans right, left, and center, and to do everything we can to bring outside pressure on them to get them to give us a vote on immigration reform with a path to citizenship," Sharry said. "I actually think the House guys, they've sort of retreated a bit into their comfort zone, and I'm quite optimistic that our movement and our allies across the political spectrum will jolt them out."¶ Some members will be hit multiple times. Republican Reps. Buck McKeon of California, Mike Coffman of Colorado, Dan Webster of Florida, and Michael Grimm of New York are all targeted by both the DCCC and the Center for Community Change, which last week launched a $1 million campaign consisting of paid media, field activities, and lobbying visits to pressure the House to pass an immigration bill before lawmakers leave for the monthlong August recess.¶ "Those are all members that we think are winnable, and we've seen some progress in their statements and had meetings where we believe that they will pay attention to the changing demographics in their district and are amenable to a bill," said Jeff Parcher, communications director at the Center for Community Change.¶ In addition, the group is targeting the House Republican leadership, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., who runs the National Republican Campaign Committee.¶ Several House members also stand to end up in the cross-hairs of high-tech advocates, who will lobby the House after successfully enlisting the help of Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch to get some of their top priorities included in the Senate immigration bill.¶ "Our goal is to make sure that every House member understands that skilled immigration matters to each and every one of them in some way, shape, or form," said Robert Hoffman, senior vice president for government affairs at the Information Technology Industry Council.¶ His group which met with almost every senator's office to lobby for the immigration bill in the upper chamber is still developing its list of top targets. A report by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute shows that several Republicans represent areas with a big percentage of high-tech jobs. Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama represents parts of Huntsville, where 22.4 percent of jobs were in high-tech in 2011. Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., represents parts of Wichita and its 14.8 percent of high-tech jobs. Reps. Bill Posey of Florida, Duncan Hunter of California, Jason Chaffetz of Utah, and Doug Lamborn of Colorado all represent districts that included cities with more than 10 percent of jobs in the industry.¶ The broad coalition of groups backing the Senate immigration bill also includes religious leaders, notably the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention. Kevin Appleby, director of migration policy and public affairs for the USCCB, said his group would focus in particular on organizing parishes and arranging meetings with Catholic representatives who would be receptive to the bishops' message. Thirty-one percent of House members are Catholic, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life; 61 of those are Republicans.¶ "You're never going to persuade some, but in terms of all the advocacy, they haven't felt the maximum pressure yet," Appleby said.¶ While the broad coalition around the Senate bill comprised of business, labor, agriculture, high-tech, faith leaders, Hispanic community advocates, and otehrs coalesced around the Senate bill in recent months, they won't necessarily all be pressuring the House to take up that bill (Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a leader of the Gang of Eight, predicted on Fox News recently that the House will do so). Most advocates will insist on a comprehensive bill with a pathway to citizenship, but they realize the House is a different animal, and they think pushing the House and Senate to get to a conference committee is a more realistic goal.¶ "The most effective thing we can advocate for is a process that results in both the House and Senate sitting down," Hoffman said. "We all have to do our part to get the House ready to support as comprehensive an approach as possible."¶ Some advocates are waiting to finalize their lobbying strategy until after a House GOP meeting scheduled for July 10, when the members will have their first conference-wide discussion of immigration.¶ "We're anxious to see how that begins to play out in the House, and we're eager to play a role that's best suited for us in making reform a reality," said Dan Conston, a spokesman for the American Action Network, a conservative, pro-reform group that recently launched a $50,000 ad buy on Fox News in Florida to urge support for Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a member of the Gang of Eight.¶ Nearly all the coalition members are working on mobilizing grassroots support for their cause. The National Council of La Raza, for example, is planning a "saturation" of Spanish-language media and voter-registration drives to motivate the Hispanic community.¶ As for opponents of the Senate bill, they already feel like they've scored a major victory by getting House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to pledge he wouldn't bring a bill to the floor either before or after conference without majority support from his Republican members.¶ "I feel pretty confident that we can keep opposition somewhere between 80 and 95 percent," said Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, which seeks to limit immigration levels. Beck said his group, which has been working to build support in the House all year, will also try to win the allegiance of Democrats who are concerned that an increase in legal immigration levels will hurt American wages.
|
Kaplan 7/7/13 (Rebecca, “Advocates of Senate Bill Turn Their Attention to the House”, The National Journal, July 7, 2013, l/n)
|
The coming campaign will include efforts to mobilize grassroots actions through town-hall meetings and voter registration drives aimed at Latinos, television and radio ads, and lobbying from representatives of crop growers, high-tech employers, religious leaders, and more. ¶ Several advocacy groups say between 20 and 40 Republican members are ripe targets for aye votes, particularly those whose districts have a growing Hispanic population. Sharry, the executive director of the pro-reform group America's Voice, estimated that 35 Republicans are "vulnerable to demographic shifts The districts, all of which President Obama won with at least 46 percent of the vote in 2012, are in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.¶ "I think the idea is to pressure the House Republicans right, left, and center, and to do everything we can to bring outside pressure on them to get them to give us a vote on immigration reform with a path to citizenship," Republican Reps. Buck McKeon of California, Mike Coffman of Colorado, Dan Webster of Florida, and Michael Grimm of New York are all targeted Those are all members that we think are winnable, and we've seen some progress in their statements and had meetings where we believe that they will pay attention to the changing demographics in their district and are amenable to a bill," Several House members also stand to end up in the cross-hairs of high-tech advocates A report by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute shows that several Republicans represent areas with a big percentage of high-tech jobs. Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., represents parts of Wichita Reps. Bill Posey of Florida, Duncan Hunter of California, Jason Chaffetz of Utah, and Doug Lamborn of Colorado all represent districts that included cities with more than 10 percent of jobs in the industry.¶ the broad coalition around the Senate bill comprised of business, labor, agriculture, high-tech, faith leaders, Hispanic community advocates, and otehrs coalesced around the Senate bill .¶ Nearly all the coalition members are working on mobilizing grassroots support for their cause.
|
Grassroots campaigns will target Republicans with growing Latino populations; many have indicated that they are willing to turn
| 7,318 | 127 | 2,213 | 1,183 | 18 | 347 | 0.015216 | 0.293322 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,228 |
Some Republican lawmakers are increasingly facing a tough choice–support a comprehensive immigration bill and face a backlash from their constituents or oppose efforts to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented workers and contribute to larger GOP losses in the future.¶ Republican strategists are already fretting about the long-term implications for the party if they reject a comprehensive immigration bill, but that’s a bitter pill for conservative activists to swallow, who are promising primary challenges and substantial blowback if lawmakers back reform.¶ This week begins a new focus on immigration’s future in the House, and center right groups are launching a new push this week. American Action Network is going up Monday with a $100,000-plus national TV ad campaign, aimed to convince House Republicans to support the Senate’s immigration reform bill by trumpeting the border surge in the legislation as the “toughest border security plan ever passed by Congress.” The ad will run during primetime on Fox News and brings the group’s total investment on air backing reform to $750,000.¶ On Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner will meet with House Republicans for a special conference meeting on immigration, to try to sort out a legislative path that a majority of lawmakers can support.¶ The same day, former President George W. Bush will preside over a naturalization ceremony and argue for immigration overhaul.¶ But with fewer and fewer competitive House districts and Senate lawmakers who voted for the reform bill passed last week already facing threats of primary challenges, conservative activists are threatening to kill the effort, and it’s one reason GOP leadership and Boehner has been hesitant to even bring up the Senate bill for a vote.¶ Practically speaking, immigration’s failure or success will likely have little bearing on the partisan outcome of the 2014 midterms. Lawmakers’ individual primary re-election concerns, mostly in the House, is what’s driving much of the resistance to a bipartisan immigration bill that would provide a path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants who arrived here illegally.¶ But Republican leaders, who began pushing for reform after they lost the White House in 2012, know the bill’s demise could be a greater omen for 2016, when the GOP faces a growing Hispanic electorate that’s sure to be even more important in the next presidential election.¶ One national GOP strategist called the current debate “a mild short-term headache for which the party can take two Advil,” and noted it wasn’t as contentious as 2006, when another attempt at reform fell flat. Back then, a bill passed the Senate – when 23 GOP senators voted for it, compared to 14 last week–but the bill died in an even less-conservative House controlled by Democrats.¶ Without a majority of the caucus behind the bill the Senate passed last week with a 68-32 vote, Boehner has said he won’t bring the bill to the floor. Many Republicans remain optimistic that the bill has a path forward, whether in conference committee or through a new bill from a bipartisan working group in the House.¶ But with the conservative base now abuzz in opposition to an immigration bill they say is akin to amnesty–despite the 10 years it would take to get a green card, and another three-year waiting period before immigrants can apply for citizenship–lawmakers in safe districts could especially feel the pull in 2014–and that’s fueling much of their skepticism.¶ “These people aren’t controlled. They’re doing their own thing,” said another national Republican consultant of House members already up in arms against the bill. “Primary challenges come from conservative districts, and they don’t care if they upset leadership because there’s no consequences.”¶ Midterms vs. 2016¶ Party leaders know immigration is a problem they must come up with a solution to before demographics move even further away from them in the coming decade. In their post-2012 autopsy, the Republican National Committee wrote that the GOP “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform” to reach out to the Hispanic community, and “if we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”¶ Potential 2016 hopefuls have had to do a delicate dance, too. Former House firebrand Allen West has threatened a primary challenge against Florida Sen. Marco Rubio who helped shepherd reform through the Senate. Another possible candidate, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, voted against the measure, saying it wasn’t tough enough on border security though he’s indicated in the past he could support a pathway to citizenship.¶ Further alienating Hispanic voters could have a bigger impact in a presidential year for the GOP though. In 2012, Latinos made up 10% of the electorate–and voted 71% for Obama, according to national exit polls. That’s an uptick from 2008, when 9% of the national electorate was Hispanic, and voted 67% for Obama.¶ In 2010, a GOP midterm wave year though, the numbers were better for Republicans. Latino voters made up just 8% of the electorate, and 60% of those said they supported Democrats. But with the economy and health care dominating the conversation, just 8% of all voters said illegal immigration was the most important issue.¶ Democrats see it as another issue where they can point to a dysfunctional Republican Congress, hoping that positioning themselves as the party of compromise can help their brand even as they face fewer competitive House seats.¶ Last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a memo to its caucus pointing out 23 “persuadable” GOP lawmakers who represent significant Hispanic populations and would be “out-of-step with major groups in their districts if House Republicans fail to deliver a solution.”¶ Many of those are in competitive or potentially competitive House seats, including California Republicans Gary Miller, David Valadao, and Jeff Denham. Miller, arguably the most vulnerable GOP incumbent, sits in the most Democratic seat held by a Republican, and only won re-election with help from an election fluke after no Democrat advanced past the state’s new top-two primary. Other vulnerable incumbents, including Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman, New York Rep. Michael Grimm, and Nevada Rep. Joe Heck, are also targeted.¶ A coalition of immigrant and labor groups are also targeting House leadership with radio ads and on social media, hoping to push the House to a vote.¶ But Democrats aren’t just looking for a solution–they’re looking for ammunition, too. This week the DCCC also launched RepublicansInTheirOwnWords.com, inviting submissions for outlandish GOP statements “so members of the public can peruse House Republicans’ positions on immigration in their own words.”¶ These races likely won’t be won or lost on immigration alone, with the economy, health care, and a variety of other important issues coming into play–and there’s no guarantee even Latino voters will base their vote solely on an immigration vote, but to Democrats it plays into a greater message of a worsening GOP brand.
|
 MSNBC 7/8/13 (GOP wrestles with immigration reform consequences — tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/08/gop-wrestles-with-immigration-reform-consequences/ 1/3)
|
Some Republican lawmakers are increasingly facing a tough choice–support a comprehensive immigration bill and face a backlash from their constituents or oppose efforts to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented workers and contribute to larger GOP losses in the future.¶ Republican strategists are already fretting about the long-term implications for the party if they reject a comprehensive immigration bill, but that’s a bitter pill for conservative activists to swallow, who are promising primary challenges and substantial blowback if lawmakers back reform.¶ But with fewer and fewer competitive House districts and Senate lawmakers who voted for the reform bill passed last week already facing threats of primary challenges, conservative activists are threatening to kill the effort, and it’s one reason GOP leadership and Boehner has been hesitant to even bring up the Senate bill for a vote.¶ . Lawmakers’ individual primary re-election concerns, mostly in the House, is what’s driving much of the resistance to a bipartisan immigration bill that would provide a path to citizenship Republican leaders know the bill’s demise could be a greater omen for 2016, when the GOP faces a growing Hispanic electorate that’s sure to be even more important in the next presidential election. Many Republicans remain optimistic that the bill has a path forward, whether in conference committee or through a new bill from a bipartisan working group in the House.¶ with the conservative base now abuzz in opposition to an immigration bill they say is akin to amnesty lawmakers in safe districts could especially feel the pull in 2014–and that’s fueling much of their skepticism ¶ Party leaders know immigration is a problem they must come up with a solution to before demographics move even further away from them in the coming decade. Potential 2016 hopefuls have had to do a delicate dance, too. Former House firebrand Allen West has threatened a primary challenge against Florida Sen. Marco Rubio who helped shepherd reform through the Senate Further alienating Hispanic voters could have a bigger impact in a presidential year for the GOP though. In 2012, Latinos made up 10% of the electorate–and voted 71% for Obama, according to national exit polls Democrats see it as another issue where they can point to a dysfunctional Republican Congress, hoping that positioning themselves as the party of compromise can help their brand even as they face fewer competitive House seats the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a memo to its caucus pointing out 23 “persuadable” GOP lawmakers who represent significant Hispanic populations and would be “out-of-step with major groups in their districts if House Republicans fail to deliver a solution.”¶ Many of those are in competitive or potentially competitive House seats, including California Republicans Gary Miller, David Valadao, and Jeff Denham Other vulnerable incumbents, including Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman, New York Rep. Michael Grimm, and Nevada Rep. Joe Heck, are also targeted Democrats aren’t just looking for a solution–they’re looking for ammunition, too. the DCCC also launched RepublicansInTheirOwnWords.com, inviting submissions for outlandish GOP statements “so members of the public can peruse House Republicans’ positions on immigration in their own words.”¶ These races likely won’t be won or lost on immigration alone, with the economy, health care, and a variety of other important issues coming into play–and there’s no guarantee even Latino voters will base their vote solely on an immigration vote, but to Democrats it plays into a greater message of a worsening GOP brand.
|
Many lawmakers caught between growing Hispanic constituencies and threats of conservative primary candidates; several are vunerable and need to support immigration reform
| 7,111 | 170 | 3,663 | 1,126 | 22 | 569 | 0.019538 | 0.505329 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,229 |
Be careful of immigration bill analyses that give heavy weight to the strongest opponents of what they call “amnesty.”¶ A Reuters story that got a fair amount of attention this past weekend does just that. Prospects for an immigration bill passing the House are indeed hard to report on, but the key here isn’t what House extremists want. Their votes aren’t in play anyway.¶ Look at the math. As Reuters notes, Republicans currently have a 233-201 edge in the House.¶ Can Republicans pass any immigration bill without Democratic support? That would be the case if they attempt to pass a slimmed-down bill without any path to citizenship. Republicans have been claiming they can do that, but I still think it’s unlikely. Such a bill would probably get very few Democratic votes — perhaps none at all. Meanwhile, if the bill were generous at all toward immigrants it would almost certainly lose those Republican members who oppose immigration reform of any kind; if it was harsh toward immigrants it would presumably lose moderates and those conservatives who believe that support for immigration is the proper conservative position. Either way, it’s hard to see them getting to 218 with only Republicans.¶ On the other hand, legislation with a path to citizenship would have support from the bulk of the Democrats and need only a relatively small group of Republicans to join them. Judging from the Senate — where three of the eight Republicans on the Judiciary Committee already voted for a comprehensive bill — finding 20 or 30 Republicans to vote yes shouldn’t be too hard.
|
Bernstein 5/27 (Jonathon, “The basic math of immigration reform in the House”, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/27/the-basic-math-of-immigration-reform-in-the-house/, CMR)
|
Be careful of immigration bill analyses that give heavy weight to the strongest opponents of amnesty the key here isn’t what House extremists want. Their votes aren’t in play anyway legislation with a path to citizenship would have support from the bulk of the Democrats and need only a relatively small group of Republicans to join them Judging from the Senate finding 20 or 30 Republicans to vote yes shouldn’t be too hard.
|
Their authors overstate opposition – it can pass without House extremists
| 1,575 | 74 | 425 | 264 | 11 | 73 | 0.041667 | 0.276515 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,230 |
The Republican caucus of the United States House of Representatives is holding a private meeting on Wednesday. The subject will be immigration. Perhaps it will be a showdown or a summit that will reset the party’s direction on this issue. Maybe party leaders and moderates will push back against Tea Party no-dealers and hard-core members, like Steve King of Iowa, who want to kill any bill that allows undocumented immigrants to become Americans. Maybe Republicans will decide to accept bipartisan immigration reform as a step toward becoming a party with something to offer Latino and Asian voters besides hostility and fear.¶ Or maybe not. Now that the Senate has passed its version of reform — a comprehensive bill with a long but real citizenship path — the ball is in the House. It might be stuck there: the speaker, John Boehner, has ruled out voting on the Senate bill, or on any immigration bill not supported by the majority of his caucus. That is a recipe for failure, but the House has nothing else to offer right now, no other solutions to match the scale of the problem.¶ Four immigration bills have passed the House Judiciary Committee, each with its own nonanswers. The SAFE Act doubles down on the failed strategy of trying to force millions of immigrants to self-deport. It would free states to write their own immigration laws, give state and local law enforcement more power to make immigration arrests, and remove the discretion for the Homeland Security Department to defer the deportations of harmless immigrants in favor of all-out, indiscriminate enforcement. The Ag Act would make it easier to exploit cheap temporary workers, who would be deported when their jobs were done. The Legal Workforce Act would vastly expand the use of federal electronic databases to screen job applicants, an invitation to discrimination. And the Skills Visa Act would create an immigration path for thousands of entrepreneurs and workers in science, technology, engineering and math fields — a worthwhile goal but a very narrow one.¶ A bipartisan gang of House members has been working on a broader bill, but nobody has seen it yet and it may go nowhere because it is said to include a path to citizenship. About all that can be safely predicted is that we are in for a summer of heat and pressure, with immigrant advocates loudly demanding a bill and defiant Republicans digging in to make sure that reform collapses.¶ If only enough House Republicans could see that the bill is one that embraces many of their own priorities. It shrinks the deficit and satisfies big-business interests with more visas for agricultural and information-technology workers. It ushers millions of shadow workers into the higher-earning, taxpaying, aboveground economy, a sure recipe for jobs and growth. And it heaps billions on defense contractors to supply the surveillance tools and weaponry to fortify the border.¶ The coalition behind comprehensive reform is large. It includes evangelicals and Catholics, law-enforcement and business groups, and Republicans like Jeb Bush and former President George W. Bush. Immigrant-rights advocates and Democrats are solidly lined up, too, even those who want a shorter path to citizenship and less money thrown at the border buildup.¶ Mr. Boehner has a choice. He can let reform go forward with bipartisan support — House Republicans and Democrats together could pass a good bill. This would infuriate the hotheads in his caucus but save the Republican Party from itself. Or he can stand back and let his party kill reform. As the issue festers, a nation is watching to see whether the Republicans can work out their Steve King problem and do something difficult for their own good, and the country’s.
|
New York Times 7/8 (The editorial board, “Immigration in the House,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/opinion/immigration-in-the-house.html, ME)
|
The Republican caucus of the United States House of Representatives is holding a private meeting on Wednesday. The subject will be immigration. Maybe party leaders and moderates will push back against Tea Party no-dealers and hard-core members, Maybe Republicans will decide to accept bipartisan immigration reform as a step toward becoming a party with something to offer Latino and Asian voters besides hostility and fear.¶ Or maybe not. It might be stuck there: the speaker, John Boehner, has ruled out voting on the Senate bill, or on any immigration bill not supported by the majority of his caucus. That is a recipe for failure, but the House has nothing else to offer right A bipartisan gang of House members has been working on a broader bill, but nobody has seen it yet and it may go nowhere because it is said to include a path to citizenship. House Republicans could see that the bill is one that embraces many of their own priorities. It shrinks the deficit and satisfies big-business interests with more visas for agricultural and information-technology workers. It ushers millions of shadow workers into the higher-earning, taxpaying, aboveground economy, a sure recipe for jobs and growth. And it heaps billions on defense contractors to supply the surveillance tools and weaponry to fortify the border.¶ The coalition behind comprehensive reform is large. Mr. Boehner has a choice. He can let reform go forward with bipartisan support — House Republicans and Democrats together could pass a good bill
|
CIR will pass now but it’s on the brink
| 3,734 | 39 | 1,516 | 616 | 9 | 248 | 0.01461 | 0.402597 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,231 |
A: Riordan Roett, director of the Latin American Studies program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies: "While the president's re-election is welcome in general terms, it is difficult to imagine Latin America will receive greater attention in the next four years. Congress remains deeply divided. The administration's foreign policy priorities will continue to focus on China, the Middle East and the ongoing fiscal challenges. Given the strong turnout by the Latino community, one area that should receive priority is continued immigration reform, but it is the third rail for the Republican majority in the House. In general, the democratic governments of the region will welcome the president's election without great expectation for major policy initiatives. The populist regimes will continue to denounce any democratically elected administration. The deadlock over Cuba will continue unless there is a dramatic leadership shift to a new generation. The major policy initiative that would be welcome in the region is on drug policy, but that issue will remain taboo."
|
Roett 10 – director of the Latin American Studies program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (Riordian, “What Do the U.S. Election Results Mean for Latin America?”, 11/8, http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=2505, CMR)
|
it is difficult to imagine Latin America will receive greater attention Congress remains deeply divided the democratic governments of the region will welcome the president's election without great expectation for major policy initiatives deadlock over Cuba will continue
|
Plan ensures partisan fights
| 1,096 | 29 | 270 | 167 | 4 | 38 | 0.023952 | 0.227545 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,232 |
DIPLOMACY is dead.¶ Effective diplomacy — the kind that produced Nixon’s breakthrough with China, an end to the Cold War on American terms, or the Dayton peace accord in Bosnia — requires patience, persistence, empathy, discretion, boldness and a willingness to talk to the enemy.¶ This is an age of impatience, changeableness, palaver, small-mindedness and an unwillingness to talk to bad guys. Human rights are in fashion, a good thing of course, but the space for realist statesmanship of the kind that produced the Bosnian peace in 1995 has diminished. The late Richard Holbrooke’s realpolitik was not for the squeamish.¶ There are other reasons for diplomacy’s demise. The United States has lost its dominant position without any other nation rising to take its place. The result is nobody’s world. It is a place where America acts as a cautious boss, alternately encouraging others to take the lead and worrying about loss of authority. Syria has been an unedifying lesson in the course of crisis when diplomacy is dead. Algeria shows how the dead pile up when talking is dismissed as a waste of time.¶ Violence, of the kind diplomacy once resolved, has shifted. As William Luers, a former ambassador to Venezuela and the director of The Iran Project, said in an e-mail, it occurs “less between states and more dealing with terrorists.” One result is that “the military and the C.I.A. have been in the driver’s seat in dealing with governments throughout the Middle East and in state to state (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq) relations.” The role of professional diplomats is squeezed.¶ Indeed the very word “diplomacy” has become unfashionable on Capitol Hill, where its wimpy associations — trade-offs, compromise, pliancy, concessions and the like — are shunned by representatives who these days prefer beating the post-9/11 drums of confrontation, toughness and inflexibility: All of which may sound good but often get you nowhere (or into long, intractable wars) at great cost.¶ Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, wrote in an e-mail that, “When domestic politics devolve into polarization and paralysis the impact on diplomatic possibility becomes inordinately constraining.” He cited Cuba and Iran as examples of this; I would add Israel-Palestine. These critical foreign policy issues are viewed less as diplomatic challenges than potential sources of domestic political capital.¶ So when I asked myself what I hoped Barack Obama’s second term would inaugurate, my answer was a new era of diplomacy. It is not too late for the president to earn that Nobel Peace Prize.¶ Of course diplomats do many worthy things around the world, and even in the first term there were a couple of significant shifts — in Burma where patient U.S. diplomacy has produced an opening, and in the yo-yoing new Egypt where U.S. engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood was important and long overdue (and raised the question of when America would do the same with the Brotherhood’s offshoot, Hamas.)¶ But Obama has not had a big breakthrough. America’s diplomatic doldrums are approaching their 20th year.
|
Cohen 13 (Roger, Columnist with NYT for over 20 years, “Diplomacy Is Dead”, Jan 21, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/opinion/global/roger-cohen-diplomacy-is-dead.html?_r=1&, CMR)
|
DIPLOMACY is dead Effective diplomacy requires persistence This is an age of impatience small-mindedness and an unwillingness to talk to bad guys the very word “diplomacy” has become unfashionable on Capitol Hill, where its wimpy associations trade-offs compromise concessions are shunned by representatives who prefer beating the drums of confrontation toughness and inflexibility When domestic politics devolve into polarization and paralysis the impact on diplomatic possibility becomes inordinately constraining. He cited Cuba as examples of this Obama has not had a big breakthrough
|
Open engagement is dead-on-arrival – guarantees huge fights
| 3,115 | 60 | 587 | 501 | 8 | 83 | 0.015968 | 0.165669 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,233 |
I've read with great attention President Barack Obama's article in The Miami Herald earlier this week on how to improve U.S. relations with Latin America. It was pretty disappointing.¶ The article, headlined "Improving our Partnership" and published after Obama's return from a trip to Mexico and Costa Rica, says that "this is a moment of great promise for our hemisphere" and is full of feel-good talk about the future of the Americas.¶ But, sadly, it showed the absence of any U.S. plans to drastically expand trade ties with Latin America -- like the Obama administration has done with Asia and Europe -- or any sign that, in his second term, Obama will pay greater attention to this hemisphere.¶ Before we get into what Obama should do, let's take a quick look at the facts. In his article, Obama stated that about 40% of U.S. exports are currently going to Latin America, and that these exports are growing at a faster pace than U.S. shipments to the rest of the world.¶ Obama also celebrated that the U.S. Congress is finally close to approving comprehensive immigration reform. While that's a U.S. domestic issue, it would have a positive economic impact on Mexico and Central America, since millions of newly legalized immigrants would be able to visit their native countries, and most likely would be sending more money to their families back home.¶ But here are some of the facts that Obama failed to mention in his article:¶ U.S. total trade with Latin America has actually fallen as a percentage of our total trade over the past decade. While 39% of the nation's overall trade was with the Western Hemisphere in 2000, that percentage fell to 38% in 2012, according to U.S. Department of Commerce data.¶ Despite Obama's May 23, 2008, campaign promise to launch "a new alliance of the Americas," he has not started any major hemispheric free-trade initiative. By comparison, every recent U.S. president had started -- or at least tried to start -- a hemisphere-wide trade deal.¶ Obama has launched the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade talks with mostly Asian countries, and a similar Trans-Atlantic Partnership free-trade negotiation with the 27-member European Union, but has not announced any plans for a Trans-American Partnership.¶ Granted, he has helped ratify free trade deals with Colombia and Panama, which had been signed by his predecessor. And, sure, the Trans-Pacific Partnership plan includes a few Latin American countries, such as Mexico, Peru and Chile, but they are a minority within the proposed new bloc.¶ In his May 2 trip to Mexico, Obama failed to meet Mexico's request to be included in the U.S.-proposed Trans-Atlantic partnership free-trade talks with the European Union. The Mexican governments had asked that Mexico and Canada be included in the Trans-Atlantic Partnership plan so that the proposed deal could become a North American-European Union deal. But the White House response was not yet.¶ Despite Obama's 2011 announcement of a plan to increase to 100,000 the number of Latin -American students in U.S. colleges and to 100,000 the number of U.S. students in Latin-American universities -- his most ambitious initiative for the region -- progress on the project has been slow.¶ The plan calls for significant private-sector funding, but Obama has invested little time or political capital in it. Fund-raising has been left in charge of the State Department, whose boss -- Secretary of State John Kerry -- has shown scant interest in Latin America.¶ Kerry did not travel with Obama to Mexico and Costa Rica last week, and his April 18 remark at a congressional hearing about Latin America being "our backyard" had the rare effect of antagonizing friends and foes alike in the region.¶ My opinion: As regular readers of this column know well, I much prefer Obama over his Republican critics on most issues. But I find it unfortunate that, as Obama's recent trade initiatives with Asia and Europe show, he looks East and West, but very little toward the South. Neither he, nor Kerry, nor any Cabinet-level official is focused on the region.¶ Perhaps it's too late to expect any changes. But the least Obama could do is get personally involved in the projects he has already launched. For instance, he should pick up the phone and ask CEO's of top multinationals to chip in funds for his plan to raise student exchanges with Latin America to 100,000 in both directions. If Obama doesn't get personally involved, not even that will happen.
|
Oppenheimer 5/9 – Latin- America correspondent for the Miami Herald (Andres, “Andres Oppenheimer: Boost ties with Latin America”, 2013, http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/05/09/3293617/andres-oppenheimer-boost-ties.html#storylink=cpy, CMR)
|
Obama's return showed the absence of any U.S. plans to drastically expand trade ties with Latin America or any sign that Obama will pay greater attention to this hemisphere Despite Obama's 2008, campaign promise to launch "a new alliance of the Americas," he has not started any major hemispheric free-trade initiative Obama has invested little time or political capital I find it unfortunate that Neither he, nor Kerry, nor any Cabinet-level official is focused on the region. the least Obama could do is get personally involved in the projects he has already launched. he should pick up the phone and ask CEO's of top multinationals to chip in funds for his plan to raise student exchanges If Obama doesn't get personally involved, not even that will happen
|
Substantial changes in engagement drain political capital
| 4,484 | 58 | 759 | 744 | 7 | 127 | 0.009409 | 0.170699 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,234 |
A key example of this was the coup against ¶ President Zelaya in Honduras, when Obama sided within the Organization of American States ¶ (OAS) with the Latin American countries against ¶ the new Honduran government but some Republican senators had their own foreign policy agenda. The latter supported the new Honduran government and blocked the confirmation in the Senate of the US ambassador to Brazil and of the assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere. In Foreign Affairs, Christopher Sabatini (2012) commentated sourly, “This absurdity – ¶ blocking for nine months the appointment of a regional assistant secretary of state and an ambassador to the region’s most important player (and the ¶ world’s seventh-largest economy) over a minor ¶ ideological spat regarding a tiny country – shows ¶ the lack of seriousness of the workings of the U.S.¶ Congress in general. But it also shows how unseriously Latin America is taken in particular and ¶ what sorts of issues are considered important.” ¶ This hijacking of Latin America policy by Republican senators obliged the administration to ¶ function with “carryover” appointments from its ¶ predecessor. Fortunately, the end of the previous¶ administration had seen a considerable improvement in the caliber of appointments, so the transition from Bush to Obama was less disruptive than ¶ it might have been. However, this also meant there ¶ was little scope for conspicuous innovation; or, as ¶ Leslie H. Gelb (2012) wrote: “Even with America’s ¶ own difficulties and other international priorities, ¶ the Southern Hemisphere has commanded shockingly little time from the White House. […] At the ¶ Cartagena summit 2012, Obama was slammed for ¶ his failure to roll up his sleeves on either the Cuban embargo or drugs. The most interest Americans showed in the region came when Secret Service officers were found to be cavorting with prostitutes.” ¶ The new focus of US policy toward the region ¶ was on promoting economic and social opportunity, ensuring citizen security, strengthening effective democratic institutions, and securing a cleanenergy future. Naim (2011) has criticized this ¶ agenda as being better suited to an economic development agency and not the State Department. ¶ It has allowed US diplomats to avoid tackling real ¶ and politically explosive issues. A little more political realism is necessary, because “development ¶ does not mean the end of politics” and because US ¶ policymakers need a reminder “that twenty firstcentury Latin America has its own, autonomous ¶ power dynamics” (Sabatini 2012).¶ Whether through lack of presidential attention or as a reflection of Obama’s own outlook, ¶ the result after four years is that positive results ¶ appear to be lacking. Washington has been “reactive” rather than “proactive” as issues have arisen. Problems certainly have arisen, of course: the ¶ drug war in Mexico escalated; Haiti’s fragile institutions were devastated by a huge natural disaster; the Honduran political class united to oust ¶ a constitutionally elected president; the Paraguayan president Lugo was deposed by an impeachment, and the new Paraguayan government was ¶ suspended from UNASUR and Mercosur. Washington’s responses can be characterized as improvised and lacking a sense of strategic direction.
|
Whitehead & Nolte 12 (Laurence Whitehead, senior research fellow in politics at Nuffield College, Oxford, and Detlef Nolte, acting president of the GIGA, director of the GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, professor of political science at the University of Hamburg, Number 6, 2012, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf, CMR)
|
Honduras shows how unseriously Latin America is taken the Southern Hemisphere has commanded shockingly little time from the White House Obama was slammed for his failure to roll up his sleeves to avoid tackling real and politically explosive issues through lack of presidential attention the result is results appear to be lacking.
|
Significant changes require political capital – Obama’s first term proves
| 3,314 | 74 | 335 | 524 | 10 | 52 | 0.019084 | 0.099237 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,235 |
Explanations for the Low-Key Latin America ¶ Policy¶ While the overall assessment of the administration’s Latin America policy could obviously be ¶ elaborated further, the broad pattern is rather ¶ clear. It may thus be more useful to consider how ¶ this low-key outcome can be explained. Since the ¶ results of the 6 November 2012 US election remain ¶ very much in doubt at the time of writing, there ¶ is limited scope for predicting how US relations ¶ with the Americas may unfold under the next administration. Even so, an understanding of the¶ factors that have constrained Obama’s team from ¶ fulfilling initial hopes in the first term should shed ¶ some light on future prospects as well.¶ Latin America has clearly ranked low in the ¶ administration’s policy priorities, and in all probability it will continue to do so for the next few ¶ years as well. Domestic and economic challenges are likely to outweigh most foreign policy concerns, and other parts of the world are likely to demand whatever attention the administration can ¶ spare for international affairs (except those with a ¶ very direct linkage to internal policy issues or domestic partisan divides). This is especially true as ¶ regards the focus of the White House. ¶
|
Whitehead & Nolte 12 (Laurence Whitehead, senior research fellow in politics at Nuffield College, Oxford, and Detlef Nolte, acting president of the GIGA, director of the GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, professor of political science at the University of Hamburg, Number 6, 2012, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf, CMR)
|
Latin America has clearly ranked low in priorities and will continue to do so for years Domestic challenges are likely to outweigh most foreign policy concerns, This is especially true as regards the focus of the White House.
|
Plan consumes Obama’s focus for domestic priorities
| 1,243 | 52 | 227 | 212 | 7 | 38 | 0.033019 | 0.179245 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,236 |
A: Andrés Rozental, member of the Advisor board, president of Rozental & Asociados in Mexico City and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution: "The results of the U.S. congressional elections can only be sobering news for Latin America in general, and Mexico in particular. With a political and foreign policy agenda in Washington already crowded with issues unrelated to our region, it would appear that the hemisphere will slip even further down on the list of priorities for both the Obama administration and Congress. The change of control in the House probably means that even if he really wanted to move the immigration and gun control agenda forward, President Barack Obama won't have the political capital needed to counter newly elected right-wing Republicans and Tea Party representatives who generally oppose comprehensive immigration reform or any limitations on Second Amendment rights to buy and own all types of weapons, many of which find their way to the drug cartels in Mexico and beyond. Although some analysts have forecast an increased foreign policy interest by the White House after the Nov. 2 elections, any such change will most probably focus on Afghanistan, India-Pakistan relations, Iran and the Middle East peace process, not on the immediate neighborhood. Congress has already reduced the amount of assistance under Plan Mérida to Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, which was meant to materialize the 'shared responsibility' that the United States has rhetorically assumed for the war on drugs since Obama was elected two years ago. Nothing on his or the immediate congressional agenda would indicate today that relations with Latin America might substantially change during the remaining biennium of his first term."
|
Rozental 10 – member of the Advisor board, president of Rozental & Asociados in Mexico City and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (Andres, “What Do the U.S. Election Results Mean for Latin America?”, 11/8, http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=2505, CMR)
|
With a political policy agenda in Washington already crowded with issues unrelated to our region it would appear the hemisphere will slip even further down on the list of priorities for Obama and Congress Obama won't have the political capital needed to counter Republicans and Tea Party representatives Congress has already reduced assistance to Mexico Nothing on the congressional agenda would indicate relations with Latin America might substantially change
|
Latin America policy drains political capital – crowds-out other issues
| 1,758 | 72 | 460 | 276 | 10 | 69 | 0.036232 | 0.25 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,237 |
But, in general, regional expectations for meaningful change in U.S. Latin American and Caribbean policy during Obama’s second term were muted.¶ The campaigns of both Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney “proved that Latin America is not a priority for the United States,’’ said Simon Pachano, a political science professor at the Latin American Faculty for Social Sciences in Ecuador. “Latin America existed when they were looking for Hispanic votes, but it wasn’t present in their foreign policy proposals.”¶ Anthony Bryan, a senior fellow at the Institute of International Relations at the University of the West Indies, isn’t expecting “dramatic changes” either.¶ “President Obama will probably have more time to spend on foreign policy but I am not sure the Caribbean is high on the list of places that require attention,’’ he said.¶ There was an acknowledgment that Obama has big issues to deal with at home — job creation, tax code reforms, the deficit and bridging party divides — while hot-button international issues, such as an imploding Syria, troop withdrawal in Afghanistan, Iran’s potential nuclear weapons capability and the Chinese economy, will compete for attention .
|
Whitefield 11/7/12 (Mimi, and Tim Johnson, “Will Latin America become a higher priority during second Obama term?”, http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/07/v-fullstory/3086849/will-latin-america-become-a-higher.html, CMR)
|
regional expectations for meaningful change in U.S. Latin American policy during Obama’s second term were muted The campaign of Obama proved that Latin America is not a priority said a political science professor at the Latin American Faculty for Social Sciences in Ecuador Bryan, a senior fellow at the Institute of International Relations at the University of the West Indies, isn’t expecting “dramatic changes” There was acknowledgment Obama has big issues to deal with at home bridging party divides
|
No major changes Obama’s second term
| 1,193 | 37 | 503 | 187 | 6 | 79 | 0.032086 | 0.42246 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,238 |
Q: Barack Obama was re-elected president of the United States on Tuesday. What is his vision for foreign policy and how does Latin America fit into his plans? How will Latin American leaders and their citizens react to the election results? What role did Latinos in the United States play in the election and what does that mean for U.S. policy changes on issues such as immigration, drugs and Cuba? ¶ A: Peter Hakim, member of the Advisor board and president emeritus of the Inter-American Dialogue: "Any speculation about Obama's second term has to come mainly from his first-term performance. The campaign was about the candidates and their biographies—not about issues. Nothing suggests Congress will be more productive. The House remains virtually unchanged. The Senate will be more divisive still as most remaining moderate Republicans and Democrats resigned or lost their seats. We will know soon whether compromise is possible when the lame-duck Congress returns next week, and begins discussion of the fiscal cliff embroglio. The best guess is that Congress will find a way, not to resolve the problem, but to defer its consequences. The election results focused attention on immigration policy, which both Republicans and Democrats may be motivated to address. President Obama's declared intention to address immigration was surely reinforced by the huge Latino vote. Many of the Republicans who blocked previous immigration initiatives will resist again. But some recognize their party may become irrelevant unless they take seriously the Latino and black constituencies that accounted for more than 40 percent of Obama's total. U.S. immigration reform would be a welcome change in most of Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. Obama may seek to pursue further openings to Cuba—but these will be limited unless the Cuban government shows a willingness to reciprocate with new human rights measures or political changes. Drug policy is not high on the U.S. agenda, but the approval in Colorado and Washington of ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana use may spark wider discussion on drug issues. But Mitt Romney offered the most significant policy proposal for Latin America, when called for more intensive U.S. efforts to pursue multiplying economic opportunities in the region."
|
Hakim 11/8/12 (Peter, member of the Advisor board and president emeritus of the Inter-American Dialogue, “What Will Obama's Second Term Mean for Latin America?”, http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3135, CMR)
|
What is his vision for foreign policy and how does Latin America fit into his plans? Nothing suggests Congress will be more productive The House remains unchanged The Senate will be more divisive as most remaining moderate Republicans and Democrats resigned or lost their seats
|
Election politics prove – no major changes
| 2,330 | 43 | 277 | 365 | 7 | 45 | 0.019178 | 0.123288 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,239 |
Modest Achievements, Lost Opportunities ¶ While acknowledging the domestic constraints ¶ on the administration, many observers and analysts still hold a critical view on US–Latin America policy during the Obama presidency. Indeed, ¶ some ask whether there has been a foreign policy ¶ for Latin America at all. A 2011 article in the Americas Quarterly by Moisés Naim is illustrative: “U.S. ¶ policy toward Latin America is lethargic, unimaginative and surprisingly irrelevant […] The fact ¶ that Latin America does not figure in the calculations or conversations of top U.S. decision makers does not preclude some of them from giving ¶ speeches about U.S. policy towards the region that ¶ are as disconnected from reality as those given by ¶ Fidel Castro in Cuba.” One contributing factor is ¶ that foreign policy and Latin America policy became the victims of partisan political polarization ¶ and ideology-driven foreign policy initiatives in ¶ Congress.
|
Whitehead & Nolte 12 (Laurence Whitehead, senior research fellow in politics at Nuffield College, Oxford, and Detlef Nolte, acting president of the GIGA, director of the GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, professor of political science at the University of Hamburg, Number 6, 2012, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf, CMR)
|
U.S. policy toward Latin America is lethargic that Latin America does not figure in the calculations or conversations of top U.S. decision makers does not preclude some of them from giving speeches about U.S. policy towards the region that are disconnected from reality Latin America policy became the victim of partisan political polarization and ideology-driven initiatives in Congress.
|
Link turns are hype – plan guarantees partisanship
| 959 | 51 | 394 | 152 | 8 | 58 | 0.052632 | 0.381579 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,240 |
A fair assessment of President Obama’s Latin ¶ America record needs to recognize that the region ¶ is not central in US foreign policy. Candidates do ¶ not expect to win elections with topics related to ¶ Latin America, but they know they could lose elections with topics like illegal migration, drug trafficking, organized crime, or weakness in the face ¶ of anti-American stances. So while it is correct that ¶ there are many so-called intermestic topics linking the US with Latin America, most of these topics have a negative connotation. To make things ¶ even more complicated, in some of these areas ¶ Latin American countries are now demanding a ¶ policy shift on the part of the US government, as ¶ a report from the Inter-American Dialogue from ¶ April 2012 states: “The US position on these troublesome issues – immigration, drug policy, and ¶ Cuba – has set Washington against the consensus ¶ view of the hemisphere’s other 34 governments. ¶ These issues stand as obstacles to further cooperation in the Americas. The United States and the ¶ nations of Latin America and the Caribbean need ¶ to resolve them in order to build more productive partnerships.” For the moment it is quite difficult to foresee major progress with regard to any ¶ of these topics in the near future given the apparent distribution of US electoral preferences in the ¶ 6 November contest.
|
Whitehead & Nolte 12 (Laurence Whitehead, senior research fellow in politics at Nuffield College, Oxford, and Detlef Nolte, acting president of the GIGA, director of the GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, professor of political science at the University of Hamburg, Number 6, 2012, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf, CMR)
|
Candidates do not expect to win elections Latin America but they know they could lose elections with topics like drug trafficking organized crime or weakness in the face of anti-American stances. most of these topics have a negative connotation To make things more complicated Latin American countries are now demanding a policy shift on the part of the US government
|
Zero link turns – lack of perceived benefits
| 1,379 | 45 | 372 | 237 | 8 | 60 | 0.033755 | 0.253165 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,241 |
Barack Obama's election in 2008 seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50 percent mark since Lyndon Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments during his first year and early into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned. His impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party movement, the collapse in his approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided government.
|
Eberly 13 --- coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at St. Mary's College of Maryland (Todd, “The presidential power trap; Barack Obama is discovering that modern presidents have difficulty amassing political capital, which hinders their ability to enact a robust agenda,” 1/21, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-party-support-public-opinion, CMR)
|
Obama initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned His impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him
|
Even legislative victories burn capital and harden opposition to the president
| 867 | 78 | 340 | 142 | 11 | 52 | 0.077465 | 0.366197 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,242 |
President Barack Obama is aggressively pushing an ambitious agenda to liberalise global trading.¶ But already political trade wars are forming, and they're with fellow Democrats rather than with Republicans, his usual antagonists.¶ Obama is promoting free-trade proposals with Europe and Asia that could affect up to two-thirds of all global trade.¶ The ambitious deals would reduce or eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers. But there is trouble ahead for both the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership … at the negotiating table and from Congress.¶ The deal with Europe will be a top item this week in Northern Ireland at the Group of Eight summit of major industrial countries.¶ The Asia pact was brought up pointedly by the new Chinese president, Xi Jinping, in his California meetings with Obama recently.¶ Republicans historically have supported free-trade agreements far more than have Democrats, and a politically weakened Obama may not have enough second-term clout to successfully twist the arms of enough Democratic lawmakers.¶ Some Republicans who usually vote for easing trade barriers may vote "no" just because the agreements will bear Obama's signature.¶ Both deals generally have the support of US businesses. But labour unions and human rights and environmental groups, core Democratic constituencies, have so far viewed them cynically.¶ These organisations and Democrats in general, say that free-trade deals can cost American jobs and lead to environmental and workplace abuses that would not be tolerated in the US.¶ "We certainly have concerns," said Celeste Drake, a trade and policy specialist at the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labour federation. "I think Obama realises this problem about Republicans always being the big supporters [of trade liberalisation] and he would like to have our support. But overall we're sceptical. We wish we'd see more."¶ It's not a new problem.¶ President Bill Clinton powered the US-Mexico-Canada North American Free-Trade Agreement through Congress in 1993 only by heavily courting Republicans and overcoming stiff Democratic opposition,
|
Raum 6-15 (John, writer for AP, “Obama's dilemma: Scant support from Democrats for trade liberalization,” http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-trade-dilemma-scant-support-democrats, ME)
|
Obama is aggressively pushing an ambitious agenda to liberalise global trading.¶ But already political trade wars are forming, and they're with fellow Democrats rather than with Republicans, Republicans historically have supported free-trade agreements far more than have Democrats, and a politically weakened Obama may not have enough second-term clout to successfully twist the arms of enough Democratic lawmakers.¶ Some Republicans who usually vote for easing trade barriers may vote "no" just because the agreements will bear Obama's signature.¶ labour unions and human rights and environmental groups, core Democratic constituencies, have so far viewed them cynically. I think Obama realises this problem about Republicans always being the big supporters [of trade liberalisation] and he would like to have our support. But overall we're sceptical. We wish we'd see more
|
Increasing trade is a partisan issue
| 2,148 | 36 | 875 | 322 | 6 | 128 | 0.018634 | 0.397516 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,243 |
As in the previous Congress, legislative and oversight attention to Latin America and the ¶ Caribbean during the 112th Congress is focusing on the continued increase in drug traffickingrelated violence in Mexico and U.S. assistance to Mexico under the Mérida Initiative; efforts to ¶ help Central American and Caribbean countries contend with drug trafficking and violent crime; ¶ as well as continued counternarcotics and security support to Colombia, which still faces threats ¶ from armed actors. The earthquake that devastated Port-au-Prince in January 2010, combined ¶ with a cholera outbreak in the fall of 2010, has continued to focus congressional attention on the ¶ enormous task of disaster recovery and reconstruction in Haiti. As in past years, debate over U.S. ¶ sanctions on Cuba, particularly restrictions on travel and remittances, has remained a contentious ¶ issue with ongoing congressional debate over how to support change in one of the world’s last ¶ remaining communist nations. Latin American nations, especially Mexico, which remains the ¶ leading source country of both legal permanent residents and unauthorized immigrants in the ¶ United States, have been disappointed by what they see as a lack of effort in Congress on ¶ comprehensive immigration reform
|
Sullivan 12 – Coordinator, Specialist in Latin America Affairs, (Mark P, “Latin America and the Caribbean: ¶ U.S. Policy and Key Issues for Congress ¶ in 2012”, Feb 14, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42360.pdf, CMR)
|
debate over U.S. sanctions on Cuba has remained a contentious issue with ongoing congressional debate over how to support change
|
Plan is massively controversial
| 1,283 | 32 | 128 | 199 | 4 | 20 | 0.020101 | 0.100503 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,244 |
Cuba’s efforts to “update” its socialist system through a series of economic reforms just got more complicated. The death of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, its principal benefactor, could seriously disrupt what is already a precarious process of maintaining top-down political control while liberalizing elements of the economy. Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will step down in five years and the emergence of younger leaders born after the 1959 revolution add further uncertainty to the island’s future.¶ These new circumstances offer President Obama a rare opportunity to turn the page of history from an outdated Cold War approach to Cuba to a new era of constructive engagement. In his second term in office, he should place a big bet by investing political capital in defrosting relations, an approach that will advance U.S. interests in a stable, prosperous and democratic Cuba.
|
Piccone 3/18/13 – Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Foreign Policy (Ted, “Time to Bet on Cuba”, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/18-cuba-piccone, CMR)
|
new circumstances offer Obama a rare opportunity to turn the page of history from an outdated Cold War approach to Cuba to a new era of constructive engagement he should place a big bet by investing political capital defrosting relations,
|
Plan is a massive gamble – drains political capital
| 882 | 52 | 238 | 138 | 9 | 40 | 0.065217 | 0.289855 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,245 |
Proponents of doing just that insist there's more consensus than ever in the U.S. to ditch the Cuba embargo and its travel ban, which, after almost 50 years, have utterly failed to dislodge the Castro regime. Opening Cuba to Americans, they believe, will do more to stimulate democratization there than isolating it has. Even a majority of Cuban Americans now agree.¶ Still, for all the good vibes the bill's backers feel from the White House right now, some note warily that Obama has been loath to spend political capital in Cuba, or the rest of Latin America for that matter. Critics, for example, point to his decision last year to stop applying pressure against coup leaders in Honduras, who'd ousted a leftist President, when conservative Republicans in Congress objected.¶ Embargo supporters, including Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, are already blasting Obama's plans to relax Cuba travel. "This is not the time to ease the pressure on the Castro regime," Menendez said this month, insisting it will only give the brothers "a much needed infusion of dollars that will only extend their reign of oppression." As a result, says one congressional aide who asked not to be identified, when it comes time for the White House to give the bill more full-throated support, "there's a fear they may just decide that the fight's not worth it."
|
Padgett 10 (Tim, “Will the White House Fight to End the Cuba Travel Ban?”, Aug 23, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013820,00.html#ixzz2TTN7a100, CMR)
|
Proponents insist there's consensus to ditch the Cuba embargo and its travel ban, Still for all the good vibes the bill's backers feel from the White House some note warily that Obama has been loath to spend political capital in Cuba or the rest of Latin America for that matter Embargo supporters are blasting Obama This is not the time to ease pressure when it comes time for the White House to give the bill more full-throated support, "there's a fear they may just decide that the fight's not worth it
|
Plan causes huge fights and drains political capital
| 1,376 | 53 | 505 | 229 | 8 | 91 | 0.034934 | 0.39738 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,246 |
On the one hand, Obama has repeatedly stressed the importance of multilateralism and diplomatic re-engagement with the world, including long-time U.S. adversaries such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, as a contrast to the unilateralist and militarised approach of the incumbent, President George W. Bush.¶ On the other hand, most of his advisers are veterans of the administration of President Bill Clinton whose own brand of liberal interventionism -- including the circumvention of the United Nations in the Balkans, Sudan, and Iraq and reluctance to press Israel to make key concessions in negotiations with its Arab neighbours -- and notion that the U.S. was the 'indispensable nation' helped lay the foundation for the eight years that followed.¶ 'There are lots of Clinton re-treads,' noted Stephen Clemons, who heads the American Strategy Programme at the New America Foundation (NAF). He pointed to the reported offer to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a former senior Clinton aide, to serve as Obama's White House Chief of Staff as one of many hints that a 'Clinton-3' administration may be in the offing.¶ As the biracial son of a Kenyan father, who spent a formative part of his childhood in Indonesia and the rest in multi-cultural Hawaii, Obama will clearly present a far different image of the United States to the rest of the world than his immediate predecessor, or any other, for that matter. Aside from his background and physical appearance, his eloquence, equanimity under fire, and intellectual acuity and curiosity will also mark a striking contrast to Bush.¶ 'The fact that he presents a very different face of America is very important, because our political capital around the world has been so very badly depleted over the last eight years,' according to Raj Menon, who teaches international relations at Lehigh University.¶ But that image, as well the foreign policy commitments he made during the campaign -- assuming that he holds to them -- may not be sufficient to ensure the kind of sweeping change in course that much of the world and many voters who cast their ballots for him here expect.¶ Obama will almost certainly make good within a relatively short time on his promises to close the Guantanamo detention facility, rejoin global efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming, and open direct dialogues with Syria and Iran, that will cheer Democrats and Washington's European allies. ¶ But, despite Democratic gains in Congress, he may be less inclined to expend political capital on more controversial issues that will require substantial bipartisan support, such as ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or the Rome Protocol for the International Criminal Court and amending the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to strengthen labour rights and environmental provisions.
|
Lobe 8 (Jim, “Obama to Seek Global Re-engagement, But How Much?”, 11-5-2008, http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=1823, CMR)
|
On the one hand, Obama has repeatedly stressed the importance of engagement with Cuba despite Democratic gains in Congress, he may be less inclined to expend political capital on more controversial issues that will require substantial bipartisan support such as amending NAFTA
|
Expanded engagement with Cuba drains political capital
| 2,844 | 55 | 276 | 455 | 7 | 42 | 0.015385 | 0.092308 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,247 |
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican, said that the White House is caving to pressure from Cuban leaders desperate to end trade restrictions frozen since the 1960s.¶ “The regime is once again manipulating the U.S. administration in this game because it wants us to lift the embargo and make further concessions,” said Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen, a former chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee and a staunch opponent of easing the stand-off that has defined bilateral relations since Cuban leader Fidel Castro agreed to house Soviet ballistic missiles in 1961.
|
Taylor 6/18 (Guy, The Washington Times in 2011 as the State Department correspondent, “U.S.-Cuba mail talks spark speculation of wider outreach,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/18/us-cuba-mail-talks-spark-speculation-wider-outreac/, ME)
|
the White House is caving to pressure from Cuban leaders desperate to end trade restrictions frozen since the 1960s. The regime is once again manipulating the U.S. administration in this game because it wants us to lift the embargo and make further concessions,” said former chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee
|
Republicans hate the plan- see it as caving to the regime
| 572 | 57 | 326 | 88 | 11 | 52 | 0.125 | 0.590909 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,248 |
The election of Enrique Peña Nieto and the re-election of President Obama mean that the U.S.-Mexican relationship has a unique opportunity to grow closer and bring numerous benefits to both sides of the border. To fully appreciate this unique opportunity, both sides must invest political capital and be prepared to engage domestic public opinion when it comes to explaining why our countries are united by much more than a fence.
|
Farnsworth 12 – VP of the Council of the Americas and Americas Society (Eric, “The United States and Mexico: The Path Forward”, Nov 30, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2012/11/30/46430/the-united-states-and-mexico-the-path-forward/, CMR)
|
The election of Nieto and the re-election of Obama mean the U.S.-Mexican relationship has a unique opportunity to grow closer and bring numerous benefits to both sides of the border both sides must invest political capital and be prepared to engage domestic public opinion when it comes to explaining
|
Engaging Mexico drains PC
| 430 | 25 | 300 | 70 | 4 | 49 | 0.057143 | 0.7 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,249 |
But while the shift in tone is laudable, the impact of rhetoric alone will be limited in both duration and depth. Unfortunately, while Obama's team has reinforced cooperative security measures already in place to help Mexico battle against drug cartels, it has remained unwilling to commit to more fundamental changes in U.S. policy. Among such possible transformations to the bilateral status quo, two U.S. legislative initiatives stand out for the impact they might have on the drug war in Mexico. ¶ First, the Obama administration should pursue a new ban on assault weapons, much like the one that expired in 2004, but without the loopholes that allowed slightly modified machine guns to qualify as legal. Since Mexico is already overrun with weapons, such a ban wouldn't drive violence down overnight, and the larger criminal organizations would still be able to find willing suppliers elsewhere. However, a strengthened ban would force drug gangs to divert a larger proportion of their profits to weapons purchases, which would make it harder for smaller groups to stockpile arsenals. It would also eventually reduce the number of weapons in the country, making Mexico less prone to outbreaks of warfare between criminal gangs. However, when asked about a new ban last month on Face the Nation, Obama demurred.¶ Second, the Obama administration should seek the legalization of marijuana, which remains the most profitable source of revenue for Mexican smugglers. Polls show that close to half of the U.S. public favors the move, which would have a greater direct impact on the profitability of Mexico's drug gangs than any other single action. A growing chorus of mainstream analysts, including Time's Joe Klein and the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, has also called for the regulated, legal sale of cannabis in recent weeks. ¶ Yet, when questioned about the possibility of legalizing marijuana at his recent online town hall meeting, Obama -- who has himself admitted to having smoked marijuana -- poked fun at those interested in the issue before summarily dismissing it. The context of the War on Drugs, which demonizes all discussions of legalization, might make such a reaction good politics. But it remains poor policy. ¶ In other realms, Obama has been similarly timid. He has been unwilling to expend political capital to renew a program that would allow Mexican trucks to traverse U.S. roads, much to the dismay of Mexican exporters and NAFTA supporters. More significantly, while Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric on immigration reform, it remains at best the third-highest priority on his domestic agenda. ¶ All of this means that despite the wave of Mexican enthusiasm for the new U.S. government and the tone it has struck, the bilateral relationship won't differ fundamentally from that under former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. While Obama and his administration deserve credit for reappropriating the terms of the bilateral conversation, his administration shouldn't be surprised if Mexico soon loses its infatuation with attractive rhetoric wrapped around the same old problems.
|
Corcoran 9 (Patrick, “Shift in Tone Not Enough for U.S.-Mexico Relations”, April 16, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/3618/shift-in-tone-not-enough-for-u-s-mexico-relations, CMR)
|
the impact of rhetoric alone will be limited Obama has remained unwilling to commit to more fundamental changes in U.S. policy Obama has timid He has been unwilling to expend political capital despite the wave of Mexican enthusiasm for the new tone the bilateral relationship won't differ his administration shouldn't be surprised if Mexico soon loses its infatuation with attractive rhetoric wrapped around the same old problems
|
Real changes require PC – failed rhetorical commitments prove
| 3,121 | 62 | 429 | 497 | 9 | 67 | 0.018109 | 0.134809 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,250 |
But being careful not to intrude on the southern neighbor's sovereignty, Obama noted that Mexicans have the right to determine how best to tackle the violence that has plagued their country. He spoke during a press conference Thursday with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto.¶ Since taking office in December, Peña Nieto has moved to end the widespread access that U.S. security agencies have had in Mexico to tackle the violence that affects both sides of the border. It's a departure from the strategy employed by his predecessor, Felipe Calderon, which was praised by the U.S. but reviled by many Mexicans.¶ "I agreed to continue our close cooperation on security, even as the nature of that cooperation will evolve," Obama said during a joint news conference at Mexico's grand National Palace. "It is obviously up to the Mexican people to determine their security structures and how it engages with the other nations — including the United States."¶ Peña Nieto also downplayed the notion that the new, more centralized arrangement would damage its security partnership with the United States. He said Obama agreed during their private meeting earlier in the day to "cooperate on the basis of mutual respect" to promote an efficient and effective strategy.¶ Obama arrived in Mexico Thursday afternoon for a three-day trip that includes a stop in Costa Rica on Friday. Domestic issues followed the president south of the border, with Obama facing questions in his exchange with reporters about the potential escalation of the U.S. role in Syria, a controversy over contraception access for teenage girls, and the delicate debate on Capitol Hill on an immigration overhaul.¶ The latter issue is being closely watched in Mexico, given the large number of Mexicans who have emigrated to the U.S. both legally and illegally. More than half of the 11 million people in the U.S. illegally are Mexican, according to the Pew Research Center.¶ For Obama, the immigration debate is rife with potential political pitfalls. While he views an overhaul of the nation's patchwork immigration laws as a legacy-building issue, he's been forced to keep a low-profile role in the debate to avoid scaring off wary Republicans.¶ In an effort to court those GOP lawmakers, the draft bill being debated on Capitol Hill focuses heavily on securing the border with Mexico, and makes doing so a pre-condition for a pathway to citizenship for those in the U.S. illegally. But Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, one of the bill's architects, said Thursday that unless the border security measures are made even tougher, the legislation will face tough odds not only in the GOP-controlled House but also in the Democratic-led Senate.¶ The president acknowledged there were some areas along the 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico where security needs to be tightened. But he gently chided Rubio and other Republicans for putting up obstacles that would derail final legislation.¶ "I suspect that the final legislation will not contain everything I want. It won't contain everything that Republican leaders want, either," Obama said. He added that "what I'm not going to do is to go along with something where we're looking for an excuse not to do it as opposed to a way to do it."¶ Despite the intense interest in the immigration debate among Mexicans, Peña Nieto carefully avoided injecting himself in the issue. While he commended the U.S. for tackling the challenge, he said the congressional debate "is a domestic affair."¶ The new Mexican leader was purposely seeking to avoid the perceived missteps of former Mexican President Vicente Fox, who irked conservatives in the U.S. by lobbying for an immigration overhaul in 2001.¶ Peña Nieto's election brought Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, back to power after a decade on the sidelines. The security changes are emblematic of the party's preference for centralized political and bureaucratic control.¶ The arrangement means all contact for U.S. law enforcement will now go through a "single door," according to Mexico's federal Interior Ministry, the agency that controls security and domestic policy. Under the previous policy, FBI, CIA, DEA and Homeland Security had direct access to units of Mexico's Federal Police, army and navy. ¶ U.S. agents worked side by side with those Mexican units in the fight against drug cartels, including the U.S.-backed strategy of killing or arresting top kingpins.¶ Obama lauded his Mexican counterpart for launching bold reforms during his first months in office, not only on security but also the economy. Both leaders have said they want to refocus the U.S.-Mexico relationship on trade and the economy, not the drug wars and immigration issues that have dominated the partnership in recent years.
|
Fox 5/3/13 (“Obama, Peña Nieto Talk Shift In Security Cooperation”, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/03/obama-pena-nieto-talk-shift-in-security-cooperation/, CMR)
|
being careful not to intrude on the southern neighbor's sovereignty Obama noted that Mexicans have the right to determine how best to tackle the violence He spoke with Nieto Nieto has moved to end the widespread access that U.S. security agencies have had in Mexico It is obviously up to the Mexican people to determine their security structures For Obama, the immigration debate is rife with potential political pitfalls he's been forced to keep a low-profile role to avoid scaring off wary Republicans the draft bill focuses heavily on securing the border with Mexico Nieto carefully avoided injecting himself in the issue , he said the congressional debate "is a domestic affair." The new Mexican leader was purposely seeking to avoid the perceived missteps of former Mexican President Fox, who irked conservatives in the U.S. Nieto's election brought Mexico's PRI, back to power after a decade on the sidelines. The security changes are emblematic of the party's preference for centralized political and bureaucratic control The arrangement means all contact for U.S. law enforcement will now go through a "single door," the agency that controls security and domestic policy Obama said they want to refocus the U.S.-Mexico relationship on trade and the economy,
|
Current US border-security strategy defers to Mexico – engagement risks opening up huge fights due to encroachments from Obama and Nieto
| 4,798 | 137 | 1,265 | 771 | 21 | 202 | 0.027237 | 0.261997 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,251 |
Security Cooperation and Centralization¶ Pena Nieto's predecessor, the National Action Party's Felipe Calderon, focused heavily on Mexico's security challenges and oversaw the sustained military offensive against criminal organizations throughout the country. Pena Nieto has yet to elaborate much on his plans to address the security issues, but he has emphasized the need to combat street violence and kidnappings, while playing down the importance of combating drug trafficking -- a U.S. priority.¶ But ahead of Obama's visit, certain details have emerged indicating that the Pena Nieto administration intends to change the nature of intelligence cooperation between the United States and Mexico. Until now, the two countries' various law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been able to interact directly, but Mexico's interior ministry will begin overseeing all intelligence collaboration.¶ This centralization effort has not been isolated to cooperation with the United States. The Mexican Interior Ministry has also taken charge of the federal police, and Pena Nieto intends to eventually create a national gendarmarie under the interior secretariat in order to fill the role in the drug wars currently played by the Mexican military with a security body better equipped with law enforcement training.¶ Thus, the extent and manner to which this centralization will affect security cooperation with the United States is unclear. But the changes are primarily designed to give Mexico greater control over the intelligence process involved in combating the country's violent gangs. The intention is not to block U.S. collaboration and assistance, but rather to reform existing structures.¶ Domestic Issues, Bilateral Implications¶ While Mexico reorients its internal focus to structural changes that its leaders hope will lay foundations for economic development, the country could also be affected by domestic issues under debate in the United States. For years, Mexico has been pressing the United States to enact stricter gun laws. Though a prominent gun control bill failed in the U.S. Senate on April 17, the issue will likely re-emerge later in 2013, and at least some gun control measures currently enjoy broad popular support. Meanwhile, demographic changes in the United States are driving a debate about immigration reform that, if implemented, would require collaboration with Mexico, many of whose citizens would seek to legalize their residential status in the United States.¶ Though the passage of these reforms will similarly be determined solely by U.S. domestic political factors, their success would be a significant boon for bilateral relations with Mexico. Indeed, for Obama and Pena Nieto, the effects each feel of the other's policy decisions will be magnified by the unique demographic, geographic and economic ties binding their countries. Yet, the domestic environment and political calculations in each country will ultimately shape the effects of this period of political change.¶ The U.S. political decision-making process is largely isolated from international influence, and the Pena Nieto administration likewise appears to be consolidating key policy areas under Mexican control at the expense of U.S. influence. Still, Mexico's steady emergence as an economic power in North America sets the stage for a bilateral relationship much more heavily focused on opportunities for economic cooperation.
|
Stratfor 5/2/13 (“Evolving U.S.-Mexico Relations and Obama's Visit”, http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/evolving-us-mexico-relations-and-obamas-visit, CMR)
|
Nieto has yet to elaborate much on his plans to address the security issues, changes are primarily designed to give Mexico greater control over the intelligence process involved in combating the country's violent gangs While Mexico reorients its internal focus to structural changes the country could be affected by domestic issues under debate in the U S the effects of policy decisions will be magnified by the unique demographic, geographic and economic ties binding their countries 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
|
No link turns – Politically charged debate crowds-out perceived benefits
| 3,438 | 73 | 715 | 510 | 10 | 107 | 0.019608 | 0.209804 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,252 |
House Republicans will meet this week to plan their immigration strategy, which seems designed to push the issue to the right, but the Senate bill already faces a backlash on the left, where advocacy groups say the added border security is testing the limits of enforcement.¶ Many immigrant rights groups watched in despair as senators voted last month to add 20,000 Border Patrol agents and hundreds of miles of fencing in the Southwest. ¶ As senators were voting, volunteers from the Reform Immigration for Texas Alliance were getting arrested for demonstrating outside Democratic Party offices in Dallas and Austin to protest what appeared to be a major reversal by Senate Democrats, who had said an earlier bill would provide enough border security.¶ "Our response was, 'Look, we are not celebrating the bill,'" said Adriana Cadena, statewide coordinator for the Texas Alliance. She said her group hasn't taken an official position on the legislation as a whole and sees good parts of it, including quick citizenship for Dream Act youths and agriculture workers, but members also wanted to register their disapproval of the "immense militarization and criminalization" in the final Senate bill.¶ Most immigrant rights groups remain on board. They say they are wary of the direction of the debate but that the additional border security provision hasn't spoiled the entire bill.¶ "It was absolutely a difficult decision," said Ruthie Epstein, a legislative policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union. "Nevertheless, we did ultimately decide, reluctantly, to support the bill moving forward because the bill retains its core commitment to providing a fair if difficult path to citizenship."¶ The Senate bill cleared on a 68-32 vote with 14 Republicans joining all of the members of the Democratic caucus in backing it. That vote signaled that the core of the deal - to offer quick legal status and work permits to illegal immigrants but to withhold full citizenship rights until the border is considered secure - is holding.¶ Analysts on all sides of the issue have decried the Senate's border surge, saying the money is unlikely to produce much of a return on the dollar.¶ Ms. Epstein and other opponents said building up the border with that many agents could cause a spike in human rights abuses. During a surge under the George W. Bush administration, the Department of Homeland Security struggled to hire and train Border Patrol agents.¶ In Congress, action has shifted to the House, where Republicans hold a majority. They will meet Wednesday to hash out their strategy.¶ Several key differences have emerged - and none more critical than the approaches to a pathway to citizenship. Most Senate Republicans, including those who voted against the bill, agreed that a pathway is needed but fought over what conditions to attach to it.¶ That view is not universal among House Republicans, many of whom say that granting illegal immigrants citizenship is an amnesty for breaking the law.¶ Beyond that fight, House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, has called the security provision in the Senate bill "laughable." He has signaled that whatever the House does, it will go beyond the border buildup in the Senate legislation.¶ It's not clear how much leverage immigrant rights groups will have in the House.¶ With House Republicans under pressure to strengthen the bill, many immigrant rights groups say the Senate bill is their high-water mark and they now will be playing chiefly defense. It's one reason so many groups were upset that the Senate added border security rather than waiting to fight the issue with the House.¶ But some groups argue, at least publicly, that the House bill won't necessarily be stronger than the Senate version.¶ According to some reports, a bipartisan group of seven House lawmakers negotiating a deal may even be looking at a shorter path to citizenship than the one in the Senate agreement.¶ Rep. Raul R. Labrador, an Idaho Republican who used to be part of that bipartisan group of negotiators, said there is little doubt that the House bill will focus more on security than the Senate version.¶ "My concern with the Senate bill is that they put the legalization of 11 million people ahead of security. The legalization happens first, and then the security happens second," he told NBC's "Meet the Press" program Sunday.¶ He said he doesn't want a repeat of what he considers mistakes of implementing the president's health care law by giving the administration a large amount of power. ¶ Mr. Labrador said it would be a mistake to turn over border security decisions to the Obama administration.¶ Rep. Michael T. McCaul, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on CBS' "Face the Nation" program that the House also wants to avoid another part of the health care debate, when the House took up and passed the Senate's bill in its entirety, unchanged.¶ Some Senate Democrats have predicted that the House will do that with the Senate immigration bill, but Mr. McCaul said that won't happen.¶ Earlier this year, he cleared a tough border security bill through his committee on a unanimous bipartisan vote, and he derided the Senate's plan to add agents and fencing as throwing money at the problem.¶ "What the Senate just passed was, again, a bunch of, you know, candy thrown down there, a bunch of assets thrown down there to gain votes but without a methodical, smart border approach," he said. "We want a smart border. We also want a smart immigration plan, something that makes sense."¶ Mr. McCaul said his own border security bill could be on the House floor later this month or in September.¶ Ms. Cadena from the Texas Alliance said she hasn't given up hope that the House could ease some of the border provisions - particularly if groups pressure representatives at the local level.¶ "I think that people have pretty much given up that what we got in the Senate is the best we're going to get, from now on it's only going to get worse. There might be some truth to that, but those of us who are in the field out in Texas or other parts of the country, it's too soon to make that determination," she said. ¶ "At the end of the day, all politics is local. We're trying to influence some of these members who may be in swing districts or may be in significant Latino population."
|
Dinan 7/8/13 (Stephen The Washington Times “All eyes on border as House bill takes shape; Immigrant groups hold out for hope” July 8, 2013 SECTION: A, PAGE ONE; Pg. 1, l/n)
|
House Republicans will meet to plan their immigration strategy, which seems designed to push the issue to the right the Senate bill already faces a backlash on the left, advocacy groups say the added border security is testing the limits of enforceme Most immigrant rights groups remain on board. They say they are wary of the direction of the debate but that the additional border security provision hasn't spoiled the entire bill. Nevertheless, we did ultimately decide, reluctantly, to support the bill moving forward because the bill retains its core commitment to providing a fair if difficult path to citizenship. That vote signaled that the core of the deal - to offer quick legal status and work permits to illegal immigrants but to withhold full citizenship rights until the border is considered secure - is holdi , action has shifted to the House, where Republicans hold a majority Several key differences have emerged - and none more critical than the approaches to a pathway to citizenship Senate Republicans agreed that a pathway is needed but fought over what conditions to attach to it.¶ That view is not universal among House Republicans, many of whom say that granting illegal immigrants citizenship is an amnesty for breaking the law.¶ House Speaker John A. Boehner has signaled that whatever the House does, it will go beyond the border buildup in the Senate legislation With House Republicans under pressure to strengthen the bill, many immigrant rights groups say the Senate bill is their high-water mark and they now will be playing chiefly defense. a bipartisan group of seven House lawmakers negotiating a deal may even be looking at a shorter path to citizenship than the one in the Senate agreement .¶ Rep. Michael T. McCaul, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committe said that the House also wants to avoid another part of the health care debate, when the House took up and passed the Senate's bill in its entirety, unchanged something that makes sense."¶ Mr. McCaul said his own border security bill could be on the House floor later this month or in September
|
Path to citizenship portion of bill key to determining potential passage; border security is issue for the left; must compromise to get passed
| 6,374 | 142 | 2,116 | 1,071 | 23 | 354 | 0.021475 | 0.330532 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,253 |
One House GOP leadership aide said Obama would be unwise “if he comes in here and poisons the well by trying to break as many Republicans as he can. By nature of how politics works, you’re going to see a lot less cooperation going forward.”¶ Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), a top Boehner lieutenant, hinted at that sentiment among House Republicans last week when he told reporters Obama had “an unbelievable opportunity to be a transformational president” by bringing the parties together for a debt deal. “Or he can dissolve into zero-sum game politics, where he wins and . . . other people lose.”
|
Wallsten 12/8 (Peter Wallsten and Zachary A. Goldfarb, 12/8/2012, “Obama’s second-term agenda will be shadowed by budget woes,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-second-term-agenda-will-be-shadowed-by-budget-woes/2012/12/08/ea97e956-4091-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html)
|
One House GOP leadership aide said Obama would be unwise “if he comes in here and poisons the well by trying to break as many Republicans as he can. By nature of how politics works, you’re going to see a lot less cooperation going forward.” Roskam top Boehner lieutenant told reporters Obama had “an unbelievable opportunity to be a transformational president” by bringing the parties together “Or he can dissolve into zero-sum game politics, where he wins and . . . other people lose.”
|
Internal link – The plan poisons the well of cooperation --- prevents passage of future initiatives
| 597 | 99 | 488 | 103 | 16 | 84 | 0.15534 | 0.815534 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,254 |
President Barack Obama expressed confidence on Wednesday that he would sign comprehensive immigration reform into law by the end of this year.¶ In an interview with Univision's Maria Elena Salinas, Obama explained that significant details of a bill still must be worked out by lawmakers, including the structure of a pathway to citizenship for many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants. But Obama said that the progress made by a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Senate has given him hope that a deal can get done.¶ See Also: Transcript: President Obama's Interview¶ When asked by Salinas if we will have immigration reform by the end of the year, Obama said, "I believe so."¶ "You can tell our audience, 'Sí, se puede?'" Salinas asked.¶ "Sí, se puede," Obama responded.¶ Later in the interview, Obama said that he hopes a bill could be passed as early as this summer.¶ But cognizant of deep divisions a topic like immigration has sewn in the past, Obama said that's contingent on bipartisan negotiations continuing to proceed well.¶ "The only way this is going to get done is if the Republicans continue to work with Democrats in Congress, in both chambers, to get a bill to my desk," he said. "And I'm going to keep on pushing as hard as I can. I believe that the mood is right."¶ Maria Elena Salinas talks to President Obama after his Las Vegas announcement on immigration reform.¶ Univision¶ Maria Elena Salinas talks to President Obama... View Full Size¶ Although the president threatened to introduce his own bill if negotiations in Congress stall during his speech in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Tuesday, he said he is content to let lawmakers hash out the details among themselves for the time being.¶ "If they are on a path as they have already said, where they want to get a bill done by March, then I think that's a reasonable timeline and I think we can get that done. I'm not going to lay down a particular date because I want to give them a little room to debate," he said. "If it slips a week, that's one thing. If it starts slipping three months, that's a problem."¶ The president's principles and the Senate's principles on immigration broadly align with one another, but there are still thorny issues that could spark a division between Obama and Republicans, such as the pathway to citizenship.¶ The Senate's path to citizenship would allow many undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status immediately upon passage of the law. But their ability to then seek legal permanent residency would be contingent upon the U.S.-Mexico border being deemed secure. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" on immigration, has been particularly vocal in stating that border security is a precondition for gaining legal permanent residence, and then citizenship.
|
Fabian, 1/30 (Jordan, 1/30/2013, “Obama Confident Immigration Reform Passes This Year,” http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/president-obama-confident-immigration-reform-passes-year/story?id=18358660))
|
Obama expressed confidence he would sign comprehensive immigration reform into law by the end of this year Obama explained that significant details of a bill still must be worked out by lawmakers, including the structure of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. But Obama said that the progress made by a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Senate has given him hope that a deal can get done. cognizant of deep divisions a topic like immigration has sewn in the past, Obama said that's contingent on bipartisan negotiations continuing to proceed well Although the president threatened to introduce his own bill if negotiations in Congress stall he said he is content to let lawmakers hash out the details among themselves for the time being there are still thorny issues that could spark a division between Obama and Republicans, such as the pathway to citizenship
|
Immigration passage is contingent on continued bipartisan cooperation
| 2,803 | 69 | 883 | 474 | 8 | 145 | 0.016878 | 0.305907 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,255 |
For example, in situations in which the Executive would prefer to admit immigrants with lawful status, it is largely powerless to do so. Their lawful admission would be inconsistent with the admissions criteria established by Congress. One instance in which the Executive might prefer access to the lawful path is when potential immigrants are unable or unwilling to bear the risks associated with unlawful entry. Whereas many low-skilled migrants with few other options bear these risks, high-skilled immigrants often will not. Migration to the United States may be less valuable to the latter, because they have more migration options, or because they have economic prospects at home sufficient to support a family and live a good life. What is more, employers of high-skilled immigrants may be much less likely to take the risk of flouting the immigration laws than employers of lower skilled labor. For high-skilled migrants, then, the delegation of ex post screening authority substitutes poorly for ex ante authority.
|
Cox and Rodriguez ‘9 Adam & cristina Adam B. Cox is a Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. Cristina M. Rodríguez is a Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. “The President and Immigration Law” The Yale Law Journal 119:458 2009
|
in situations in which the Executive would prefer to admit immigrants with lawful status, it is largely powerless to do so. lawful admission would be inconsistent with the admissions criteria established by Congress. immigrants are unable or unwilling to bear the risks associated with unlawful entry skilled immigrants Migration to the U S may be less valuable because they have more migration options employers of high-skilled immigrants may be much less likely to take the risk of flouting the immigration laws For high-skilled migrants the delegation of ex post screening authority substitutes poorly for ex ante authority.
|
Executive action fails – deters employers and immigrants
| 1,023 | 57 | 627 | 161 | 8 | 97 | 0.049689 | 0.602484 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,256 |
With immigration-reform legislation inching toward the president's desk, it's unlikely he'll waste political capital by halting deportations or even reducing the immigrant detainee population, despite the budgetary considerations. The prospect of doing anything that might alienate Republicans, especially with a compromise so close, alarms activists like Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, an advocacy group comprised largely of small-business owners.¶ "We have a Congress for a reason," Jacoby says. "To fix anything permanently you need to have legislation, and in order for that to happen it has to be bipartisan. My worst nightmare is the president thinking, 'I don't need bipartisan legislation. Why share credit with Republicans? I can just go on and do this myself.' I think that's a disastrous political strategy."¶ If the current congressional push for immigration reform were to fail, however, a presidential pardon for undocumented immigrants with no criminal history might be Obama's last ditch alternative to prosecutorial discretion. Rather than scaling back on detentions, Obama could instantly--and permanently-- legalize millions of illegal immigrants. Beck, the Georgia law scholar, notes that the Constitution empowers the president to "grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."¶ The question, he says, is "whether coming into the country in violation of the immigration laws or overstaying a visa could be deemed an 'offense against the United States.'" But the president has broad powers of pardon, and it seems that Obama could exercise those powers here. Beck cites United States v. Klein, an 1871 Supreme Court case that involved a presidential pardon issued during the Civil War to confederates who rejoined the union and took an oath of loyalty.¶ But even if executive-branch lawyers could put forth a legal rationale for the move, there are political reasons why Obama would likely be reluctant to make it. Although potentially cementing loyalty from a generation of Latinos, a mass pardon would likely be deeply unpopular with moderates and liberals who put faith in the legislative process, and would be considered downright treasonous by many Republicans. Obama could face Congressional censure or perhaps even impeachment if he had any time remaining in office, and the backlash against Democrats could make the Tea Party-fueled, Obamacare-inspired shellacking of 2010 look mild.¶ "If in December 2016 Obama says, 'Unconditional pardon to everybody in the country illegally,' that would totally dismantle Democratic Party governance for a generation," Mayer says. "I don't think he wants that to be his legacy."
|
Hamilton 3/26 (Keegan, “How Obama Could (but Probably Won't) Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants Today”, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/277799-dont-wait-for-president-obama-to-act-on-immigration-reform#ixzz2OrYPaWXd , CMR)
|
With immigration-reform legislation inching toward the president's desk it's unlikely he'll waste political capital by halting deportations or reducing the immigrant detainee population We have a Congress for a reason To fix anything permanently you need to have legislation, and in order for that to happen it has to be bipartisan My worst nightmare is the president thinking, 'I don't need bipartisan legislation. that's a disastrous political strategy." even if executive-branch lawyers could put forth a rationale for the move, there are political reasons why Obama would be reluctant Obama could face Congressional censure or even impeachment if he had any time remaining in office If in December 2016 Obama says, 'Unconditional pardon to everybody in the country illegally,' that would totally dismantle Democratic Party governance for a generation I don't think he wants that to be his legacy
|
No executive action – Obama knows the risks
| 2,716 | 44 | 899 | 410 | 8 | 139 | 0.019512 | 0.339024 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,257 |
Two years into Obama’s first term, researchers at the Brookings Institution revisited some ¶ of these ideas in light of the developments that ¶ had taken place so far (Lowenthal, Piccone, and ¶ Whitehead 2010). While the emphasis and interpretations of the various contributors differed, ¶ there was a general recognition that most of these ¶ initial hopes had been set too high. Symptomatic of this was the fact that the promise to close ¶ Guantanamo prison had not been honored, and ¶ that, after no more than the briefest of pauses, the ¶ “ALBA” group, led by President Chávez, had resumed its negative discourse. Obviously, the ¶ gravity of the economic crisis facing the incoming ¶ president had absorbed most of his energies, and ¶ in the foreign policy domain continuing and severe security challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan and ¶ elsewhere in the Muslim world had necessarily taken priority over less urgent Western Hemisphere concerns. On the domestic political front ¶ the new president had run into ferocious opposition to his healthcare reforms, and a deeply polarized internal climate had drastically reduced his ¶ room for maneuver on peripheral issues.
|
Whitehead & Nolte 12 (Laurence Whitehead, senior research fellow in politics at Nuffield College, Oxford, and Detlef Nolte, acting president of the GIGA, director of the GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, professor of political science at the University of Hamburg, Number 6, 2012, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf, CMR)
|
there was recognition initial hopes had been set too high the economic crisis facing the president absorbed most of his energies in the foreign policy domain continuing and severe security challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere had taken priority over less urgent Western Hemisphere concerns On the domestic political front the president had run into ferocious opposition to his reforms, and a polarized climate had drastically reduced his room for maneuver on peripheral issues
|
Yes spillover – fights over Latin America force zero-sum tradeoffs
| 1,168 | 67 | 488 | 191 | 10 | 74 | 0.052356 | 0.387435 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,258 |
President Obama’s National Security Strategy released on Thursday has launched the opening salvo in a battle to recast what immigration means to the United States. The new strategy observes that American prosperity and leadership depends on “attracting the premier human capital for our workforce.” That is, immigration equals national power. This recasting comes at a critical moment. The United States can no longer take for granted its capacity to attract and retain foreign talent. Successfully competing for the world’s best and brightest requires urgent immigration reform. American power and immigration are closely interlinked. The most dynamic sectors of the U.S. economy are heavily dependent on foreign talent. Immigrants have founded 25percent of public, venture-backed U.S. companies, including eBay, Yahoo, and Google. Between 1995 and 2005, foreigners from just two countries - China and India - accounted for almost 30 percent of all Silicon Valley startups. American leadership in science and technology also rests on the inflow of talent from abroad. As fewer and fewer U.S. citizens have chosen careers in science, foreigners have stepped in to fill the gap. One-fourth of America’s science and engineering workforce is foreign-born. In 2007, foreigners accounted for almost 50 percent of all science and engineering doctorates awarded in the United States. Immigration is not inevitably destined to remain a wellspring of American power. Historically, greater economic opportunity, superior universities, a relatively open immigration system, and a tolerant society rendered the United States an irresistible magnet for immigrants. But the world is rapidly changing, and the most talented immigrants may no longer stay. Home to the fastest growing major economies, Asia has become a region of opportunity for returnees who are highly educated or have overseas work experience. Asian governments have begun to actively court their expatriates. China, for example, uses world-class facilities, plentiful grant money, and prestigious titles to woo researchers living abroad. Whether America’s ability to cream off the best and brightest has already declined remains uncertain. Prior to the financial crisis, the “stay rates” for foreigners receiving PhDs in science and engineering increased slightly. But a 2008 survey of foreign students enrolled in U.S. higher education found that 55 percent of Indian respondents and 40 percent of Chinese respondents wanted to return home within five years. If this snapshot is predictive, then “stay rates” for these groups are set to substantially decline. The United States cannot rest on its laurels. Sustaining American power will require stepping up efforts to attract and retain foreign talent. A number of worthy proposals already exist. One would be to increase the number of H-1B visas for foreigners with critical skills. Another would be the creation of a new visa for immigrant entrepreneurs, as outlined in a Senate bill recently introduced by John Kerry and Richard Lugar. The bill would establish a visa for immigrants who raise startup funds from U.S. investors and grant them legal residence if the venture generates at least five jobs. A third would focus on foreigners in science and engineering graduate programs. Any number of measures could make the United States a more attractive long-term home for them. Hand out Green Cards with their diplomas. Automatically grant them work visas upon graduation. Or introduce a flexible visa allowing them to move between the United States and their home country for a ten-year period with an ultimate option of settling in the United States and expedited citizenship. A fourth would recognize that immigrants often return home to be closer to family. The United States could facilitate visas for family members of foreigners who work in science and technology-related industries. The overarching objective of President Obama’s National Security Strategy is to renew American power. Promoting immigration is the most immediate way to do so. Other wellsprings of American power, such as infrastructure and education, can only be moved in a positive direction over the long term. Major projects to upgrade America’s infrastructure will take years, while the returns from improving education will require a generation to realize. Although these goals should be pursued as well, renewing American power starts with welcoming foreign talent to America’s shore.
|
Kliman ’10 – visiting fellow at the Center for a New American Security [Daniel, “Immigration and American Power”, May 28, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/28/opinion/main6525992.shtml] CR
|
American leadership depends on human capital immigration equals national power Successfully competing requires immigration reform The most dynamic sectors of the U.S. economy are heavily dependent on foreign talent leadership in s and t rests on talent Sustaining American power will require stepping up efforts to attract and retain foreign talent. The overarching objective is to renew American power Promoting immigration is the most immediate way to do so Other wellsprings of American power, such as infrastructure can only be moved in a positive direction over the long term Major projects to upgrade America’s infrastructure will take years renewing American power starts with foreign talent
|
Reform key to hegemony – biggest, quickest internal link
| 4,473 | 57 | 698 | 682 | 9 | 105 | 0.013196 | 0.153959 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,259 |
MR. DANIEL GRISWOLD: Thank you, Chairman Chambliss, and members of the subcommittee for allowing the Cato Institute to testify on the pressing issue of border security and immigration reform. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, Congress and the administration and this subcommittee have labored to balance the need to secure our borders with our need to remain a free society, open to the world. Long time opponents of immigration seized on the attacks to argue against legalization of Mexican migration and in favor of drastic cuts in existing levels of legal immigration. But any connection between terrorism and illegal immigration from Mexico is tenuous. None of the 19 hijackers entered the country illegally or as immigrants. They all arrived in the United States with valid temporary non-immigrant visas. None of them arrived via Mexico. None of them were Mexican. Sealing our Southwestern border with a three- tiered, 2,000 mile wall patrolled by a division of U.S. troops would not have kept a single one of those terrorists out of the United States. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is not too many immigrants but insufficient control over who enters the country. Immigrants who come to the United States to work and settle are but a small subset of the tens of millions of foreign born people who enter the United States every year. In fact, on a typical day, as you know, more than one million people enter the United States legally by air, land and sea, through more than 300 ports of entry. In a typical year more than 30 million individual foreign nationals enter the United States as tourists, business travelers, students, diplomats and temporary workers. Now, of those, about 1.3 million will eventually settle here as permanent immigrant residents, some of them illegally. In other words, less than 5 percent of the foreigners who enter the United States each year intend to immigrate in any sense of the word. We could reduce immigration to zero and still not be safe from terrorists who might enter on temporary non-immigrant visas. Our focus, one might say our obsession in recent years with stifling the migration of Mexicans across our Southwest border has not served our national security interest. It has diverted resources and attention away from efforts to identify and keep out people who truly mean to do us harm. While we were guarding the back door in 2001 to make sure no Mexican immigrants entered our country illegally to work, we were neglecting the far larger barn door of temporary non-immigrant visas through which all the September 11th hijackers entered. Most members of Congress understand that willing workers from Mexico are not a threat to America's national security. In May 2002 Congress overwhelmingly approved and the president signed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. We don't get to say this very much at Cato, but that was a good piece of legislation. The law was aimed at the right target: keeping terrorists out of the United States. It mandates a timely sharing of intelligence with the State Department and Border Control agencies and use of machine readable and tamper resistant entry documents among other commonsense reform. Notably absent from the bill were any provisions rolling back levels of legal immigration or bolstering efforts to curb illegal migration from Mexico. Indeed, legalization and regularization -- legalizing and regularizing the movement of workers across the U.S.-Mexican border would enhance our national security by bringing much of the underground labor market into the open, encouraging newly documented workers to fully cooperate with law enforcement officials, and freeing resources for border security and the war on terrorism. Real immigration reform would drain a large part of the underground swamp of smuggling and document fraud that facilitates illegal immigration. It would reduce the demand for fraudulent documents which in turn would reduce the supply available for terrorists trying to operate surreptitiously inside the United States. It would eliminate most of the human smuggling operations I believe overnight. The vast majority of Mexican workers who enter the United States have no criminal records or intentions, they would obviously prefer to enter the country in a safe, orderly, legal way through the standard ports of entry rather than putting their lives in the hands of unscrupulous smugglers. Just as importantly, legalization would encourage millions of currently undocumented workers to make themselves known to authorities by registering with the government, reducing cover for terrorists who manage to enter the country and overstay their visas. Workers with legal documents would be more inclined to cooperate with law enforcement because they wouldn't fear deportation. Immigration reform would free up enforcement and border control resources to focus on protecting the American homeland from terrorist attack. Our Department of Homeland Security, which I believe has a hiring freeze on right now, should concentrate its limited resources and personnel on tracking and hunting down terrorists instead of raiding chicken processing plants and busting janitors at discount stores. Congress should respond to the leadership shown by President Bush and reform our dysfunctional immigration system. Immigration reform would help our economy grow, it would enhance -- and it would reduce illegal immigration and it would enhance the federal government's ability to wage war on terrorism.
|
Griswold 04 (Daniel, Senior Fellow @ CATO, Federal News Service, 4/1, lexis)
|
any connection between terrorism and illegal immigration from Mexico is . None of the 19 hijackers entered the country illegally or as immigrants our obsession in recent years with stifling the migration of Mexicans has diverted resources and attention away from efforts to identify and keep out people who truly mean to do us harm. Real immigration reform would reduce the demand for fraudulent documents which in turn would reduce the supply available for terrorists trying to operate surreptitiously inside the nited tates. It would eliminate most of the human smuggling operations I believe overnight legalization would encourage millions of currently undocumented workers to make themselves known to authorities by registering with the government, reducing cover for terrorists Workers with legal documents would be more inclined to cooperate with law enforcement because they wouldn't fear deportation. Immigration reform would free up enforcement and border control resources to focus on protecting the American homeland from terrorist attack Immigration reform would enhance the federal government's ability to wage war on terrorism.
|
Immigration reform decreases terror risk—multiple mechanisms
| 5,536 | 60 | 1,142 | 875 | 6 | 169 | 0.006857 | 0.193143 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,260 |
As President Barack Obama begins his second term, small companies and the technology community are hoping for immigration reform to help them secure highly skilled foreign workers.¶ Overhauling U.S. immigration law has been long-awaited for years. But without political consensus on the issue, technology startups in particular have felt the pains of limited works visas. They've also absorbed the high legal fees associated with the visa process — costs that few cash-strapped upstarts can afford.¶ "I've been blown away by how much the immigration policy has been kicking us in the teeth," said Alex Salazar, chief executive and co-founder of Stormpath, a Silicon Valley startup that's been struggling to find candidates in engineering, computer science and software development. Most of his candidates are from outside the U.S., and half the recruitment conversations are about visas.¶ "In Silicon Valley it's a war for talent — an all out knuckle-drag war," Salazar said. And America's current immigration policy only slows Salazar's ability to hire specialized talent in a tech sector that's hot, competitive and only growing.¶ Frustrated by how the drawn-out visa process is hampering his 11-employee business and its grow path, Salazar posted the following note on his Facebook page: "If you want to be a great startup CEO, become an expert in U.S. immigration policy."¶ Hopes for Immigration Reform¶ Stormpath and other startups say they can't efficiently hire qualified foreign candidates because of a shortage of temporary work visas and green cards. They've been pushing for legislation that would allow more immigrants with high-tech skills to remain in the country.¶ "The demand for software developer talent is growing so much faster than our own American candidate pool is growing — regardless of why," Salazar said. "The demand is insatiable. I can't just grab someone from a regular school and give them two months of training and throw them on our projects. You have to have six to seven years of experience, computer science degrees from the top schools."¶ Immigration reform wasn't a priority during Obama's first term. But during his second inaugural address, Obama hinted at change.¶ "Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity," the president said, "until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce, rather than expelled from our country."¶ Gary Shapiro, president and chief executive of the Consumer Electronics Association, has been a vocal advocate of immigration reform. The message from the White House seems to be that Obama won't agree to raising visa caps for highly skilled immigrants unless it is part of a broader reform plan, he said.¶ "When I talk to our industry members, they all say it [the lack of immigration reform] is a problem for their companies," Shapiro said. "And it's not just our industry." Biotechnology and medical fields are experiencing similar struggles to fill specialized slots, he said.¶ Shapiro argues the current immigration landscape combined with our corporate tax policy dampens American entrepreneurship. "Between immigration and the tax system, it's a very harmful strategy to economic growth and job creation in the United States," Shapiro said.¶ Shapiro and other tech leaders were disappointed when the White House and Congress failed to pass a bill late last year that would have removed random lottery slots for hard science PhDs. The bill, known as the STEM Jobs Act, would have helped keep foreign-born graduates in America. The STEM fields are science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
|
Wee ‘13 (Heesun, “How Lack of Immigration Reform Harms Startups, US Economy”, 1/24, 2013, http://www.cnbc.com/id/100401598, CMR)
|
small companies and the tech community are hoping for immigration reform to help them secure highly skilled foreign workers tech startups have felt the pains of limited works visas immigration policy has been kicking us in the teeth it's a war for talent The demand is insatiable Obama won't agree to raising visa caps for highly skilled immigrants unless it is part of a broader reform plan Biotech and medical fields are experiencing similar struggles to fill specialized slots the current immigration landscape dampens entrepreneurship it's a very harmful strategy STEM would keep foreign-born graduates in America
|
Yes shortages – New immigrants key to start-ups and entrepreneurship
| 3,692 | 69 | 617 | 583 | 10 | 97 | 0.017153 | 0.166381 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,261 |
Let's hope Congress does not flinch as it begins the debate about immigration reform because the future is passing through security – in the wrong direction. It leaves the United States on every departing airplane carrying a foreign born student who has graduated from an American university with an advanced degree in the sciences, technology, engineering and math. The majority of these people want to stay in the United States but because of existing immigration laws, they have no choice but to leave.¶ In Silicon Valley, which has always been blind to any attribute other than ability, everyone knows that the remarkable achievements of the foreign born have led to the formation of companies such as Google, Intel, Sun Microsystems, nVidia, Yahoo! PayPal and scores of others that are less well known. Of the last eleven early stage companies that have allied themselves with Sequoia Capital, seven have had immigrants among their founding lineup. This is not a sudden or recent phenomenon; it has been the leitmotif of our business since the 1970s. However, the number of startups would be even higher if we weren’t ejecting foreign-born students and if we welcomed their contemporaries who have been educated overseas. Today, it is impossible to satisfy Silicon Valley's appetite for engineers and scientists with people born in America.¶ The xenophobia underlying current immigration policy has three consequences for the U.S. technology industry. First, the know-how for all sorts of new companies is being expelled from America. Second, it makes it even harder to fill the job vacancies at existing U.S. based semiconductor, biotech, networking and software companies. Third, it means that University labs, which have sown the seeds for so many commercial breakthroughs of the past seventy-five years, are deprived of the young faculty members who can be counted on for bursts of inspiration and originality. In the massive global IQ competition, the United States is shooting itself in the foot.¶ Today – while the Internet has made it simple for companies to identify the most capable prospects anywhere in the world – it is harder than ever to obtain the necessary paperwork. At Stripe, a young payments company in San Francisco (where I am a Board Member), the founders are a pair of Irish brothers, the senior business executive was born in Honduras and 14 of its 23 engineers were born outside the United States. Stripe’s engineering department would be at least twice as large if we could get working papers for the programmers we are eager to hire. Unless we do something quickly, our nation’s hiring problem will get more acute as U.S. educational standards continue to decline while they improve elsewhere.
|
Moritz ’13 (Michael, Chairman at Sequoia Capital, “Immigration Reform: Stop Ejecting the Brightest Minds From America”, http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130128153456-25760-immigration-reform-stop-ejecting-the-brightest-minds-from-america, CMR)
|
the future is passing through security – in the wrong direction In Silicon Valley everyone knows that the remarkable achievements of the foreign born the number of startups would be even higher if we weren’t ejecting foreign-born students and if we welcomed their contemporaries who have been educated overseas. it is impossible to satisfy Silicon Valley's appetite for engineers and scientists with people born in America the know-how for all sorts of new companies is being expelled from America it makes it even harder to fill the job vacancies at existing U.S. based semiconductor biotech networking and software companies it means that University labs, which have sown the seeds for so many commercial breakthroughs are deprived of the young faculty members who can be counted on for bursts of inspiration and originality the U S is shooting itself in the foot Unless we do something quickly, our nation’s hiring problem will get more acute as U.S. educational standards continue to decline while they improve elsewhere.
|
Immigration reform key to start-ups and commercialization – otherwise collapse of industries is inevitable
| 2,727 | 107 | 1,025 | 443 | 14 | 165 | 0.031603 | 0.37246 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,262 |
When it comes to restoring strong, long-term growth in our nation's economy, there are few solutions more practical, bi-partisan, and urgent than immigration reform.¶ Our current immigration system is rigid, outdated, and simply unable to keep up with demands of the new global marketplace. For our nation to thrive and transcend international competition in the 21st century economy, it is incumbent for us to build an immigration system that welcomes people who share our values, as well as the entrepreneurial spirit that has made our country great.¶ No one can doubt that we are a nation whose foundation was built by immigrants. But did you know that more than 40 percent of today's Fortune 500 companies were founded by an immigrant, or a child of an immigrant? Or that more than 75 percent of all the patents received by the top ten U.S. universities in 2011 had an immigrant inventor? While we celebrate our nation's first immigrants every Thanksgiving -- and while many of us cherish the stories shared by our own family members who made the pilgrimage to our shores -- we too often forget that today, and every day, recent immigrants continue to play a vital role in the American economy.¶ Unfortunately, far too often, our immigration policies drive too many foreign-born entrepreneurs and job creators away, even after we have trained them and given them degrees from American universities.¶ This is not simply a matter of compassion or human interest. This is about the very survival of our economy, way of life, and continued global leadership. We must make it easier for foreign-born, U.S.-educated students to get visas. We must create a startup visa program for entrepreneurs and innovators who want to come to our country to start businesses and hire American workers, especially when they already have U.S. investors to back their ideas. We must be doing everything we can to keep that capital in the U.S., rather than handing the next great idea over to our competitors.¶ Furthermore, with the enormous baby boomer generation set to retire, our current aging workforce simply cannot keep up with the demands. We need many more young workers, both in the high- and low-skilled areas of our economy. The U.S. government estimates that there are more than 3.5 million unfilled jobs in this country, even with high unemployment. Shortages are particularly high in industries with seasonal demands, like agriculture, landscaping, and hospitality. Many hotels and resorts across the country remain at half capacity, even during the busiest tourist seasons, simply because they cannot find enough workers to meet demands. We leave hundreds of millions of dollars in crops out in the fields because we can't hire enough workers to harvest them in time.¶ Unfortunately, our system is not structured in a way that accounts for the ebb and flow of our labor needs. We need a more flexible visa allotment system, and we need to expand the number of employment-based visas that are issued each year. Right now, only 7 percent of all green cards are distributed for employment based reasons, which is clearly far too low.¶ It is refreshing to see Congress take the initial steps to reform, and I applaud the bi-partisan Gang of Eight for taking a leadership role in these efforts and laying out sensible solutions. They have opened the door for a healthy debate. Now we need to make sure that Congress takes action and creates a more modern and reasonable immigration system for our country.¶ I will never forget the pride I felt when my wife -- the mother of our two incredible daughters -- was naturalized as a U.S. citizen. We must reform our system so that many more families can experience the joy she felt in becoming an American. And we must reform our system because their pride and joy results in a better economic climate and more job opportunity for all of our country.
|
Milller 2/7 – former two-term elected Kentucky State Treasurer, Miller held several other senior positions in state and federal government, including serving in Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear’s Cabinet as Secretary of Finance and Administration, as Deputy Chief of Staff of the U.S. Department of Energy, and as Legislative Director for Congressman Jim Cooper (Jonathon, “Why Our Economy Demands Immigration Reform”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathanmiller/immigration-reform-economy_b_2639092.html, CMR)
|
When it comes to restoring strong, long-term growth in our nation's economy there are few solutions more practical, bi-partisan, and urgent than immigration reform. Our current immigration system is simply unable to keep up with demands of the new global marketplace For our nation to thrive and transcend international competition in the 21st century economy, it is incumbent for us to build an immigration system that welcomes the entrepreneurial spirit more than 40 percent of today's Fortune 500 companies were founded by an immigrant, or a child of an immigrant more than 75 percent of all the patents received by the top ten U.S. universities in 2011 had an immigrant inventor recent immigrants continue to play a vital role in the American economy our immigration policies drive too many foreign-born entrepreneurs and job creators away This is about the very survival of our economy and continued global leadership. with the enormous baby boomer generation set to retire, our current aging workforce simply cannot keep up with the demands. We need many more young workers Shortages are high in industries with seasonal demands we need to make sure that Congress takes action and creates a more modern and reasonable immigration system for our country. we must reform our system because their pride and joy results in a better economic climate and more job opportunity for all of our country
|
Immigration reform key to prevent economic collapse
| 3,886 | 52 | 1,398 | 654 | 7 | 228 | 0.010703 | 0.348624 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,263 |
Immigrants have been a critical part of the American economy since the founding of our nation, but they are even more important today as we look to the future of our economic recovery and our economy. While Congress debates the economic strategy to restore our nation’s fiscal health, an opportunity is on the horizon that would maximize the human capital and talent of the nearly 40 million immigrants who call America home.¶ In order to reap the rewards of this talented and diverse labor pool, we must develop a legislative solution to fix our nation’s broken immigration system. Immigration reform that creates a pathway to earned legal status—and eventually to citizenship—for the undocumented immigrants living in our country while at the same time updating our legal immigration system will unleash the potential of immigrant workers and students to work, innovate, and add hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy.¶ Let’s review how progressive immigration policies can help make this happen.¶ Legalizing our nation’s undocumented immigrants¶ Legalizing the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product—the largest measure of economic growth—over 10 years. That’s because immigration reform that puts all workers on a level playing field would create a virtuous cycle in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on the wages of both American and immigrant workers. Higher wages and even better jobs would translate into increased consumer purchasing power, which would benefit the U.S. economy as a whole.¶ The federal government would accrue $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue over just three years if the 11 million undocumented immigrants were legalized.¶ The national advantage of legalizing the undocumented immigrants is obvious in the previous figures, but gains are also evident at the state level. The state of Texas, for example, would see a $4.1 billion gain in tax revenue and the creation of 193,000 new jobs if its approximately 1.6 million undocumented immigrants were legalized.¶ States that have passed stringent immigration measures in an effort to curb the number of undocumented immigrants living in the state have hurt some of their key industries, which are held back due to inadequate access to qualified workers. A farmer in Alabama, where the state legislature passed the anti-immigration law H.B. 56 in 2011, for example, estimated that he lost up to $300,000 in produce in 2011 because the undocumented farmworkers who had skillfully picked tomatoes from his vines in years prior had been forced to flee the state.¶ With nearly half of agricultural workers, 17 percent of construction workers, and 12 percent of food preparation workers nationwide lacking legal immigration status, it isn’t hard to see why a legalization program would benefit a wide range of industries. Business owners—from farmers to hotel chain owners—benefit from reliable and skilled laborers. A legalization program would ensure that they have them.¶ Passing the DREAM Act¶ Passing the DREAM Act—legislation that proposes to create a roadmap to citizenship for immigrants who came to the United States as children—would put 2.1 million young people on a pathway to legal status, adding $329 billion to the American economy over the next two decades.¶ Legal status and the pursuit of higher education would create an aggregate 19 percent increase in earnings for DREAMers—young people who would benefit from passage of the DREAM Act—by 2030. The ripple effects of these increased wages would create $181 billion in induced economic impact, 1.4 million new jobs, and $10 billion in increased federal revenue.¶ Reforming the high-skilled immigration system¶ Creating a 21st century high-skilled immigration system—a system that accepts highly qualified immigrant workers when there is a demand that cannot be filled by American workers—would stimulate innovation, enhance competitiveness, and help cultivate a flexible, highly skilled U.S. workforce, while protecting American workers from globalization’s destabilizing effects.¶ The United States has always been and continues to be the nation where creative and talented individuals from around the world can come to realize their dreams, and our economy has significantly benefited from their innovation. In 2011 immigrant entrepreneurs were responsible for more than one in four new U.S. businesses, and immigrant businesses employ 1 in every 10 people working for private companies. Immigrants and their children founded forty percent of Fortune 500 companies. These Fortune 500 companies collectively generated $4.2 trillion in revenue in 2010—more than the GDP of every country in the world except the United States, China, and Japan. Reforms that enhance legal immigration channels for high-skilled immigrants and entrepreneurs while protecting American workers and placing all high-skilled workers on a level playing field will promote economic growth, innovation, and workforce stability in the United States.¶ Our economy has benefited enormously from the talented immigrants who come here to study. Upon graduation, however, immigrant students face the tough choice between returning home and finding an employer to sponsor their entry into a visa lottery that may allow them to stay and work. Reforming the high-skilled immigration system would allow us to reap the benefits of having subsidized the education and training of these future job creators as immigrant students graduate and go on to work at our nation’s companies, contributing directly and immediately to our nation’s competitiveness in the global market.¶ Significant reform of the high-skilled immigration system would benefit certain industries that require high-skilled workers, such as the high-tech manufacturing and information technology industries. Immigrants make up 23 percent of the labor force in both of these industries and are more highly educated, on average, than the native-born Americans working in these industries. Still, immigrants working in science, technology, engineering, and math fields in the United States complement, rather than compete with, American workers. For every immigrant who earns an advanced degree in one of these fields at a U.S. university, 2.62 American jobs are created. By focusing on drawing human capital to our country and retaining it, Congress can help ensure that key sectors of our economy have an adequate labor pool to draw from and can boost our collective economic potential.¶ Our economy has much to gain from reforming our broken immigration system. But the biggest rewards will only be realized if Congress approaches immigration reform as an economic opportunity to be seized rather than an enforcement problem to be solved. Legislation that deals comprehensively with the issue by putting the nation’s undocumented immigrants, including DREAMers, on a path to citizenship while also reforming the high-skilled immigration system will strengthen the nation’s economy while increasing prosperity for all Americans.
|
Garcia and Fitz 12/10 (Ann Garcia is a Research and Policy Associate for the Center for American Progress. Marshall Fitz is the Director of Immigration Policy at the Center, “Progressive Immigration Policies Will Strengthen the American Economy”, 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/12/10/47406/progressive-immigration-policies-will-strengthen-the-american-economy/, CR)
|
Immigrants have been a critical part of the American economy since the founding of our nation, but they are even more important today as we look to the future of our economic recovery and our economy. we must develop a legislative solution to fix our nation’s broken immigration system. Immigration reform will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy the biggest rewards will only be realized if Congress approaches immigration reform as an economic opportunity Legislation that deals comprehensively with the issue will strengthen the nation’s economy
|
Comprehensive reform key to US economic recovery
| 7,145 | 49 | 568 | 1,089 | 7 | 90 | 0.006428 | 0.082645 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,264 |
Immigration reform is not a “liberal” cause; it is a common-sense cause that appeals to people from a variety of political persuasions. More than a few conservative intellectuals, commentators, politicians, religious leaders, and law-enforcement officials favor revamping the U.S. immigration system to make it more responsive to the economic demands, social realities, and security concerns of the 21st century. This stance represents not only compassion, but enlightened self-interest. A growing body of evidence has quantified the enormous contributions that immigrants make to the U.S. economy through their labor, entrepreneurship, buying power, and innovation. Moreover, demographic trends point clearly to the growing electoral power of naturalized immigrants and to the native-born children of immigrants. In other words, being anti-immigrant in this day and age is self-destructive from both an economic and a political standpoint.¶ A growing body of evidence has quantified the enormous contributions that immigrants make to the U.S. economy through their labor, entrepreneurship, buying power, and innovation.¶ The common cause that conservatives and progressives can make when it comes to the subject of immigration reform is epitomized by Forging a New Consensus on Immigrants and America, a project of the National Immigration Forum. On October 12, Forging a New Consensus organized a Midwest Summit which featured conservative activist Grover Norquist, who declared that “immigration is the most important thing to focus if you’re concerned about America as an economic power. Not only is it good policy to have dramatically more immigrants in the U.S. than we do today and a path for those who are here; it’s also good politics. In fact, restrictionist policies are bad electoral policies.”¶ Norquist’s stance on immigration and immigration reform is seconded by a number of conservative economic experts. For instance, the Winter 2012 issue of the Cato Journal is devoted to answering the fundamental question of whether or not immigration is good for the United States. The consensus of the scholars writing for the journal is that, yes, immigration does provide a net benefit to the U.S. economy and to U.S. workers. Moreover, the consensus is that the current immigration system, with its arbitrary numerical caps, needlessly squanders the full economic potential of immigration. The authors call for revamping the immigration system to make it more responsive to labor demand, attract highly skilled professionals and entrepreneurs, and offer a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants.¶ In the words of Daniel T. Griswold, former Director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, “basic economic analysis and numerous empirical studies have confirmed that immigrants boost the productive capacity of the United States through their labor, their human capital, and their entrepreneurial spirit. Instead of competing head-to-head with American workers, immigrants typically complement native-born workers by filling niches in the labor market.”¶ If some conservatives are challenging conservative orthodoxy by viewing immigrants and immigration in a favorable light, they are not alone. A new survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that “over the last decade Americans have grown less concerned about large numbers of immigrants—legal or illegal—coming to live and work in the United States.” In fact, “a growing number of Americans support keeping legal immigration at its current level or increasing it.” Moreover, “for the first time since the question was first asked by the Council in 1994, only a minority (40%) of Americans consider a large influx of immigrants and refugees a ‘critical threat’ to the United States.”¶ Anti-immigrant demagoguery will win fewer and fewer votes as time goes on. And anti-immigrant demagoguery will do nothing to help the U.S. economy recover. Some conservatives have recognized these facts and become more open to immigration as an economic resource and to immigrants as engines of the economy. But other conservatives cling to the time-honored tactic of using immigrants as scapegoats for every economic or social ill to afflict the United States. Ultimately, these old-style conservatives are destined for demographic extinction.¶ - See more at:
|
Ewing 12 (Ph.D., is the Senior Researcher at the Immigration Policy Center. He has authored or co-authored 20 reports and opinion pieces for the IPC, A Growing Consensus on Supporting Immigration Reform, http://immigrationimpact.com/2012/10/18/a-growing-consensus-on-supporting-immigration-reform/#sthash.Z84ZvWLv.dpuf, ME)
|
A growing body of evidence has quantified the enormous contributions that immigrants make to the U.S. economy through their labor, entrepreneurship, buying power, and innovation. being anti-immigrant in this day and age is self-destructive from both an economic and a political standpoint.¶ immigration is the most important thing to focus if you’re concerned about America as an economic power. The consensus of the scholars writing for the journal is that, yes, immigration does provide a net benefit to the U.S. economy and to U.S. workers. Moreover, the consensus is that the current immigration system, with its arbitrary numerical caps, needlessly squanders the full economic potential of immigration. The authors call for revamping the immigration system to make it more responsive to labor demand, attract highly skilled professionals and entrepreneurs, and offer a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants basic economic analysis and numerous empirical studies have confirmed that immigrants boost the productive capacity of the United States through their labor, their human capital, and their entrepreneurial spirit. Instead of competing head-to-head with American workers, immigrants typically complement native-born workers by filling niches in the labor market.” anti-immigrant demagoguery will do nothing to help the U.S. economy recover.
|
Immigration Reform is key to the economy
| 4,372 | 40 | 1,364 | 660 | 7 | 198 | 0.010606 | 0.3 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,265 |
Two years into Obama’s first term, researchers at the Brookings Institution revisited some ¶ of these ideas in light of the developments that ¶ had taken place so far (Lowenthal, Piccone, and ¶ Whitehead 2010). While the emphasis and interpretations of the various contributors differed, ¶ there was a general recognition that most of these ¶ initial hopes had been set too high. Symptomatic of this was the fact that the promise to close ¶ Guantanamo prison had not been honored, and ¶ that, after no more than the briefest of pauses, the ¶ “ALBA” group, led by President Chávez, had resumed its negative discourse. Obviously, the ¶ gravity of the economic crisis facing the incoming ¶ president had absorbed most of his energies, and ¶ in the foreign policy domain continuing and severe security challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan and ¶ elsewhere in the Muslim world had necessarily taken priority over less urgent Western Hemisphere concerns. On the domestic political front ¶ the new president had run into ferocious opposition to his healthcare reforms, and a deeply polarized internal climate had drastically reduced his ¶ room for maneuver on peripheral issues.
|
Whitehead & Nolte 12 (Laurence Whitehead, senior research fellow in politics at Nuffield College, Oxford, and Detlef Nolte, acting president of the GIGA, director of the GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, professor of political science at the University of Hamburg, Number 6, 2012, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf, CMR)
|
there was recognition initial hopes had been set too high the economic crisis facing the president absorbed most of his energies elsewhere had taken priority over less urgent Western Hemisphere concerns a polarized climate had drastically reduced his room for maneuver on peripheral issues
|
Economic decline turns the case – focus
| 1,169 | 40 | 293 | 191 | 7 | 44 | 0.036649 | 0.230366 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,266 |
The president should concentrate on getting the U.S. economy back on track because “that is the best thing we could do for Latin America’’ in terms of spurring trade and investment, said Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Americas Society/Council of the Americas.¶ “From a national security perspective, it’s very obvious we have to show the world we are capable of getting our house in order if we’re going to inspire confidence in America’s continuing role in the world,’’ Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution, said Wednesday during a forum at the Washington think tank.
|
Whitefield 11/7/12 (Mimi, and Tim Johnson, “Will Latin America become a higher priority during second Obama term?”, http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/07/v-fullstory/3086849/will-latin-america-become-a-higher.html, CMR)
|
The president should concentrate on getting the U.S. economy back on track because “that is the best thing we could do for Latin America’ in terms of spurring trade and investment, said Farnsworth, vice president of the Americas Society/Council of the Americas From a national security perspective, we have to show the world we are capable of getting our house in order if we’re going to inspire confidence in America’s continuing role in the world,’’ Kagan, a senior fellow at Brookings said
|
Growth solves the case – pre-requisite to securing leadership and increased engagement
| 594 | 87 | 492 | 97 | 12 | 82 | 0.123711 | 0.845361 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,267 |
But Mexican President Vicente Fox continues to bring up migrant reform. He considers it the defining issue in relations between Mexico City and Washington. "The American side is apparently arguing that security reasons are what is preventing them from moving forward on the issue," said Fox, in remarks carried by EFE, a news service. "But we think it is just the opposite. That for security reasons it is a good idea to legalize those Mexicans who work efficiently and productively and contribute to the growth of the American economy." Jeffrey Davidow, the former U.S. ambassador to Mexico, warned last week that Mexico's preoccupation with migrant reform risks damaging relations with its neighbor to the north. "I do think that dwelling on the lack of progress is actually counterproductive," he said, in remarks to the Inter-American Dialogue, a foreign policy group that focuses on issues concerning the Western hemisphere.
|
San Diego Union-Tribune, November 20, 2002, Wednesday, Pg. B-8
|
Fox continues to bring up migrant reform. He considers it the defining issue in relations between Mexico City and Washington. Jeffrey Davidow, the former U.S. ambassador to Mexico, warned last week that Mexico's preoccupation with migrant reform risks damaging relations with its neighbor to the north "I do think that dwelling on the lack of progress is actually counterproductive," he said
|
Immigration reform is the defining issue
| 929 | 40 | 391 | 148 | 6 | 61 | 0.040541 | 0.412162 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,268 |
Who Decides on the United States’ Latin ¶ America Policy?¶ Latin Americans familiar with vertical and often ¶ highly personalized systems of presidential governance often assume that the US political system ¶ shares these features. It can be difficult to accept ¶ that despite polite diplomatic discourse, in reality their country’s priorities and appeals do not really register within the White House. In practice, ¶ a lower level of bureaucratic politics determines ¶ the great bulk of the policy interactions between ¶ the USA and its neighbors. Of course, there is always an appearance of presidential coordination ¶ through the White House and the National Security Council, but in practice these central agencies ¶ cannot monitor effectively on all fronts and tend ¶ to focus on no more than a limited set of urgent ¶ priorities. The majority of Latin American politicians more or less understand the role of certain ¶ agencies – the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Drug ¶ Enforcement Administration – although they often assume that their policies are more centrally controlled than is generally the case. However, there is less understanding of the huge variety ¶ of distinct and relatively autonomous Washington ¶ institutions that can impinge on foreign policymaking, and still less understanding of how difficult coordination between them can be. ¶ When President Carter prepared an agenda for ¶ a high-level summit with Mexico’s president Lopez Portillo in 1979, he appointed a special ambassador, the experienced Democratic veteran Robert Strauss, to help him. This was an ambassador ¶ from the White House, not to Mexico but to all the ¶ other Washington agencies with entrenched policy interests in Mexico. The task was to work out ¶ what the US Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Mines, the Congressional Subcommittee on Irrigation, and the state authorities in Texas, among others, would ask for and were prepared to offer in the course of an overall bargaining session with the Mexican government. Similar coordination problems arise with other Latin ¶ American countries, or groups of countries, and ¶ if anything the partisan gridlock in contemporary ¶ Washington makes these difficulties even more intractable now than in the past.
|
Whitehead & Nolte 12 (Laurence Whitehead, senior research fellow in politics at Nuffield College, Oxford, and Detlef Nolte, acting president of the GIGA, director of the GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, professor of political science at the University of Hamburg, Number 6, 2012, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf, CMR)
|
despite polite diplomatic discourse, country’s priorities and appeals do not really register within the White House In practice a lower level of bureaucratic politics determines the great bulk of the policy interactions between the US and its neighbors there is always an appearance of presidential coordination through the White House and the N S C but in practice these central agencies cannot monitor effectively on all fronts and tend to focus on no more than a limited set of urgent priorities politicians assume their policies are more centrally controlled than is generally the case there is less understanding of the huge variety of distinct and relatively autonomous Washington institutions that can impinge on foreign policymaking and still less understanding of how difficult coordination between them can be coordination problems arise with Latin American countries, partisan gridlock in Washington makes these difficulties even more intractable
|
The link alone turns case – partisan infighting ensures the plan becomes a bureaucratic nightmare
| 2,262 | 98 | 970 | 361 | 15 | 144 | 0.041551 | 0.398892 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,269 |
LAS CRUCES Standing before a crowd of more than 500 people and several television crews, Alejandra Gomez choked up as she tried to speak.¶ The 22-year-old immigrant, a Mexican citizen living in the United States without legal status, raised her left hand to her face and wept. A number of political and religious leaders sat behind her on stage.¶ The crowd was silent as Gomez took a deep breath, then spoke about the two empty chairs at family gatherings. Some in the friendly crowd at the May 1 event cried with Gomez as she described the hole the deportations of her brothers Reymundo, 22, and Julio, 20 leaves in her heart.¶ Gomez's brothers may not have the most compelling story to tell during a rally designed to shift public and political opinion in favor of immigration reform that grants legal status to most or all of the estimated 11 million people living in the United States without proper documentation. The two were deported last year after being arrested for stealing scrap metal. They're being deported again after they were caught earlier this year trying to re-enter the United States illegally. ¶ But there Gomez was, telling her brothers' story during the Las Cruces rally. The faith-based immigrants-rights group Comunidades en Acci-n y de FÈ (Communities in Action and Faith, or CAF ), sponsored the event. U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, who sat behind Gomez on stage, told New Mexico In Depth later that reform wouldn't help Gomez's brothers because of their criminal backgrounds.¶ Her brothers aren't bad people they were just trying to make ends meet, Gomez responded in an interview with NMID. So she pushes on, telling her brothers' story as a way to keep hope.¶ At the Las Cruces rally, Gomez called her brothers' decision to take metal from property they thought was abandoned a mistake. She said they tried to come back to the United States to flee drug dealers in Ju·rez who threatened to kill them if they didn't sell for them.¶ Toward the end of her speech, Gomez turned to Heinrich, a Democrat who has been supportive of allowing a path to citizenship or other legal status for immigrants living here without proper documentation. Seated behind her on stage, one leg crossed over the other, his hands in his lap, Heinrich locked eyes with Gomez as she spoke.¶ "I just want you to know this is not a joke," a crying Gomez told Heinrich. She later told NMID she was directing her frustration at the senator because, at the rally, he was the highest-ranking representative of a government whose broken immigration system, in her view, rips families apart.¶ The federal government's past refusal to fix its immigration system, Gomez said, exacerbates difficult situations that drive immigrants to make mistakes like the crimes her brothers committed.¶ Heinrich stood and applauded along with others in the crowd when Gomez finished speaking. She turned from the podium into a hug from a friend.¶ Trying to 'propel the immigration debate forward'¶ Across the nation, immigrants like Gomez are trying to influence the ongoing immigration debate in Washington by sharing their stories. They've been encouraged by reform backers including President Barack Obama, who met with a group of young immigrants in May. Following the meeting, the White House urged immigrants "to continue to share their stories with the American public to move the hearts and minds of individual leaders and to propel the immigration debate forward."¶ So-called dreamers like Gomez and her brothers immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children have become the public face of the immigration reform movement. People often find their stories more sympathetic than those of other immigrants because they didn't choose to come here illegally, said U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, who met with Gomez and other immigrants during a tear-filled meeting in April.¶ Udall, D-N.M., pointed out that a procedural block killed legislation that would give permanent residency to dreamers several years ago even though majorities in the House and Senate voted for it. The majority votes indicate the support dreamers enjoy even from Congress.¶ By humanizing the issue, dreamers are helping lead a lobbying effort Udall, Heinrich and others say they hope will give comprehensive reform a greater chance than the last time Congress considered it.¶ In 2007, a fragile compromise crumbled because some on the right opposed anything that could be called amnesty and others on the left disliked a new guest-worker program they said might have negative effects on wages and unemployment.¶ Then-U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico was among the Democrats who helped kill reform that year because of his concerns about the guest-worker program. But times have changed. Heinrich and Udall told NMID that doing nothing again this year isn't an option.¶ Because of that belief, many Democrats are more willing to compromise than they were in 2007. They understand they have to find compromise with the GOP-controlled U.S. House. And Hispanics are becoming a more important voting bloc one Republicans are heavily courting and Democrats can't afford to lose.¶ Dreamers have the numbers to be a significant lobbying force. The nonprofit Immigration Policy Center estimates that, of 85,000 immigrants living in New Mexico without legal status, there are almost 13,000 who qualify for Obama's deferred action program or may in the future. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates there are as many as 1.7 million nationally who meet the requirements for the program, which grants work permits to immigrants if they were brought here illegally as children and meet other criteria, including not having felony or certain misdemeanor convictions on their records.¶ But whether dreamers can give immigration reform the momentum advocates are seeking isn't clear. The Senate passed a reform bill last month that provides a path to citizenship for most immigrants living illegally in the United States. Reform faces a more difficult road in the Republican-controlled House, where Speaker John Boehner says he'll only allow a vote on a bill that has support of at least half of Republicans.¶ Many House Republicans, including Steve Pearce of New Mexico, oppose the Senate bill and talk about securing the border before tackling other aspects of reform. Meanwhile, a provision in the Senate-approved bill that devotes $30 billion to deploying 20,000 new Border Patrol agents and adding hundreds of miles of fence along the border has angered many reform advocates and may lessen support from the left.¶ Neil Harvey, who heads the government department at New Mexico State University, isn't sure this year will be different than 2006 and 2007, when immigrants marched in cities across America but Washington failed to act. He said dreamers have put immigration reform "back on the political agenda" this year, but "negotiations through Congress are another matter."¶ 'Eventually something is going to sprout'¶ Cynthia Alba is similarly skeptical. The 18-year-old Mexican citizen shared her story earlier this year with Pearce in a meeting organized by CAF , an organization that has focused for months on building support in southern New Mexico for immigration reform.¶ Using a birth certificate belonging to another child, Alba's mom walked with the 2-year-old across a bridge between Ju·rez and El Paso more than 15 years ago. They've lived in the United States ever since.¶ Alba applied for and received deferred action status last year. She is working legally for the first time. While she's worried that Congress won't act on immigration reform and that the next president might revoke her deferred action work permit, she said having deferred action makes her feel safer. It protects her from deportation, at least for now.¶ "I can't be swept away immediately," Alba said.¶ Now that she can travel through the Border Patrol checkpoints around Las Cruces without fear of deportation, Alba said she wants to visit a dense, green forest, perhaps in Washington State. She's never seen one in person.¶ During an interview with NMID at her mother's home in La Mesa, Alba said she told Pearce she and her mother struggled with loneliness when they came to the United States because they were leaving family. Others who cross without any documentation through the desert risk death, she said.¶ Alba told NMID she doesn't believe the meeting affected Pearce's views. She said it's difficult to argue with something Pearce told her and other CAF activists at the meeting. As Alba quotes it, Pearce told CAF , "If we offer the dream to everyone, soon enough there won't be a dream."¶ Pearce told NMID he sympathizes with dreamers such as Alba who are "basically Americans." He said he hears their stories constantly, and called Alba's a "very sad situation." But there are lots of people in the world with more tragic stories than Alba, and the United States can't be the haven for the billions of people on the planet, Pearce said.¶ Pearce proposes focusing on securing the border and streamlining the legal immigration system before offering legal status to those who live here without proper documentation. After the first two objectives are reached, he said he would let most immigrants who lack proper documentation stay if they want legal residency to work. Most or all who want a path to citizenship, he said, should return home and get in line.¶ There isn't a lot of common ground between what Alba wants and what Pearce proposes. CAF and other activists are quick to point out that Washington has focused on security for years. They claim the border is secure.¶ Alba said she doesn't know how to bridge the gap and doubts Congress can do it this year. She said she met with Pearce "to keep the dream alive" so that, at some point down the road, reform will be possible.¶ "It's like if you keep watering an empty pot, with soil, why keep watering it? Because eventually something is going to sprout. It may not be what you expected, but it's there. It's life," she said.¶ 'I can't help my own family'¶ Gomez refuses to give up hope that reform is possible this year. She has been working with CAF as she seeks change.¶ She first shared her family's tale publicly at a news conference in Washington, D.C. in February. Because she lacks legal status, Gomez can't travel through border checkpoints around Las Cruces by car without fear of deportation. But she was able to fly from El Paso to the nation's capital thanks to her New Mexico driver's license. New Mexico is one of several states that lets immigrants, regardless of legal status, obtain licenses.¶ Family members brought Gomez and her brothers across the Rio Grande to El Paso when they were small children. She lives in Anthony, N.M., today, and hasn't returned to Mexico since. Neither had her brothers, until they were sent back last year to their country of citizenship a place Gomez said was, for all practical purposes, foreign to them.¶ The two struggled to find work in Ju·rez, Gomez said. She learned that they tried to re-enter the United States when one called her family from jail earlier this year. Gomez noted that an American citizen who was with her brothers when they took the scrap metal is out of jail. That's another aspect of the situation she said is unjust the only difference between being released on bail and being imprisoned until deportation is legal status.¶ Asked about Heinrich saying reform won't help her brothers, Gomez was silent for a moment. When she spoke, she fired her words quickly, anger in her voice. She said she loves fighting for immigrant rights, but doesn't think it's fair that she can't help her brothers live without fear of deportation in the nation they consider their home.¶ Though it's probably too late for Reymundo and Julio to have a shot at such a life, Heinrich said he hopes for reform that empowers immigrants to make better choices than Gomez's brothers did.¶ "Maybe the next time a couple of teenagers don't find themselves in that kind of position in the first place, and have hope and focus on the future," Heinrich said.
|
Haussamen 7/6/13 (Heath / New Mexico In Depth “Immigrants' stories are key to reform effort,” Las Cruces Sun-News (New Mexico)July 6, 2013, l/n)
|
Standing before a crowd of more than 500 people and several television crews, Alejandra Gomez choked up as she tried to speak.¶ The 22-year-old immigrant, a Mexican citizen living in the United States without legal status spoke about the two empty chairs at family gatherings she described the hole the deportations of her brothers Reymundo, 22, and Julio, 20 leaves in her heart Gomez called her brothers' decision to take metal from property they thought was abandoned a mistake. She said they tried to come back to the United States to flee drug dealers in Ju·rez who threatened to kill them if they didn't sell for them. The federal government's past refusal to fix its immigration system, , exacerbates difficult situations that drive immigrants to make mistakes immigrants like Gomez are trying to influence the ongoing immigration debate in Washington by sharing their stories. the White House urged immigrants "to continue to share their stories with the American public to move the hearts and minds of individual leaders and to propel the immigration debate forward."¶ So-called dreamers like Gomez and her brothers immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children have become the public face of the immigration reform movement. People often find their stories more sympathetic than those of other immigrants because they didn't choose to come here illegally, that a procedural block killed legislation that would give permanent residency to dreamers several years ago even though majorities in the House and Senate voted for it By humanizing the issue, dreamers are helping lead a lobbying effort will give comprehensive reform a greater chance than the last time Congress considered it.¶ many Democrats are more willing to compromise than they were in 2007. They understand they have to find compromise with the GOP-controlled U.S. House. And Hispanics are becoming a more important voting bloc one Republicans are heavily courting and Democrats can't afford to lose Dreamers have the numbers to be a significant lobbying force. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates there are as many as 1.7 million nationally who meet the requirements for the program, which grants work permits to immigrants if they were brought here illegally as children and meet other criteria, including not having felony or certain misdemeanor convictions on their records whether dreamers can give immigration reform the momentum advocates are seeking isn't clear. dreamers have put immigration reform "back on the political agenda" this year, but "negotiations through Congress are another matter."¶ Cynthia Alba is similarly skeptical. The 18-year-old Mexican citize has focused for months on building support in southern New Mexico for immigration reform.¶ Using a birth certificate belonging to another child, Alba's mom walked with the 2-year-old across a bridge between Ju·rez and El Paso more than 15 years ag time. While she's worried that Congress won't act on immigration reform and that the next president might revoke her deferred action work permit, she said having deferred action makes her feel safer. It protects her from deportation, at least for now. Pearce proposes focusing on securing the border and streamlining the legal immigration system before offering legal status to those who live here without proper documentation. After the first two objectives are reached, he said he would let most immigrants who lack proper documentation stay if they want legal residency to work. Most or all who want a path to citizenship should return home and get in line. Gomez refuses to give up hope that reform is possible this year. She has been working with CAF as she seeks change.¶ She first shared her family's tale publicly at a news conference in Washington, D.C. in February. Because she lacks legal status, Gomez can't travel through border checkpoints around Las Cruces by car without fear of deportation Gomez loves fighting for immigrant rights, but doesn't think it's fair that she can't help her brothers live without fear of deportation in the nation they consider their home.¶
|
Immigrants must be allowed to tell their stories; will be important factor in making immigration more of a critical social issue
| 12,119 | 128 | 4,105 | 2,014 | 21 | 655 | 0.010427 | 0.325223 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,270 |
HIGHLIGHT: If Republicans truly believed in themselves and fought with the same conviction as Democrats, it would be a different story.¶ As one who supports traditional values and a conservative political agenda, I'm more worried about the right wing's erosion of resolve and moral courage than I am about the left's relentless assault on our values and ideas.Surely, no one can dispute that the political left has been tirelessly chipping away at America's foundational values for years and ruthlessly demonizing conservatives. But if Republicans truly believed in themselves and fought with the same conviction as Democrats, it would be a different story.One might attribute the attrition of America's foundational institutions to the political application of the laws of entropy. Things just have a natural tendency to descend into chaos. Great empires and great nations can't last forever. ¶ But it has to be more than that. When those who claim to want to preserve this nation's greatness all but throw in the towel, the destructive process can't help but accelerate. How can a political party remain viable when many of its leaders are obviously ashamed of major parts of its platform? When its leaders validate negative stereotypes by promising to change? When he was running for his first presidential term, George W. Bush said that he was a "compassionate conservative" and that he wouldn't balance the budget "on the backs of the poor." As much as I admire President Bush, I regret those statements, as they communicated the false message that ordinary conservatives aren't compassionate and that we don't have a heart for the downtrodden.Some of Bush's former advisers are still wagging their fingers at conservatives today for their alleged mean-spiritedness on many issues, including immigration, urging them to be more winsome or loving -- or something, anything but conservative.Regrettably, Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus told Latinos in Chicago that Republicans have reshaped their outreach. "In America, it doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you're going," said Priebus.What? The Republican Party has always stood for equal opportunity and articulated a nondiscriminatory, pro-growth message. Why would the party's leader thus validate Democratic slanders portraying the GOP as nativist?Why couldn't he have said instead, "Democrats will tell you that we don't care about Hispanics, but the truth is we care about all people, and our policies are geared toward unleashing robust opportunities for all, irrespective of race, ethnicity and gender"?Every day, we see examples of liberals painting Republicans as uncompassionate, racist, sexist and homophobic, with precious little blowback from our side. In the face of liberal propaganda, many Republicans are frozen into silence. Others are affirmatively apologetic for the embarrassing "extremists" in the party, who are anything but.This self-hatred that characterizes a substantial segment of the party has real consequences. Consider the stunning reversal in popular support for same-sex marriage, from 30 percent in 2004 to 53 percent today. Do you really believe that many people have changed their minds about an important issue overnight or, if so, that they have done it after deep soul-searching? Isn't it more likely a result of the right's failure to stand up to the left's constant bullying and its depiction of those who oppose same-sex marriage as anti-gay rather than as those who believe in the importance of preserving traditional marriage as a foundational societal institution? If Republicans had been affirming their beliefs with confidence and unity, would Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy have been as likely to twist the Constitution into an inedible pretzel to invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act and, worse, to disgracefully castigate traditional marriage proponents as manifesting a "desire to harm a politically unpopular group"?Of course not. Through its silence and moral cowardice, the GOP has given a green light to those in positions of power to obliterate societal pillars and personally vilify those who dare defend them.In or out of power, Republicans seem always to be on the defensive, effectively apologizing for a) their insistence on securing the nation's borders -- assuring everyone they're not racist -- b) their opposition to Obamacare, pleading with people not to believe they don't care about those falling through the cracks, c) the so-called pro-life extremists instead of properly asserting the moral high ground as defenders of the innocent unborn, and d) those in the party who refuse to cower to liberals who deify junk science about man-made global warming instead of taking it to Obama for trampling conventional energy sources and the economy in allegiance to their superstitions. Democrats are the ones who should be on the defensive today, having destroyed the economy, bankrupted the nation, undermined our national defenses, made an incoherent mess of our foreign policy, sabotaged our health care system, polarized the nation and assaulted our religious liberty, the Constitution and the rule of law. But you never see them even considering apologizing for who they are and what they stand for. Democrats never lack moral courage, even in defense of immoral positions. Republicans are terrified of their own shadow; until they relearn how to be comfortable in their own skin, their troubles will continue.
|
Limbaugh 7/2/13 (David, writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "The Great Destroyer," reached No. 2 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction.Human Events Online, “The GOP's Identity Crisis”, July 2, 2013, l/n)
|
no one can dispute that the political left has been tirelessly chipping away at America's foundational values for years and ruthlessly demonizing conservatives Republicans truly believed in themselves and fought with the same conviction as Democrats, it would be a different story. When those who claim to want to preserve this nation's greatness all but throw in the towel, the destructive process can't help but accelerate. How can a political party remain viable when many of its leaders are obviously ashamed of major parts of its platform? When its leaders validate negative stereotypes by promising to change? Some are still wagging their fingers at conservatives today for their alleged mean-spiritedness on many issues, including immigration, urging them to be more winsome or loving -- or something, anything but conservative The Republican Party has always stood for equal opportunity and articulated a nondiscriminatory, pro-growth message Every day, we see examples of liberals painting Republicans as uncompassionate, racist, sexist and homophobic, with precious little blowback from our side. In the face of liberal propaganda, many Republicans are frozen into silence. Others are affirmatively apologetic for the embarrassing "extremists" in the party, who are anything but.This self-hatred that characterizes a substantial segment of the party has real consequences. Through its silence and moral cowardice, the GOP has given a green light to those in positions of power to obliterate societal pillars and personally vilify those who dare defend them.In or out of power, Republicans seem always to be on the defensive, effectively apologizing for a) their insistence on securing the nation's borders -- assuring everyone they're not racist -- Democrats are the ones who should be on the defensive today, you never see them even considering apologizing for who they are and what they stand for. Democrats never lack moral courage, even in defense of immoral positions. Republicans are terrified of their own shadow; until they relearn how to be comfortable in their own skin, their troubles will continue.
|
Republicans have allowed the Democrats to claim the moral high ground; immigration is key issue for Republicans to claim party identity
| 5,472 | 136 | 2,120 | 849 | 21 | 326 | 0.024735 | 0.383981 |
Politics - Negative - UNT 2013.html5
|
North Texas (UNT)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,271 |
The democracy theme also carries much force in the hemisphere today. The State Department regularly parades the fact that all countries in the hemisphere, save one, now have democratically elected governments. True enough, as long as the definition of democracy is flexible, but these countries turned to democracy mostly of their own volition. It is hard to determine if the United States is using the democracy theme as a club in the hemisphere (hold elections or be excluded) or promoting it as a goal. If as a club, its efficacy is limited to this hemisphere, as the 1994 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Indonesia demonstrated in its call for free trade in that region, replete with nondemocratic nations, by 2020. Following that meeting, Latin Americans are somewhat cynical as to whether the United States really cares deeply about promoting democracy if this conflicts with expanding exports. Yet this triad of objectives -- economic liberalization and free trade, democratization, and sustainable development/ alleviation of poverty -- is generally accepted in the hemisphere. The commitment to the latter two varies by country, but all three are taken as valid. All three are also themes expounded widely by the United States, but with more vigor in this hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world. Thus, failure to advance on all three in Latin America will compromise progress elsewhere in the world.
|
Fauriol and Weintraub 95 – *director of the CSIS Americas program and **Prof of Public Affairs at the University of Texas Georges and Sidney, The Washington Quarterly, "U.S. Policy, Brazil, and the Southern Cone", Lexis
|
The democracy theme also carries much force in the hemisphere today. Latin Americans are somewhat cynical as to whether the United States really cares deeply about promoting democracy if this conflicts with expanding exports. Yet this triad of objectives -- economic liberalization and free trade, democratization, and sustainable development/ alleviation of poverty -- is generally accepted in the hemisphere. three are also themes expounded widely by the United States, but with more vigor in this hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world. Thus, failure to advance on all three in Latin America will compromise progress elsewhere in the world.
|
Latin American democracy solves global backliding
| 1,442 | 49 | 658 | 230 | 6 | 100 | 0.026087 | 0.434783 |
Cuban Democracy Disadvantage - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,272 |
The presence this week in the United States of dissident Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, the most well-known of Cuba’s brave dissident community, has again brought to the forefront the reality of the situation facing the Cuban people in the Castro brothers’ prison state.¶ Last week, Sanchez spoke at both Columbia University and New York University, where she recalled how different things were a decade ago during what Cubans refer to as the “Black Spring,” when independent journalists were given a summary trial and large jail sentences. It was the arrest of these opponents of the regime that led to the Ladies in White, the wives and mothers of prisoners who regularly marched in silence in front of government buildings each week.¶ Ten years ago, Sanchez pointed out, there was no access to the internet for anyone in Cuba, it barely existed, and there were no flash drives to record information and no social networking sites to spread the word about the state’s repression. Now, bloggers like Sanchez — who gains access to tourist hotels, posing as a Westerner so she can use their internet facilities — have managed to get past the regime’s ban on use of the internet and to freely reveal to the world the reality of life in Cuba.¶ “Many independent journalists and peaceful activists who began their work precariously have now resorted to blogs, for example, as a format to circulate information about programs and initiatives to collect signatures,” Sánchez said. She and others have done just that, getting signatures on petitions to demand the release in particular of one well-known Cuban journalist. In addition, Sanchez is circulating a petition known as “the Citizens’ Demand” to pressure the Cuban regime to ratify the UN political rights agreements signed in 2008. The signers are calling for a legal and political framework for a full debate of all ideas relevant to the internal crisis facing the Cuban people on the island.¶ In effect, this demand for democracy is nothing less than a call for creation of a political democracy that would, if implemented, lead to the collapse of the edifice of the Communist one-party state.¶ As Sanchez put it: “It is important to have initiatives for transforming the law and demand concrete public spaces within the country.” Since a totalitarian state does not allow for such space and prohibits a real civil society from emerging, the actions of the dissidents are a mechanism for forcing such change from below. They are fighting what her fellow blogger Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo called a “culture of fear over the civil society” that the secret police seek to enforce.¶ For liberals and leftists in the United States, the main demand they always raise is to “lift the embargo.” According to the argument they regularly make, the embargo has to be lifted for the following reasons: 1) it is not effective; 2) it gives the regime the excuse to argue to the Cuban people that the poverty they suffer is the result of not being able to trade with the United States and other nations honoring the embargo; 3) lifting the embargo would hence deprive Fidel and Raul Castro from their main propaganda argument, revealing that the reasons for a collapsed economy are the regime’s own policies; and 4) trade and travel from the United States would expose Cubans to Americans and others who live in freedom, help curb anti-Americanism, and eventually lead to slow reform of the system.¶ What these liberals and leftists leave out is that this demand — lifting the embargo — is also the number one desire of the Cuban Communists.¶ In making it the key demand, these well-meaning (at least some of them) liberals echo precisely the propaganda of the Cuban government, thereby doing the Castro brothers’ work for them here in the United States. And, as we know, many of those who call for this actually believe that the Cuban government is on the side of the people, and favor the Cuban Revolution which they see as a positive role model for the region. They have always believed, since the 1960s of their youth, that socialism in Cuba has pointed the way forward to development and liberty based on the kind of socialist society they wish could exist in the United States.¶ Another brave group of Cuban opponents of the regime has actually taped a television interview filmed illegally in Havana. “Young Cuban democracy leader Antonio Rodiles,” an American support group called Capitol Hill Cubans has reported, “has just released the latest episode of his civil society project Estado de Sats (filmed within Cuba), where he discusses the importance U.S. sanctions policy with two of Cuba’s most renowned opposition activists and former political prisoners, Guillermo Fariñas and Jose Daniel Ferrer.”¶ The argument they present is aimed directly at those on the left in the United States, some of whom think they are helping democracy in Cuba by calling for an end to the embargo. In strong and clear language, the two dissidents say the following:¶ If at this time, the [economic] need of the Cuban government is satisfied through financial credits and the lifting of the embargo, repression would increase, it would allow for a continuation of the Castro’s society, totalitarianism would strengthen its hold and philosophically, it would just be immoral … If you did an opinion poll among Cuban opposition activists, the majority would be in favor of not lifting the embargo.¶ Next, they nail the claim that travel without restrictions by citizens of our country to Cuba would help spread freedom. The men respond:¶ In a cost-benefit analysis, travel to Cuba by Americans would be of greatest benefit to the Castro regime, while the Cuban people would be the least to benefit. With all of the controls and the totalitarian system of the government, it would be perfectly able to control such travel.¶ We know this, as I reported a few months ago, about how a group of Americans taking the usual state-controlled Potemkin village tour came back raving about how wonderful and free Cuba is, and how Cuban socialism works.¶ Finally, the two former prisoners made this point about lifting the embargo:¶ To lift the embargo at this time would be very prejudicial to us. The government prioritizes all of the institutions that guarantee its hold on power. The regime’s political police and its jailers receive a much higher salary and privileges than a doctor or engineer, or than any other worker that benefits society. We’ve all seen municipalities with no fuel for an ambulance, yet with 10, 15, 20, 50 cars full of fuel ready to go repress peaceful human rights activists.¶ Indeed, just this past week, more evidence came out substantiating how the secret police killed Cuba’s leading political opponent Oswaldo Paya, and sought to blame it on a car crash for which he and those with him were responsible. Last week, the Washington Post in a tough editorial made the point:¶ Mr. Payá, who pioneered the Varela Project, a petition drive in 2002 seeking the guarantee of political freedom in Cuba, was killed in a car wreck July 22, along with a youth activist, Harold Cepero. The driver of the vehicle, Ángel Carromero, a Spaniard, was convicted and imprisoned on charges of vehicular homicide; in December, he was released to Spain. He told us in an interview published on the opposite page last week that the car carrying Mr. Payá was rammed from behind by a vehicle with government license plates. His recollections suggest that Mr. Payá died not from reckless driving but from a purposeful attempt to silence him — forever.¶ This is the kind of treatment effective opponents of the regime get from Cuba’s secret police, measures taken upon orders of Raul Castro, whom useful idiots like Danny Glover and Sean Penn regularly visit. They fawn at his feet and those of his ailing brother, Fidel Castro.¶ This week, Sanchez and her colleague come to testify before Congress. They will speak as well at a public forum today, Tuesday, at the Cato Institute. You can watch on a live stream at 12:30 p.m. on the organization’s website.¶ The Cuban people have suffered long enough at the hands of a regime that came into power promising freedom and democracy, and instead inflicted on the Cuban people a totalitarian government modeled on that of the old Soviet Union. Cuba is finally on the verge of change, and it is time the people of our country give whatever support we can to those within Cuba bravely working for the creation of a real democracy in Cuba, and an end to the decades of rule by the Castro brothers.¶
|
Ron Radosh, 3/18/2013. (PJ Media columnist and Adjunct Fellow at the Hudson Institute)
[“The Time to Help Cuba’s Brave Dissidents Is Now: Why the Embargo Must Not be Lifted,” PJ Media at http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/03/18/the-time-to-help-cubas-brave-dissidents-is-now-why-the-embargo-must-not-be-lifted/?singlepage=true accessed July 13, 2013, AV]
|
Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, spoke at both Columbia University and New York University, where she recalled how different things were a decade ago during what Cubans refer to as the “Black Spring,” when independent journalists were given a summary trial and large jail sentences. Ten years ago, Sanchez pointed out, there was no access to the internet for anyone in Cuba, it barely existed, and there were no flash drives to record information and no social networking sites to spread the word about the state’s repression. Now, bloggers like Sanchez — who gains access to tourist hotels, posing as a Westerner so she can use their internet facilities — have managed to get past the regime’s ban , Sanchez is circulating a petition known as “the Citizens’ Demand” to pressure the Cuban regime to ratify the UN political rights agreements signed in 2008. The signers are calling for a legal and political framework for a full debate of all ideas relevant to the internal crisis facing the Cuban people on the island. In effect, this demand for democracy is nothing less than a call for creation of a political democracy that would, if implemented, lead to the collapse of the edifice of the Communist one-party state. As Sanchez put it: “It is important to have initiatives for transforming the law and demand concrete public spaces within the country.” Since a totalitarian state does not allow for such space and prohibits a real civil society from emerging, the actions of the dissidents are a mechanism for forcing such change from below. For liberals , the main demand they always raise is to “lift the embargo.” According to the argument they regularly make, lifting the embargo would deprive and 4) trade and travel from the United States would expose Cubans to Americans and others who live in freedom, help curb anti-Americanism, and eventually lead to slow reform of the system. What these liberals and leftists leave out is that this demand — lifting the embargo — is also the number one desire of the Cuban Communists. “Young Cuban democracy leader Antonio Rodiles,” “has just released the latest episode of his civil society project Estado de Sats (filmed within Cuba), where he discusses the importance U.S. sanctions policy with two of Cuba’s most renowned opposition activists and former political prisoners The argument they present is aimed directly at those on the left in the United States, some of whom think they are helping democracy in Cuba by calling for an end to the embargo. In strong and clear language, the two dissidents say the following: If at this time, the [economic] need of the Cuban government is satisfied through financial credits and the lifting of the embargo, repression would increase, it would allow for a continuation of the Castro’s society, totalitarianism would strengthen its hold and philosophically, it would just be immoral … If you did an opinion poll among Cuban opposition activists, the majority would be in favor of not lifting the embargo. In a cost-benefit analysis, travel to Cuba by Americans would be of greatest benefit to the Castro regime, while the Cuban people would be the least to benefit. With all of the controls and the totalitarian system of the government, it would be perfectly able to control such travel. a group of Americans taking the usual state-controlled Potemkin village tour came back raving about how wonderful and free Cuba is, and how Cuban socialism works. the two former prisoners made this point about lifting the embargo: To lift the embargo at this time would be very prejudicial to us. The government prioritizes all of the institutions that guarantee its hold on power. The regime’s political police and its jailers receive a much higher salary and privileges than a doctor or engineer, or than any other worker that benefits society. We’ve all seen municipalities with no fuel for an ambulance, yet with 10, 15, 20, 50 cars full of fuel ready to go repress peaceful human rights activists. on verge of change, and it is time the people of our country give whatever support we can to those within Cuba bravely working for the creation of a real democracy in Cuba, and an end to the decades of rule by the Castro brothers.
|
Cuban democracy is rising—lifting embargo would empower regime
| 8,579 | 63 | 4,235 | 1,448 | 8 | 713 | 0.005525 | 0.492403 |
Cuban Democracy Disadvantage - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,273 |
It is only a matter of time before Cuban communism collapses. While the date of its demise is obviously unknown in advance, it can be expected sooner rather than later. Fidel Castro still seems determined to hold back history but, with the death of the Soviet Union, his last hope for a conservative leadership in Moscow to rescue Cuba’s crumbling economy may also have died. The end of Soviet patronage has left Castro with a dilemma: to avoid challenges to his continued rule and to revive Cuba’s flagging economy he must relinquish some control, but his domestic opponents could try to use the momentum of reform to force him from power. As 1991 drew to a close Castro still had not found a satisfactory solution to his problem.¶ The island’s economic disintegration was accelerating at a breathtaking pace. Aid from the former Soviet Union, which was already drastically reduced, should now disappear entirely. Castro’s attempts to attract foreign capital to replace Soviet subsidies are likely to be too little, too late. Tinkering with the design of Cuba’s outmoded communist system may postpone Castro’s day of reckoning, but fundamental economic and political changes seem increasingly unavoidable. The most interesting question now is whether Cuba will be able to avoid violence and experience a peaceful transition from a communist dictatorship to representative democracy.¶ II¶ The history of the Cuban Revolution is in great part the history of Cuba’s growing dependence on Soviet economic and military aid. By the beginning of the 1990s almost three quarters of Cuban imports came from the Soviet Union, principally Russia, the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan. The most important import was petroleum. Until 1991 the Soviet Union furnished virtually all, and often more than, the estimated 10 million tons of oil Cuba used annually. In return Cuba exported to the Soviets sugar, some citrus, tobacco and nickel...
|
Purcell 1991 Susan Kauffman Purcel, Susan Kaufman Purcell is Vice President for Latin American Affairs at the Americas Society, America and the World 1991 http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/47460/susan-kaufman-purcell/collapsing-cuba
|
It is only a matter of time before Cuban communism collapses it can be expected sooner rather than later. . Tinkering with the design of Cuba’s outmoded communist system may postpone Castro’s day of reckoning, but fundamental economic and political changes seem increasingly unavoidable. The most interesting question now is whether Cuba will be able to avoid violence and transition from a communist dictatorship to representative democracy
|
Cuban Democracy inevitable transition will be violent
| 1,930 | 53 | 441 | 309 | 7 | 67 | 0.022654 | 0.216828 |
Cuban Democracy Disadvantage - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,274 |
Hugo Chavez’s hand-picked successor, former trade union boss Nicolás Maduro, appears to have defeated Governor Henrique Capriles by a narrow margin in a contentious and hard-fought special election on April 14. Venezuela is in such shambles after 14 years of seat-of-the-pants mismanagement that Maduro—assuming his victory is confirmed—may ultimately be forced to pursue more moderate policies and seek help from the U.S. to restore stability. The Obama Administration and Congress should exploit this opening by using U.S. leverage to push Venezuela to turn from Chavez’s failed experiment in oil-cursed[1] “21st-century socialism” toward economic freedom. An Economy in Ruins The foundations of economic freedom in Venezuela have crumbled. When Chavez took office in 1999, Venezuela scored 54 out of 100 possible points in The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal’s annual Index of Economic Freedom. Today, however, after 14 years of Chavez’s soft authoritarian populism, Venezuela merits a score of just 36 points. This nearly 20-point plunge is among the most severe ever recorded by a country in the history of the Index. Its 2013 rank—174th out of 179 countries—places Venezuela among the most repressed nations in the world.[2] Venezuela’s dismal economic freedom score is reflected in statistics that translate into real-time hardship for Venezuelans, who must spend more of their incomes on higher prices for necessities—if they can find them on empty store shelves. There are scarcities of nearly all staple food and fuel products. In fact, according to the Banco Central of Venezuela’s (BCV) shortages index, Venezuela faces the most severe food shortages in four years.[3] And what food is available comes at a price: Mary O’Grady reports in The Wall Street Journal that “over the past 10 years inflation in food and nonalcoholic beverages is 1,284%.”[4] Financial disequilibrium in Venezuela is the result of a sharply widening fiscal deficit that reached almost 15 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) last year.[5] Government control of the formerly independent BCV also contributed to a massive expansion of the money supply. There are anecdotal reports in Caracas of people paying as much as 23 bolívars for one U.S. dollar in the black market as of early April. The official rate is just 6.3 bolívars per dollar—and that is after a significant 32 percent devaluation in February.[6] These problems were aggravated by Chavez’s foreign adventurism—which drained billions of petrodollars from the economy to keep afloat the failed economy in Fidel Castro’s Cuba—as well as generous subsidies to his Chavista cronies in the region through such schemes as ALBA and PetroCaribe. Corruption and Weak Rule of Law As reported in the Index, political interference in Venezuela’s judicial system has become routine, and corruption is rampant. The landscape in Caracas and elsewhere in the country is littered with half-finished, publicly funded infrastructure and housing projects. The government funds needed to complete them often disappear. As government expanded under Chavez, corruption became institutionalized. Chavez doubled the size of the public sector, many of whose 2.4 million[7] employees have no real job other than to work to keep the regime in power. A World Economic Forum (WEF) survey found little trust among businesses, politicians, the judicial system, and the police in Venezuela.[8] The tragic result is that Venezuela is now one of the most dangerous countries of the world. According to the Venezuelan Violence Observatory, in 2012 nearly 22,000 people were murdered.[9] An inefficient and non-transparent regulatory environment that is hostile to private foreign direct investment obstructs long-term development and hampers entrepreneurial growth. The investment regime is tightly controlled by the state and favors investors from China, Russia, Iran, and other democracy-challenged countries.[10] Investor protection in Venezuela is ranked at 140 out of 144 countries, according to the WEF report.[11] In 1998, before Chavez took power, there were more than 14,000 private industrial companies in Venezuela; in 2011, after 13 years of extensive nationalizations and expropriations, only about 9,000 remained.[12] The Chavez government did make one product very inexpensive for Venezuelans: Generous energy subsidies mean a car can be filled up with 15 gallons of gasoline for less than one U.S. dollar.[13] Although that might buy short-term political advantage for the Chavista government, in the long term these energy subsidies are very destructive to future economic growth, since Venezuelan companies have a distorted cost base and thus cannot compete globally. Operations of the state oil company, PDVSA, have also deteriorated significantly under Chavez. When he took office, PDVSA was producing 3.5 million barrels per day (bbl/d); today, it is down to 2.5 bbl/d.[14] Social Programs and Inequality Ironically, Chavez’s years in power did not result in much reduction of poverty and inequality. Although some measures of income inequality (such as the Gini coefficient) did improve under Chavez,[15] according to a recently published research paper by Darryl McLeod and Nora Lustig[16] that used data for 18 Latin American countries, market democracies such as Chile and Brazil were far more successful at reducing inequality and poverty than the populist Chavista regimes. Despite its vast oil wealth, Venezuela’s economic growth performance has also been poor. Between 1999 and 2012, average annual per capita growth was just 1.1 percent, while in the top four Latin American countries (Panama, Peru, the Dominican Republic, and Chile) the rate was 3.6 percent.[17] Not surprisingly, the rate of private investment in Venezuela—under 5 percent—is also one of the lowest in the region. In Peru and Chile, it is almost 20 percent.[18] U.S. Policy Toward the New Maduro Government Washington should insist on strict conditionality before sending a new U.S. ambassador to Caracas or assenting to any new lending to Venezuela by international financial institutions until the new government: Produces a comprehensive plan for reform that reduces the size of the public sector, reverses nationalizations and expropriations of land and enterprises with just compensation to owners, restores the independence of the central bank and judicial institutions, reforms the electoral system, and submits to an internationally supervised audit of the government’s books during the Chavez years; Takes steps to privatize PDVSA to bring in international equity partners with the expertise and financial capacity to restore PDVSA to the high level of professional operational and managerial expertise for which it was widely respected prior to 1999; Immediately stops all subsidies to Cuba and terminates wasteful and economically destabilizing subsidy programs such as PetroCaribe and ALBA; Ceases cooperation with international state sponsors of terrorism (such as Iran) and joins the international community’s cooperative efforts in the fight against transnational crime, narco-trafficking, and terrorism; and Restores freedom of the press and access to information for all Venezuelans. Use U.S. Leverage The foundations of economic freedom in Venezuela were severely weakened during the 14-year misrule by Chavez. Although Chavez’s death may aggravate instability and further polarize Venezuela, it need not be that way. Venezuela is in need of immediate and sweeping reforms, but these changes will take time, effort, determination, and, above all, dedicated reformers in Venezuela. The Obama Administration should step into the breach with active and forward-looking policies to bring Venezuela back into the globalized economic system.
|
Roberts 13 (James Roberts, master’s degree in international and development economics from Yale University and also holds a master of business administration from the University of Pittsburgh, Research Fellow For Economic Freedom and Growth, Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE), and Sergio Daga, Visiting Senior Policy Analyst, Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE) “Venezuela: U.S. Should Push President Maduro Toward Economic Freedom,” Issue Brief #3911, 4-15-13)
|
Nicolás Maduro, appears to have defeated Governor Henrique Capriles by a narrow margin in a contentious and hard-fought special election Maduro—assuming his victory is confirmed—may ultimately be forced to pursue more moderate policies and seek help from the U.S. to restore stability The Obama Administration and Congress should exploit this opening by using U.S. leverage to push Venezuela to turn from Chavez’s failed experiment in oil-cursed[1] “21st-century socialism” toward economic freedom The foundations of economic freedom in Venezuela have crumbled Today, however, after 14 years of Chavez’s soft authoritarian populism, Venezuela merits a score of just 36 points. Venezuela’s dismal economic freedom score is reflected in statistics that translate into real-time hardship for Venezuelans Financial disequilibrium in Venezuela is the result of a sharply widening fiscal deficit that reached almost 15 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) last year These problems were aggravated by Chavez’s foreign adventurism political interference in Venezuela’s judicial system has become routine, and corruption is rampant. Chavez doubled the size of the public sector, many of whose 2.4 million[7] employees have no real job other than to work to keep the regime in power An inefficient and non-transparent regulatory environment that is hostile to private foreign direct investment obstructs long-term development and hampers entrepreneurial growth Investor protection in Venezuela is ranked at 140 out of 144 countries, according to the WEF report. The Chavez government did make one product very inexpensive for Venezuelans Operations of the state oil company, PDVSA, have also deteriorated significantly under Chavez Chavez’s years in power did not result in much reduction of poverty and inequality. market democracies such as Chile and Brazil were far more successful at reducing inequality and poverty than the populist Chavista regimes Venezuela’s economic growth performance has also been poor the rate of private investment in Venezuela—under 5 percent—is also one of the lowest in the region Washington should insist on strict conditionality before sending a new U.S. ambassador to Caracas or assenting to any new lending to Venezuela by international financial institutions until the new government Produces a comprehensive plan for reform that reduces the size of the public sector reverses nationalizations and expropriations of land and enterprises with just compensation to owners, restores the independence of the central bank and judicial institutions, Takes steps to privatize PDVSA to bring in international equity partners with the expertise and financial capacity to restore PDVSA Ceases cooperation with international state sponsors of terrorism The foundations of economic freedom in Venezuela were severely weakened during the 14-year misrule by Chavez Venezuela is in need of immediate and sweeping reforms, but these changes will take time, effort, determination, and, above all, dedicated reformers in Venezuela The Obama Administration should step into the breach with active and forward-looking policies to bring Venezuela back into the globalized economic system.
|
Plan solves – Now is the key time to use leverage to change internal Venezuelan policy, only more economic freedom can address the problems in Venezuela
| 7,777 | 152 | 3,198 | 1,167 | 26 | 467 | 0.022279 | 0.400171 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,275 |
Venezuela on Sunday made a rare diplomatic overture to the United States, suggesting it could be time for better ties. “We are going to remain open to normalizing relations with the United States,” Foreign Minister Elias Jaua said on Televen television Sunday. “The first thing would be to resume diplomatic representation at the highest level,” he said. The country’s late socialist president Hugo Chavez was a staunch critic of the United States, and his successor Nicolas Maduro is still feeling out its footing with Washington. Chavez for more than 14 years unleashed verbal broadsides on US leaders before his death in March. The United States and Venezuela since 2010 have not even had ambassadors in their embassies in their respective capitals. Maduro, who earlier said his government would like to increase dialogue with the United States, has selected lawmaker Calixto Ortega as its potential US envoy. US President Barack Obama however has not congratulated Maduro for his controversial, razor-thin April 14 election, as Maduro’s opposition rival Henrique Capriles presses claims that the Venezuelan presidential election was marred by irregularities. Maduro meanwhile slammed Obama “the top leader of devils” after he commented on post-election unrest in Venezuela.
|
AFP 13 (Agence France Presse, “Venezuela’s new government ‘open’ to resuming U.S. diplomatic relations,” 5-19-13, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/19/venezuelas-new-government-open-to-resuming-u-s-diplomatic-relations/)
|
Venezuela on Sunday made a rare diplomatic overture to the United States, suggesting it could be time for better ties We are going to remain open to normalizing relations with the United States The first thing would be to resume diplomatic representation at the highest le and his successor Nicolas Maduro is still feeling out its footing with Washington The United States and Venezuela since 2010 have not even had ambassadors in their embassies in their respective capitals Maduro, who earlier said his government would like to increase dialogue with the United States, has selected lawmaker Calixto Ortega as its potential US envoy. US President Barack Obama however has not congratulated Maduro for his controversial, Maduro meanwhile slammed Obama “the top leader of devils” after he commented on post-election unrest in Venezuela
|
Venezuela is willing to work with the United States, High-Level diplomatic exchanges are crucial to overall cooperation
| 1,277 | 119 | 835 | 196 | 17 | 132 | 0.086735 | 0.673469 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,276 |
The recent election in Venezuela offers an opportunity to improve the US-Venezuela bilateral relationship. On Oc. 7th, President Hugo Chavez was reelected to a new six-year term by a nine point margin. I — along with hundreds of other international witnesses — was duly impressed with the transparency of the electoral process and the enthusiasm of Venezuelans for democracy. Eighty-one percent percent of registered voters went to the polls! This turnout was remarkable when compared to the United States and other “mature” democracies. Whether or not one agrees with Chávez’s policies, there can be no doubt that he won these elections fairly. There are so many checks and balances in the electoral system in Venezuela that there is virtually no room for fraud. The voter registry, the voting machines, the electronic ballot and the data transmission system are all fully audited by representatives of all the different political parties and independent observers. Former President Jimmy Carter recently called the Venezuelan voting system “the best in the world.” He noted that the voting machines print out a paper receipt that voters can look at to verify that their selection was recorded correctly, and poll workers check those receipts against the electronic tally. I was particularly struck by the atmosphere of peacefulness and mutual respect in the voting centers, where monitors from both pro-government and opposition groups were present. In contrast with elections past, the two main candidates manifested a similar attitude. Once the election authorities announced the results, opposition candidate Henrique Capriles rapidly conceded defeat, and he quickly scolded “radical” opposition supporters who insisted on alleging that fraud had taken place, despite no evidence to support their claims. Chávez also behaved gracefully, calling Capriles the following day to express his willingness to work together to mitigate the polarization that divided Venezuelans. Most of Venezuela’s political leadership — following a tumultuous power struggle, during which a coup d’Etat and violent protests occurred — appear to have accepted to follow the democratic rulebook and be more tolerant of one another. This is an important step forward, and the United States should encourage Venezuelans to continue seeking common ground, rather than support one group over another, as has at times been the case in recent years. Most importantly, over 55 percent of Venezuelan voters cast their vote in favor of Chávez. The United States should respect this outcome and seek to improve relations in areas where we can agree. Commercial relations between our two countries have generally been excellent, despite political differences, and both countries would greatly benefit from their expansion. Venezuela will no doubt continue to play a central role in the region’s new multilateral cooperation and consultation mechanisms, such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Community of Central American and Caribbean States (CELAC). The United States, which has increasingly found itself isolated in regional forums, would do well to find ways to work with these new groups on important issues such as drug trafficking and energy cooperation. Improved relations with Venezuela would greatly facilitate this task. Our government will certainly have important differences with Venezuela, particularly in the area of international relations. But we can agree to disagree, as we do with many other partners throughout the world. I am convinced that the Venezuelan government is prepared to respond favorably to such an initiative.
|
Delahunt 12 --- chairman of the Venezuela-US Friendship Group and retired U.S. Representative (10/30/2012, William, “A new role for the US and Venezuela,” http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/10/30/podium-venezuela/EJ6Jd2yRKfaJ76HYrXb4WJ/story.html)
|
The election in Venezuela offers an opportunity to improve the US-Venezuela bilateral relationship The U S should seek to improve relations in areas where we can agree. Commercial relations between our two countries have generally been excellent, despite political differences, and both countries would greatly benefit from their expansion. Venezuela will no doubt continue to play a central role in the region’s new multilateral cooperation and consultation mechanisms, such as the Union of South American Nations and the Community of Central American and Caribbean States The U S which has increasingly found itself isolated in regional forums, would do well to find ways to work with these new groups on important issues such as drug trafficking and energy cooperation. Improved relations with Venezuela would greatly facilitate this task. Our government will certainly have important differences with Venezuela, particularly in the area of international relations. But we can agree to disagree I am convinced that the Venezuelan government is prepared to respond favorably to such an initiative.
|
Plan will boost U.S. standing in important Latin American energy forums
| 3,636 | 71 | 1,099 | 556 | 11 | 166 | 0.019784 | 0.298561 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,277 |
To expand the hemisphere’s energy capacity, massive infrastructure investments will be required. Major investments in oil production (especially deep offshore), refining, and distribution will be needed to achieve the region’s potential. Developing the Tupi project in Brazil alone will cost $70–240 billion. Liquefied natural gas will become an important source of energy, but not before major investments are made in infrastructure to support liquefaction, regasification, transport, and security. U.S. and Canadian electricity networks, which are already highly integrated, can be further integrated with Mexico’s. Mexico also plans to connect its grid to those of Guatemala and Belize, eventually creating an integrated power market in Central America. Power integration in South America will demand even larger investments in generation, transmission, and distribution. Finally, reliance on nuclear power may grow because it is carbon free and does not require fossil fuel imports. However, efforts to expand energy capacity and integrate hemispheric energy markets face a variety of obstacles. Energy nationalism has led to disruptive disputes over pricing and ownership. Tensions and mistrust in South America have hindered regional cooperation and investment, particularly on natural gas. The security of the energy infrastructure, especially pipelines, remains a concern in Mexico and parts of South America. Gas, oil, and electricity subsidies distort patterns of production and consumption, and they are triggering protectionist behavior elsewhere. Technology on renewables remains underdeveloped, and research in this area can be better centralized and disseminated. Overcoming these obstacles will require high levels of cooperation among hemispheric partners. In addition to developing carbon-neutral sources of energy, the Western Hemisphere has other roles to play in combating climate change. The LAC region currently accounts for about 5 percent of annual global carbon emissions, and emissions per capita are still relatively low compared with other regions. However, minimizing the LAC region’s future carbon footprint will require new policies. Also, deforestation globally accounts for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The Amazon River Basin contains one of the world’s three most important rainforests, whose protection can therefore very significantly contribute to combating climate change. Brazil is pioneering the use of information technology to lessen deforestation in the Amazon.
|
Zedillo et al 08 Commission Co-Chair for the Brookings Institute Report on the Partnership for the Americas and former President of Mexico [Ernesto Zedillo, Thomas R. Pickering, etc, Rethinking U.S.–Latin American Relations A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World. Report of the Partnership for the Americas Commission, The Brookings Institution, November 2008, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2008/11/24%20latin%20america%20partnership/1124_latin_america_partnership.PDF]
|
To expand the hemisphere’s energy capacity, massive infrastructure investments will be required However, efforts to expand energy capacity and integrate hemispheric energy markets face a variety of obstacles Energy nationalism has led to disruptive disputes over pricing and ownership. Tensions and mistrust in South America have hindered regional cooperation and investment, particularly on natural gas. The security of the energy infrastructure remains a concern Technology on renewables remains underdeveloped, and research in this area can be better centralized and disseminated Overcoming these obstacles will require high levels of cooperation among hemispheric partners In addition to developing carbon-neutral sources of energy, the Western Hemisphere has other roles to play in combating climate change. The LAC region currently accounts for about 5 percent of annual global carbon emissions minimizing the LAC region’s future carbon footprint will require new policies deforestation globally accounts for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The Amazon River Basin contains one of the world’s three most important rainforests, whose protection can therefore very significantly contribute to combating climate change. Brazil is pioneering the use of information technology to lessen deforestation in the Amazon.
|
US-Latin American Energy policy dialogue is key to stop Amazon Deforestation
| 2,516 | 77 | 1,323 | 354 | 11 | 185 | 0.031073 | 0.522599 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,278 |
There is real danger that Islamic extremist groups such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah could form alliances with wealthy and powerful Latin American drug lords to launch new terrorist attacks, U.S. officials said Wednesday. Extremist group operatives have already been identified in several Latin American countries, mostly involved in fundraising and finding logistical support. But Charles Allen, chief of intelligence analysis at the Homeland Security Department, said they could use well-established smuggling routes and drug profits to bring people or even weapons of mass destruction to the U.S. “The presence of these people in the region leaves open the possibility that they will attempt to attack the United States,” said Allen, a veteran CIA analyst. “The threats in this hemisphere are real. We cannot ignore them.” Much as the Taliban tapped Afghanistan’s heroin for money, U.S. officials say the vast profits available from Latin American cocaine could provide al-Qaida and others with a ready source of income. The rebel group known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, has long used drug money to pay for weapons, supplies and operations — and is also designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. “We’ve got a hybrid that has developed right before our eyes,” Braun said. Latin America’s drug kingpins already have well-established methods of smuggling, laundering money, obtaining false documents, providing safe havens and obtaining illicit weapons, all of which would be attractive to terrorists who are facing new pressures in the Middle East and elsewhere.
|
NTA 8 (National Terror Alert, “U.S. Officials Worry Terrorists Could Align With Drug Cartels,” 10-9, http://www.nationalterroralert.com/2008/10/09/us-officials-worry-terrorists-could-align-with-drug-cartels/)
|
There is real danger that Islamic extremist groups such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah could form alliances with wealthy and powerful Latin American drug lords to launch new terrorist attacks Extremist group operatives have already been identified in several Latin American countries they could use well-established smuggling routes and drug profits to bring people or even weapons of mass destruction to the U.S The presence of these people in the region leaves open the possibility that they will attempt to attack the United States The threats in this hemisphere are real. We cannot ignore them U.S. officials say the vast profits available from Latin American cocaine could provide al-Qaida and others with a ready source of income FARC, has long used drug money to pay for weapons, supplies and operations Latin America’s drug kingpins already have well-established methods of smuggling, laundering money, obtaining false documents, providing safe havens and obtaining illicit weapons, all of which would be attractive to terrorists who are facing new pressures in the Middle East and elsewhere
|
Narco-Terrorism fueled by FARC causes WMD use in the Americas
| 1,597 | 61 | 1,094 | 247 | 10 | 170 | 0.040486 | 0.688259 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,279 |
The U.S. government has finally decided to take on Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, but probably in the worst possible way: toothless sanctions that barely scathe the caudillo. Instead, these sanctions give him a treasure trove of ammunition to undermine U.S. policies and consolidate his own power. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included Petróleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), parent company of large American refiner and gasoline retailer CITGO, in a list of seven companies sanctioned last month for supporting Iran’s energy sector. PDVSA “delivered at least two cargoes of reformate to Iran between December 2010 and March 2011, worth approximately $50 million,” the statement says. Reformate is blended with gasoline to improve its quality. The sanctions bar PDVSA from access to U.S. government contracts, financing through the U.S. Export-Import Bank and export licenses. But the sanctions don’t apply to PDVSA subsidiaries (e.g. CITGO) and don’t “prohibit the export of crude oil to the United States.” Chávez could not hide his glee on Twitter on May 24: “Sanctions … imposed by the imperialist gringo government? Welcome Mr. Obama! The real impact of the new gringo aggression is potentiating the patriotic and nationalist morale of Venezuela.” Chávez is right to thank Obama. Ahead of Venezuela’s presidential elections next year – perhaps the best chance for a democratic transition of power – the administration has handed its biggest antagonist in the hemisphere an ideological missile to rally support against the U.S. A case in point: “The revolutionary government calls on all the Venezuelan people, laborers and especially the oil workers, to stay alert and mobilized in defence of our PDVSA and the sacred sovereignty of the homeland,” says a statement from the Venezuelan Foreign Affairs Ministry. Yet the list of accusations runs deep. For example, the U.S. State Department has repeatedly accused Venezuelan officials of aiding FARC in Colombia; a Spanish court is investigating Venezuelan government support of the Basque terrorist group ETA and U.S. authorities are investigating reports that Chávez’s friendly ties to Iran are translating into support for Hezbollah and Hamas. Ever since Washington’s pressure on Caracas backfired at the beginning of George W. Bush’s first administration, both the Bush and Obama administrations have stuck to ignoring Latin tongue-lashing. Official reactions to Chávez’s provocations are simply useless and, in fact, to his benefit. Sadly, this is the best strategy the U.S. has come up with thus far. Also of concern, PDVSA is one of the world’s largest energy companies. It is and will remain an influential player in global energy matters. For instance, the U.S. imports between 9 and 10 percent of its oil from Venezuela. Full sanctions would require replacing heavy oil supplies, for which much of the U.S. oil refining infrastructure on the Gulf Coast is geared. Additionally, oil prices could rise as a result, an unwelcome scenario in a still wobbly recovery. There would also be geopolitical consequences, as Venezuela hosts numerous influential investors (including many Americans). Considering all of these points, it is all the more baffling that the administration is imposing these sanctions. A senior administration official quoted in a press briefing that followed the unexpected announcement said, “These sanctions send a strong signal to companies around the world about the risks of dealing with Iran. So it serves as a signal, a deterrent, as much as it does as having a near-term, practical impact.” Except they don’t. Iran will continue to provision itself with gasoline and additives, Chávez will be emboldened without actually enduring any significant sanctions and both governments will benefit economically when oil prices increase if the standoff escalates. Now it could be that the decision to include PDVSA on the list is a policy decision for other headaches. There is no doubt that the U.S. wants to target Iran’s lack of refining supply, one of its weaknesses. But $50 million worth of gasoline additive supply is not a game changer for Iran, and Venezuela’s efforts to supply Iran with refined products are inconsequential. Therefore, President Obama might have fallen into a trap. Or it could be that the administration is trying to quell criticism of its policies toward Venezuela. Whatever the case, these sanctions are unwise. They don’t dent Iran’s refined product supply. They are not “a strong signal” to Venezuela, nor do they weaken Chávez ahead of elections. And they could ultimately result in higher oil prices, threatening U.S. economic recovery.
|
Economides 11 (Dr. Michael Economides, Contributor for Forbes, Editor-in-Chief of Energy Tribune, PhD petroleum engineer, professor at the Cullen College of Engineering, at the University of Houston, “Silly Sanctions Against Venezuela Boost Hugo Chavez,” 6-13-11, http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/06/13/silly-sanctions-against-venezuela-boost-hugo-chavez/
|
The U.S. government has finally decided to take on Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, but probably in the worst possible way: toothless sanctions that barely scathe the caudillo these sanctions give him a treasure trove of ammunition to undermine U.S. policies and consolidate his own power PDVSA “delivered at least two cargoes of reformate to Iran between December 2010 and March 2011, worth approximately $50 million The sanctions bar PDVSA from access to U.S. government contracts, financing through the U.S. Export-Import Bank and export licenses Chávez could not hide his glee on Twitter on May 24: “Sanctions … imposed by the imperialist gringo government The real impact of the new gringo aggression is potentiating the patriotic and nationalist morale of Venezuela perhaps the best chance for a democratic transition of power – the administration has handed its biggest antagonist in the hemisphere an ideological missile to rally support against the U.S The revolutionary government calls on all the Venezuelan people, laborers and especially the oil workers, to stay alert and mobilized in defence of our PDVSA and the sacred sovereignty of the homeland,” says a statement from the Venezuelan Foreign Affairs Ministry. PDVSA is one of the world’s largest energy companies. It is and will remain an influential player in global energy matters Additionally, oil prices could rise as a result, an unwelcome scenario in a still wobbly recovery. geopolitical consequences, as Venezuela hosts numerous influential investors (including many Americans) President Obama might have fallen into a trap these sanctions are unwise They are not “a strong signal” to Venezuela, nor do they weaken Chávez ahead of elections. And they could ultimately result in higher oil prices, threatening U.S. economic recovery.
|
Sanctions whip up nationalistic fervor in Venezuela – undermining US credibility, increasing oil prices and derailing the economic recovery, offering to negotiate is crucial to a sustainable solution
| 4,654 | 199 | 1,809 | 729 | 28 | 280 | 0.038409 | 0.384088 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,280 |
In the six years leading up to the global recession of 2009-2010, oil prices rose dramatically, from an annual average of roughly US$26 a barrel in 2002 to nearly US$100 a barrel in 2008. In the summer of 2008, prices briefly spiked to nearly US$150 per barrel before receding as the recession deepened. As oil prices surged upward in 2008, business analysts became increasingly worried about the impact of rising oil prices on trade. Rubin and Tal (2008) of CIBC World Markets wrote a thought-provoking article that rising oil prices will lead to significant hikes in international transportation costs and therefore to a major slowdown in the growth of world trade – reversing globalization. They reported that hand in hand with the oil price hikes, the cost to ship a standard 40-foot container from Shanghai to the US Eastern seaboard rose from US$3,000 in 2000 to US$8,000 in 2008. At such transport prices, they argued, companies have started to rethink the establishment of far-flung global supply networks, by seeking supplies from domestic and regional markets closer to home. Following on the heels of Rubin and Tal (2008), Jen and Bindelli (2008) of Morgan Stanley Research predicted that East Asia’s and especially China’s export model would be particularly affected by rising oil prices. This is because trade within East Asia is much more vertically specialized than for other regions. Many of the finished goods that China exports to America and Europe are made from components imported from Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Since these regional production networks require components to be shipped multiple times, affordable transport costs are an essential ingredient for their maintenance.
|
Gangnes 11 (Byron S. Gangnes Department of Economics, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA and Yokohama National University, Yokohama, Japan Alyson C. Ma School of Business Administration, University of San Diego, San Diego, California, USA, and Ari Van Assche Department of International Business, HEC Montre´al, Montre´al, Canada and LICOS Centre of Institutions and Economic Performance, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, “China’s exports in a world of increasing oil prices,” Multinational Business Review19.2, 2011, 133-151)
|
In the six years leading up to the global recession of 2009-2010, oil prices rose dramatically, from an annual average of roughly US$26 a barrel in 2002 to nearly US$100 a barrel in 2008 As oil prices surged upward in 2008, business analysts became increasingly worried about the impact of rising oil prices on trade. that rising oil prices will lead to significant hikes in international transportation costs and therefore to a major slowdown in the growth of world trade – reversing globalization mpanies have started to rethink the establishment of far-flung global supply networks, by seeking supplies from domestic and regional markets closer to home China’s export model would be particularly affected by rising oil prices trade within East Asia is much more vertically specialized than for other regions. Many of the finished goods that China exports to America and Europe are made from components imported from Taiwan affordable transport costs are an essential ingredient for their maintenance.
|
High Oil Prices devastate China’s export potential
| 1,701 | 50 | 1,000 | 273 | 7 | 159 | 0.025641 | 0.582418 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,281 |
Since the early 1990s, China has integrated into world trade at an astounding pace. Chinese exports more than quintupled between 1992 and 2007, growing faster than the national economy. The functioning of China's economy has been radically transformed, moving from an isolated position with exports of less than 10% of GDP in 1980 to a highly-integrated economy, with an export ratio of more than 37% in 2007. This process has been accompanied by a no less impressive diversification of China's trade, as its manufactured exports pervaded all sectors of world trade, from low-technology textiles to high-tech electronics and computers. A number of aspects of this trade integration have however puzzled economists. One is the rapid upgrading of China's exports: economists (and world consumers) have noticed the impressively broad range of China's export products since the mid-nineties, and in particular, the ability of Chinese producers to export capital- and skill-intensive products, high-technology products, and in general products that are usually considered as belonging to the area of specialization of more developed countries. Rodrik (2006) notes that China is an outlier regarding the overall sophistication of its exports: according to the sophistication index of Hausmann et al. (2007), which estimates the average “income level of a country's exports”, China's export bundle is similar to that of a country with a level of income per-capita three times larger than China. Using an alternative indicator, Schott (2008) also finds that China's export bundle is increasingly overlapping with that of the world's most-developed economies, and that this overlap cannot be entirely explained by factor endowments.
|
Prasad 08- Tolani Senior Professor of Trade Policy, Cornell University, United States (Eswar S. PRASAD, May 28th 2008, Is the Chinese growth miracle built to last?, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043951X08000321#)
|
Chinese exports more than quintupled between 1992 and 2007, growing faster than the national economy. The functioning of China's economy has been radically transformed, moving from an isolated position with exports of less than 10% of GDP in 1980 to a highly-integrated economy, with an export ratio of more than 37% in 2007. as its manufactured exports pervaded all sectors of world trade, from low-technology textiles to high-tech electronics and computers One is the rapid upgrading of China's exports: economists (and world consumers) have noticed the impressively broad range of China's export products since the mid-nineties, and in particular, the ability of Chinese producers to export capital- and skill-intensive products, high-technology products, and in general products that are usually considered as belonging to the area of specialization of more developed countries. China's export bundle is similar to that of a country with a level of income per-capita three times larger than China.
|
Chinese exports key to their economy
| 1,721 | 36 | 1,001 | 260 | 6 | 152 | 0.023077 | 0.584615 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,282 |
After over a decade in power, Hugo Chavez is now dead, providing U.S. policy makers an opening to mend fences and steer Venezuela’s next president towards the center. With smart policy and a light touch, the United States can help Venezuela’s next president lead his country out of the mess that Chavez built. Chavez won the presidency in 1999 on a promise to “sow” the oil wealth of Venezuela into its social program. Bolstered by record high oil prices, Chavez spent billions on such programs. While millions of Venezuelans were able to obtain healthcare and an education, the poorly designed programs left little money to reinvest in oil exploration; output in Venezuela declined threatening the longevity of all Chavez’s initiatives. Meanwhile, Chavez became an increasingly authoritarian leader, consolidating power in the executive. He blacklisted opposition figures, altered the constitution and unevenly enforced laws for personal benefit. By creating a steeply slanted playing field, Chavez was able to retain power. Venezuela’s next president will have to decide whether to reverse these trends, or continue the slide to outright authoritarianism. The United States can and should influence this decision. The United States must support the democratic process and engage the likely winner of April’s election, Chavez’s chosen successor, Nicolás Maduro. He will have a real opportunity to put Venezuela back on the path to a free-market democracy. The next president will face an extremely politicized Supreme Court and military and reforms are likely more palatable if made by Maduro. Changes to apportionment, food subsidies or tax rates coming from Enrique Capriles (the opposition candidate) could spark a legal challenge from the supreme court; or worse, opposition from the military. What should the U.S. role be? It must work with its Latin American allies in the region, Chile, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico to gently pressure Maduro into making the types of institutional and economic changes necessary for Venezuela to prosper. Failure to do so could lead to the reemergence of authoritarianism in Latin America, instability in world oil markets and serious regional security repercussions. Chavez was infamous for his anti-American tirades. George W. Bush’s poor global standing gave Chavez an easy target. With a more positive global image, the most important step President Obama can take is to normalize relations with Cuba. As Venezuela’s closest ally, Cuba has remained a persistent problem in U.S.-Latin American relations. By normalizing relations, Obama would take a huge step in reducing anti-Americanism in Venezuela. Simultaneously, Obama would ingratiate himself to the rest of the region by ending the dated embargo. Perhaps most importantly, eliminating this issue would give Venezuela’s next president the political cover necessary to mend relations with the United States. The U.S. should push for economic reform with the help of Brazil which seeks a greater role in international and regional politics. Former Brazilian President Lula da Silva has close ties to Venezuela, and touting the recent successes of his center-left government in Brazil could help persuade Maduro to moderate his government. Brazil has made huge societal gains without suffering the kind of economic setbacks seen in Venezuela. Friendly cajoling, along with the promise of closer economic ties could help lead Maduro onto a path of economic reform necessary to extend certain “Chavista” social programs. Colombia, Brazil and the U.S. also have a shared interest in improving Venezuelan security. Under Chavez, Venezuela became on the most violent countries in Latin America, as drug related crimes skyrocketed. Violence is the number one concern of Venezuelans, and significant reductions would be a major political victory for whoever is in power. Brazil and Colombia together should pressure Venezuela to accept sorely needed D.E.A assistance with the tacit acceptance of modest political reforms, most importantly freer press. The death of Chavez is a critical juncture in U.S.-Latin American relations and it is important the United States not miss this opportunity. Having a stable trustworthy Venezuela would allow the United States to continue to draw down operations in the ever-volatile Middle East, fight narcotrafficking and expand trade. Careful, well thought-out overtures and policy changes will help quell lingering anti-Americanism while also improving regional stability. Ending the Cuban embargo would provide absolute economic gain for all parties, while providing cover for Maduro to thaw relations with the United States and receive aid to stop uncontrollable violence. Strategic engagement with regional allies could help spur the economic and institutional reforms necessary for Venezuela to prosper moving forward. The situation in Venezuela could be potentially destabilizing to the region. The United must act deliberately to make Hugo Chavez’s passing an unmitigated positive development.
|
Pagano 13 (James, contributing writer to the Truman Doctrine, “Moving Venezuela to the Center,” 3-18-13, http://trumanproject.org/doctrine-blog/moving-venezuela-to-the-center/)
|
Hugo Chavez is now dead, providing U.S. policy makers an opening to mend fences and steer Venezuela’s next president towards the center Bolstered by record high oil prices, Chavez spent billions on such programs output in Venezuela declined threatening the longevity of all Chavez’s initiatives. Chavez became an increasingly authoritarian leader, consolidating power in the executive Venezuela’s next president will have to decide whether to reverse these trends, or continue the slide to outright authoritarianism. The United States can and should influence this decision The United States must support the democratic process and engage the likely winner of April’s election, Chavez’s chosen successor, Nicolás Maduro Changes to apportionment, food subsidies or tax rates coming from Enrique Capriles (the opposition candidate) could spark a legal challenge from the supreme court What should the U.S. role be? It must work with its Latin American allies in the region, Chile, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico to gently pressure Maduro into making the types of institutional and economic changes necessary for Venezuela to prosper. The U.S. should push for economic reform with the help of Brazil which seeks a greater role in international and regional politics. and touting the recent successes of his center-left government in Brazil could help persuade Maduro to moderate his government Friendly cajoling, along with the promise of closer economic ties could help lead Maduro onto a path of economic reform necessary to extend certain “Chavista” social programs. Colombia, Brazil and the U.S. also have a shared interest in improving Venezuelan security. Under Chavez, Venezuela became on the most violent countries in Latin America, as drug related crimes skyrocketed Violence is the number one concern of Venezuelans, and significant reductions would be a major political victory for whoever is in power The death of Chavez is a critical juncture in U.S.-Latin American relations and it is important the United States not miss this opportunity. Having a stable trustworthy Venezuela would allow the United States to continue to draw down operations in the ever-volatile Middle East, fight narcotrafficking and expand trade policy changes will help quell lingering anti-Americanism while also improving regional stability economic gain for all parties while providing cover for Maduro to thaw relations with the United States Strategic engagement could help spur the economic and institutional reforms necessary for Venezuela to prosper moving forward The situation in Venezuela could be potentially destabilizing to the region.
|
Advantage _____: Economic Reforms
| 5,031 | 33 | 2,634 | 760 | 4 | 396 | 0.005263 | 0.521053 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,283 |
The Issue of State Failure. - President Chávez also understands that the process leading to state failure is the most dangerous long-term 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 conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can host “evil” networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, 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, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict.62 Peru’s 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.” Chávez 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 regime’s credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. Chávez’s 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. Virtually anyone 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 people’s democracies. In connection with the creation of new people’s democracies, one can rest assured that Chávez 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 people’s democracies persist, the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65
|
Manwaring 05 (Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel and an Adjunct Professor of International Politics at Dickinson College, VENEZUELA’S HUGO CHÁVEZ, BOLIVARIAN SOCIALISM, AND ASYMMETRIC WARFARE, October 2005, pg. PUB628.pdf)
|
President Chávez also understands that the process leading to state failure is the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing the global community today failing and failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows 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 trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez 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 Chávez’s intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments’ a . Virtually anyone 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. Chávez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given opportunity
|
Venezuelan instability spills over causing global problems
| 3,453 | 58 | 1,515 | 497 | 7 | 219 | 0.014085 | 0.440644 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,284 |
The United States and Latin America have pursued trade liberalization through multilateral, regional, and bilateral negotiations, with mixed results. In part this reflects divergent priorities that have been difficult to fully reconcile. For many Latin American countries, reducing barriers to agricultural trade is top of the list for a successful agreement. This goal includes reducing market access barriers (peak tariffs and tariff rate quotas—TRQs), domestic U.S. subsidies, and nontariff barriers (administrative rules, antidumping provisions). Although there are many other issues, agriculture policy has played a big part in slowing progress in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Development Round and halting the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).7 The United States has made clear its unwillingness to address most agricultural and antidumping issues in a regional agreement like the FTAA to preserve its bargaining leverage in the WTO against other subsidizing countries such as the European Union and Japan. Latin American counties have their own sensitive issues and a particular concern in some countries for easing its subsistence agricultural sectors slowly toward trade liberalization. In addition to market access, the United States has focused its trade negotiating goals on areas where it is most competitive such as services trade (e.g., financial, tourism, technology, professional); intellectual property rights (IPR); government procurement; and investment. Not surprisingly, these are areas where many Latin American countries are more reluctant to negotiate. Hence, there is a near reversal of priorities that has slowed the progress of comprehensive agreements at the multilateral and regional levels, reflecting inherent differences between many developed and developing countries. The result in the Western Hemisphere has been the proliferation of reciprocal bilateral and plurilateral agreements. The United States has implemented FTAs with Mexico, Central America, the Dominican Republic, Chile, and Peru, but Congress has not acted on the proposed FTAs with Panama or Colombia, despite changes agreed to even after the formal negotiations concluded. Currently, congressional reticence awaits further commitments in areas that fall outside the negotiated text of the FTAs, such as tax law in Panama and human rights improvements in Colombia, raising questions for some over the ability of the United States to consummate trade negotiations.8 The prospects are limited at best for exploring reciprocal FTAs with Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Brazil, as the major regional economy not in a unilateral preferential arrangement with the United States, has abandoned the FTAA model and moved ahead separately by adding associate members to Mercosur, supporting Venezuela’s accession to Mercosur as a full member, and leading in the formation of broader economic and political integration pacts in South America. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez has taken a decidedly more confrontational approach in establishing the Bolivarian Alternative to the Americas (ALBA), enticing Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Dominica, and Honduras to join with subsidized oil trade.9 Although these are neither deep nor comprehensive trade arrangements, they do signal a political will to consolidate regional bargaining interests in juxtaposition to the U.S.-designed FTAA. Three clear challenges emerge from this picture. First, Brazil and the United States have demonstrated a prolonged reluctance to move off their respective positions, which bodes poorly for resurrecting the FTAA.10 The addition of Venezuela and possibly other countries with less than sympathetic attitudes toward the United States as full Mercosur members could solidify this standoff. Nationalizations of key industries and other efforts to increase the role of the state in managing the economies of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador also do not augur well for broadening support for market-based trade solutions.
|
Hornbeck 11 (J. F. Hornbeck, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, “U.S.-Latin America Trade: Recent Trends and Policy Issues,” 2-8-11, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-840.pdf)
|
The United States and Latin America have pursued trade liberalization through multilateral, regional, and bilateral negotiations, with mixed results This goal includes reducing market access barriers (peak tariffs and tariff rate quotas—TRQs), domestic U.S. subsidies, and nontariff barriers (administrative rules, antidumping provisions , agriculture policy has played a big part in slowing progress in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Development Round and halting the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA Latin American counties have their own sensitive issues and a particular concern in some countries for easing its subsistence agricultural sectors slowly toward trade liberalization Not surprisingly, these are areas where many Latin American countries are more reluctant to negotiate. The result in the Western Hemisphere has been the proliferation of reciprocal bilateral and plurilateral agreements The prospects are limited at best for exploring reciprocal FTAs with Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Brazil has abandoned the FTAA model and moved ahead separately by adding associate members to Mercosur, supporting Venezuela’s accession to Mercosur as a full member, and leading in the formation of broader economic and political integration pacts in South America Chávez has taken a decidedly more confrontational approach in establishing the Bolivarian Alternative to the Americas (ALBA), enticing Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Dominica, and Honduras to join with subsidized oil trade they do signal a political will to consolidate regional bargaining interests in juxtaposition to the U.S.-designed FTAA. The addition of Venezuela and possibly other countries with less than sympathetic attitudes toward the United States as full Mercosur members could solidify this standoff. efforts to increase the role of the state in managing the economies of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador also do not augur well for broadening support for market-based trade solutions
|
US-Venezuela trade ties are key combat exclusionary trade agreements, and to pave the way for Hemispheric trade integration, necessary for full WTO realization
| 4,021 | 159 | 1,995 | 580 | 23 | 286 | 0.039655 | 0.493103 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,285 |
A Greater Role for the WTO? How pivotal should the WTO be in improving the global governance of food, energy and minerals? Each commodity market presents its own characteristics with different key players and specific regional and global organisations pursuing different, potentially conflicting, objectives. Enhancing transparency by providing reliable information on stocks and flows is critical to enable importing and exporting countries as well as investors to take early action and avoid panic moves. The WTO could provide greater transparency on export restrictions with tighter rules on early notifications and consultations involving all interested parties. Member states could also clarify the interpretation of relevant WTO disciplines, in particular with regard to the temporary application of export restrictions for the sake of preventing or relieving critical shortages of primary commodities deemed essential to exporting countries. It has further been suggested to seek a deal under which importing countries would commit to reduce tariff escalation on processed goods against binding commitment from exporting countries not to impose trade restrictions on primary commodity exports.[4] Concluding Remarks The Doha Round stalemate does not bode well for rapid advances on the options highlighted above. This should, however, not prevent progress on greater transparency and effective early consultations. For obvious reasons, previous multilateral trade negotiations focused on import protectionism. Today, the WTO should address export restrictions as a matter of priority. An effective multilateral trading system is expected to contribute to avoiding harmful panic moves when not justified by market fundamentals, as exemplified by the 2008 rice crisis. On the other hand, the WTO does and can further take into account the legitimate concerns of producer countries, allowing for restrictions deemed essential for national security or environmental protection. This should be part of a broader attempt to strengthen the global institutional architecture dealing with food and energy security. It requires considering a myriad of bilateral, regional and global arrangements ranging from informal, voluntary initiatives to systematic data exchange and oversight via the building and sharing of emergency stocks and the clarification of binding rules related to export restrictions. There is no one-size-fits-all solution: each commodity market has its own characteristics with different players and specific risks and vulnerabilities. Yet, the growing nexus between water, food and energy requires factoring the complex interactions between various commodity markets into the analysis with a view to identifying critical bottlenecks and devising early risk management strategies. Pragmatic multilateralism must contain the tendency to address resource scarcity through bilateral and exclusive deals.
|
Carbonnier 13 – Professor of Development Economics @ Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies [Gilles Carbonnier (Editor-in-chief of International Development Policy, President of the board of directors of CERAH, the Centre for Education and Research in Humanitarian Action, and founding member of CEP), “Resource Scarcity, Export Restrictions and the Multilateral Trading System,” | Council on Economic Policies, April 10, 2013, pg. http://www.cepweb.org/resource-scarcity-export-restrictions-and-the-multilateral-trading-system/
|
How pivotal should the WTO be in improving the global governance of food, energy and minerals Enhancing transparency by providing reliable info on stocks and flows is critical to enable importing and exporting countries as well as investors to take early action and avoid panic moves The WTO could provide greater transparency on export restrictions with tighter rules on early notifications and consultations An effective multilateral trading system is expected to contribute to avoiding harmful panic moves as exemplified by the 2008 rice crisis the WTO does and can further take into account the legitimate concerns of producer countries, allowing for restrictions deemed essential for national security or environmental protection. This should be part of a broader attempt to strengthen the global institutional architecture dealing with food and energy security the growing nexus between water, food and energy requires factoring the complex interactions between various commodity markets into the analysis with a view to identifying critical bottlenecks and devising early risk management strategies. Pragmatic multilateralism must contain the tendency to address resource scarcity through bilateral and exclusive deals.
|
WTO prevents resource constraints and crises
| 2,917 | 45 | 1,226 | 411 | 6 | 178 | 0.014599 | 0.43309 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,286 |
Despite assurances from government officials in Caracas that it will be business as usual after the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez last week, his passing will almost certainly lead to the start of political and social changes in that country. The only question is the time frame. Chavez's death and the emergence of a new presidential administration will surely have a significant impact on the global oil industry and price of oil, although perhaps on an even longer timeline. According to the BP Energy Review, Venezuela sits on the world's largest exploitable reserves of oil. Chavez's policies have led not only to no significant exploitation of those reserves but have actually directly led to a cut in the country's average daily oil output by one-third in the 14 years he served as president. In 1999, the country produced an average of 3.5 million barrels per day, while the current average output has dropped to 2.5 million barrels. With the right investments, the country may easily support average daily oil output of 5 million barrels and probably higher, according to industry estimates. There can be little doubt that as of last week, Venezuela has become the most important target location for foreign oil majors, especially US companies. Russian oil majors still have a small advantage, and senior executives from state-owned Rosneft and Gazprom will be eager to ensure good relations with the next administration. But they must know that there is now a limited window to convert promised cooperation with the Venezuelan state-owned oil company, PDVSA, into actual projects. Oil executives from Houston will soon be descending on Venezuela with lucrative alternatives, and PDVSA, in dire need of capital investment, will surely be listening to their offers. For Russia, that means three risks. First, Gazprom and Rosneft will have more competition for joint-venture deals in that country. Second, Venezuela is an easier alternative to the hostile and unpredictable Russian Arctic for US oil companies, which may make it harder for Moscow to attract joint-venture deals. Finally, the prospect of more oil coming out of Venezuela adds to the growth projections for shale oil as a significant longer-term threat to the price of oil, and therefore, to the Russian economy. None of this will be lost on the Kremlin. It means that there will have to be greater urgency to convert promised deals into real projects in Venezuela. At the same time, the Kremlin will want to conclude more joint ventures to exploit the Arctic. It also means that the clock counting down to lower oil revenues is now ticking, increasing the need for more urgent progress in economic reforms. The Venezuelan constitution mandates that a new election must take place within 30 days. As it stands today, the current vice president, Nicolas Maduro, is expected to be elected to replace Chavez. Maduro said he intends to stick with the economic and political policies and ideologies of his former boss, but since Maduro is no Chavez, this will be virtually impossible to achieve. Chavez was a hugely charismatic, larger-than-life leader who managed to maintain unity of purpose among the many vested interests in the country. At the same time, he stayed popular with the people even as the economy slid further into trouble. With oil averaging over 110 dollars per barrel last year, the Venezuelan state budget ran a deficit of close to 20 per cent of gross domestic product. Now that Chavez is gone, the soon-to-be-elected president Maduro will come under increasing pressure to take actions to start improving the economy. No different from President Vladimir Putin's situation when he took over an ailing economy in Russia in 2000, the only place that the new Venezuelan president can get revenue is from the oil sector. But after Chavez practically destroyed PDVSA when he fired 20,000 skilled engineers and other workers in 2002, PDVSA will need a huge boost to capital spending and joint-venture partnerships. Although politically risky, Maduro may have no other choice than to ask ExxonMobil and Chevron, two of the US majors that had their local projects nationalized by Chavez, to come back. Venezuela is certainly an attractive option for the world's big oil majors. Recoverable reserves are now put at just under 300 billion barrels, compared to about 265 billion in Saudi Arabia and less than 100 billion in Russia. Most of Venezuelan oil is heavy and more expensive to refine, but it lies only a few hundred meters below the Orinoco Belt. That makes it a lot more attractive than, for example, speculatively drilling in the hostile Russian Arctic while dodging icebergs. The Orinoco Belt is an extremely important natural environment, and the inevitable objections from domestic, regional and international environmentalists will slow any development. But as has happened in similar situations elsewhere, the quest for the prize will almost certainly prevail. Venezuela needs the money. Venezuela has also very likely moved to near the top of the US government's list of geopolitical priorities. The US is set on a course to become energy independent, and the International Energy Agency calculates this may take two to three decades based on current trends and with optimistic assumptions for US shale oil production. Such assumptions have always been speculative when it comes to the oil industry. But a more achievable target for the US is to become regionally oil independent -that is, to only source its oil requirements domestically and from Canada, Mexico and now perhaps from Venezuela. That would allow the US to become completely independent of Middle East oil within 10 years or so. A change in Venezuela's political and economic priorities would also weaken the Cuban economy since Chavez supplied Cuba with almost free oil. That would hasten the inevitable regime change there as well, an extra bonus for Washington. But while such an outcome would be very favourable for the US economy, it would accelerate the game change already started in the global oil industry with the rapid growth in shale oil volumes. No matter how you work the assumptions, the world is heading for a lot more oil supply over the balance of this decade. New major oil production will come from North America, Iraq and the Caspian Sea, where Kazakhstan's giant Kashagan field starts to produce from this year, almost certainly from Venezuela if a new administration takes concrete steps to increase foreign investment and production in the oil sector. This may be the real reason Russian officials shed a few tears at Chavez's funeral on Friday.
|
Weafer 13 (Chris Weafer is chief strategist at Sberbank Investment Research, BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union – Political, “No business as usual for Russia in Venezuela – paper,” 3-12-13, Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring)
|
Chavez last week, his passing will almost certainly lead to the start of political and social changes in that country The only question is the time frame will surely have a significant impact on the global oil industry and price of oil, although perhaps on an even longer timeline Chavez's policies have led not only to no significant exploitation of those reserves but have actually directly led to a cut in the country's average daily oil output With the right investments, the country may easily support average daily oil output of 5 million barrels and probably higher Venezuela has become the most important target location for foreign oil majors, especially US companies. Oil executives from Houston will soon be descending on Venezuela with lucrative alternatives, and PDVSA, in dire need of capital investment, will surely be listening to their offers Gazprom and Rosneft will have more competition for joint-venture deals in that country Venezuela is an easier alternative to the hostile and unpredictable Russian Arctic for US oil companies, which may make it harder for Moscow to attract joint-venture deals It means that there will have to be greater urgency to convert promised deals into real projects in Venezuela the Kremlin will want to conclude more joint ventures to exploit the Arctic increasing the need for more urgent progress in economic reforms Maduro said he intends to stick with the economic and political policies and ideologies of his former boss, but since Maduro is no Chavez, this will be virtually impossible to achieve At the same time, he stayed popular with the people even as the economy slid further into troubl Maduro will come under increasing pressure to take actions to start improving the economy the only place that the new Venezuelan president can get revenue is from the oil sector. , PDVSA will need a huge boost to capital spending and joint-venture partnerships Although politically risky, Maduro may have no other choice than to ask ExxonMobil and Chevron, two of the US majors that had their local projects nationalized by Chavez, to come back Venezuela is certainly an attractive option for the world's big oil majors That makes it a lot more attractive than, for example, speculatively drilling in the hostile Russian Arctic while dodging icebergs Venezuela has also very likely moved to near the top of the US government's list of geopolitical priorities The US is set on a course to become energy independent Such assumptions have always been speculative when it comes to the oil industry But a more achievable target for the US is to become regionally oil independent -that is, to only source its oil requirements domestically and from Canada, Mexico and now perhaps from Venezuela That would allow the US to become completely independent of Middle East oil within 10 years or so. A change in Venezuela's political and economic priorities would also weaken the Cuban economy since Chavez supplied Cuba with almost free oil But while such an outcome would be very favourable for the US economy, it would accelerate the game change already started in the global oil industry with the rapid growth in shale oil volumes New major oil production will come from North America, Iraq and the Caspian Sea, where Kazakhstan's giant Kashagan field starts to produce from this year
|
Offering to end oil sanctions provides Maduro the cover to make quick adjustments, necessary for stability and undercutting Russian Arctic Oil Development, paving the way for US Middle East Oil Independence and the US Economic Recovery
| 6,641 | 235 | 3,326 | 1,085 | 36 | 550 | 0.03318 | 0.506912 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,287 |
To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts. By Arctic standards, the region is already buzzing with military activity, and experts believe that will increase significantly in the years ahead. Last month, Norway wrapped up one of the largest Arctic maneuvers ever — Exercise Cold Response — with 16,300 troops from 14 countries training on the ice for everything from high intensity warfare to terror threats. Attesting to the harsh conditions, five Norwegian troops were killed when their C-130 Hercules aircraft crashed near the summit of Kebnekaise, Sweden's highest mountain. The U.S., Canada and Denmark held major exercises two months ago, and in an unprecedented move, the military chiefs of the eight main Arctic powers — Canada, the U.S., Russia, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland — gathered at a Canadian military base last week to specifically discuss regional security issues. None of this means a shooting war is likely at the North Pole any time soon. But as the number of workers and ships increases in the High North to exploit oil and gas reserves, so will the need for policing, border patrols and — if push comes to shove — military muscle to enforce rival claims. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year. What countries should do about climate change remains a heated political debate. But that has not stopped north-looking militaries from moving ahead with strategies that assume current trends will continue. Russia, Canada and the United States have the biggest stakes in the Arctic. With its military budget stretched thin by Iraq, Afghanistan and more pressing issues elsewhere, the United States has been something of a reluctant northern power, though its nuclear-powered submarine fleet, which can navigate for months underwater and below the ice cap, remains second to none. Russia — one-third of which lies within the Arctic Circle — has been the most aggressive in establishing itself as the emerging region's superpower. Rob Huebert, an associate political science professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, said Russia has recovered enough from its economic troubles of the 1990s to significantly rebuild its Arctic military capabilities, which were a key to the overall Cold War strategy of the Soviet Union, and has increased its bomber patrols and submarine activity. He said that has in turn led other Arctic countries — Norway, Denmark and Canada — to resume regional military exercises that they had abandoned or cut back on after the Soviet collapse. Even non-Arctic nations such as France have expressed interest in deploying their militaries to the Arctic. "We have an entire ocean region that had previously been closed to the world now opening up," Huebert said. "There are numerous factors now coming together that are mutually reinforcing themselves, causing a buildup of military capabilities in the region. This is only going to increase as time goes on." Noting that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, the U.S. Navy in 2009 announced a beefed-up Arctic Roadmap by its own task force on climate change that called for a three-stage strategy to increase readiness, build cooperative relations with Arctic nations and identify areas of potential conflict. "We want to maintain our edge up there," said Cmdr. Ian Johnson, the captain of the USS Connecticut, which is one of the U.S. Navy's most Arctic-capable nuclear submarines and was deployed to the North Pole last year. "Our interest in the Arctic has never really waned. It remains very important." But the U.S. remains ill-equipped for large-scale Arctic missions, according to a simulation conducted by the U.S. Naval War College. A summary released last month found the Navy is "inadequately prepared to conduct sustained maritime operations in the Arctic" because it lacks ships able to operate in or near Arctic ice, support facilities and adequate communications. "The findings indicate the Navy is entering a new realm in the Arctic," said Walter Berbrick, a War College professor who participated in the simulation. "Instead of other nations relying on the U.S. Navy for capabilities and resources, sustained operations in the Arctic region will require the Navy to rely on other nations for capabilities and resources." He added that although the U.S. nuclear submarine fleet is a major asset, the Navy has severe gaps elsewhere — it doesn't have any icebreakers, for example. The only one in operation belongs to the Coast Guard. The U.S. is currently mulling whether to add more icebreakers.
|
Talmadge 12 (Eric – AP, Huffington Post, “Arctic Climate Change Opening Region To New Military Activity’, 4/16, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/arctic-climate-change-military-activity_n_1427565.html)
|
To the world's military leaders They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts the region is already buzzing with military activity, experts believe that will increase significantly in the years ahead as the number of workers and ships increases to exploit gas reserves so will the need for policing, border patrols and military muscle to enforce rival claims 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic Russia, and the U S have the biggest stakes in the Arctic the U S has been something of a reluctant northern power Russia has been the most aggressive in establishing itself as the emerging region's superpower. We have an entire ocean region that had previously been closed to the world now opening up There are numerous factors causing a buildup of military capabilities This is only going to increase as time goes on the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe We want to maintain our edge up there said Cmdr. Ian Johnson the Arctic remains very important But the U.S. remains ill-equipped for large-scale Arctic missions the Navy is "inadequately prepared to conduct sustained maritime operations in the Arctic" because it lacks ships able to operate in or near Arctic ice, support facilities and adequate communications although the U.S. nuclear submarine fleet is a major asset, the Navy has severe gaps elsewhere — it doesn't have any icebreakers The U.S. is currently mulling whether to add more icebreakers
|
Russian energy development in the Arctic causes escalating military competition
| 5,106 | 79 | 1,590 | 829 | 10 | 269 | 0.012063 | 0.324487 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,288 |
The fact is, the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition. Russian President Medvedev has announced the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russia’s submarine fleet would increase its “operational radius.” 55 Recently, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years. 56 In January 2009, on the eve of Obama’s inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S. military vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic. 57 The Bush administration’s disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep-water port. Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets with shipbased helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. 58 Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs. 59 The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia – which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved. 609 Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons: A Task Long Overdue Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN under-secretary for disarmament affairs, summarized the situation bluntly: “From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states – the United States and the Russian Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world – converge on the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries – Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway – could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of nuclear weapons.” 61 Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in military confrontation can be taken lightly. The current geo-political threat level is nebulous and low – for now, according to Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary, “[the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic states and non-Arctic states begin to recognize the geo-political/economic significance of the Arctic because of climate change.” 62
|
Wallace and Staples 10 (Michael Wallace and Steven Staples. *Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia and President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa “Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons: A Task Long Overdue,”http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdf)
|
the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat Russia’s submarine fleet would increase its “operational radius two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years. Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S. military vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets that country held a major Arctic military practice The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia which objected after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved. deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states – the U S and the Russian Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world – converge on the Arctic and have competing claims These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries could, if unresolved lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of nuclear weapons no circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in military confrontation can be taken lightly
|
De-escalation is key to prevent Arctic conflicts from going nuclear – draws in major powers
| 3,688 | 91 | 1,347 | 567 | 15 | 214 | 0.026455 | 0.377425 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,289 |
The unique challenge of existential risks Risks in this sixth category are a recent phenomenon. This is part of the reason why it is useful to distinguish them from other risks. We have not evolved mechanisms, either biologically or culturally, for managing such risks. Our intuitions and coping strategies have been shaped by our long experience with risks such as dangerous animals, hostile individuals or tribes, poisonous foods, automobile accidents, Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War I, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. These types of disasters have occurred many times and our cultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things – from the perspective of humankind as a whole – even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life. They haven’t significantly affected the total amount of human suffering or happiness or determined the long-term fate of our species. With the exception of a species-destroying comet or asteroid impact (an extremely rare occurrence), there were probably no significant existential risks in human history until the mid-twentieth century, and certainly none that it was within our power to do something about. The first manmade existential risk was the inaugural detonation of an atomic bomb. At the time, there was some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by “igniting” the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential risk that was present at the time. For there to be a risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it suffices that there is some subjective probability of an adverse outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively there was no chance of something bad happening. If we don’t know whether something is objectively risky or not, then it is risky in the subjective sense. The subjective sense is of course what we must base our decisions on.[2] At any given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what the objective risk factors are.[3] A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
|
Bostrom 2 (Nick, PhD Philosophy – Oxford University, “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios”, Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, March, http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html)
|
existential risks are a recent phenomenon it is useful to distinguish them from other risks , poisonous foods Chernobyl, World War I II epidemics have occurred many times But in the big picture of things whole – even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life. They haven’t significantly affected the total amount of human suffering or determined the long-term fate of our species. A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and USSR An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might qualify as global and terminal a nuclear Armageddon might annihilate our species Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation a smaller nuclear exchange is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy humankind’s potential permanently . Such a war might however be a local terminal risk
|
Extinction – it’s categorically different from all other impacts
| 3,429 | 64 | 976 | 553 | 9 | 163 | 0.016275 | 0.294756 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,290 |
SINCE 1945, the United States has rightly sought to prevent any single power from dominating the Middle East’s oil supplies. An oil hegemon, whether Soviet, Baathist, Nasserite, Iranian or Islamist, would have had the capacity to blackmail the United States and the world with economic warfare. To that end, the United States supported anticommunist monarchies and autocracies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain, among others, during the Cold War. It has armed Saudi Arabia with a staggering $81.6 billion of arms sales since 1950, almost a fifth of all U.S. weapons shipments. It supported Iraq against Iran in the 1980s before fighting Iraq to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1990–1991. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, it further bolstered ties in the region, adding Kuwait, Bahrain and Morocco to its collection of major non-NATO allies, which includes Egypt, Israel and Jordan. In 2003, it invaded and occupied Iraq over fears, later proven overblown, that Iraq’s WMD proliferation might give Saddam Hussein or allied terrorists unacceptable leverage in the region. The U.S. military’s Central Command, formed in 1983, has a forward headquarters in Qatar, and the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain. This military infrastructure guarantees a long-term U.S. military presence in the region. Those policies were largely sensible efforts to maintain the security of world energy supplies. However, they make less sense in light of the brewing realities in the world oil market. These developments—the world’s increasing energy efficiency and the Middle East’s loss of its comparative advantage in oil production—will take time to play out fully. But they have been under way for several decades already. In two decades or so, the global oil market and the Middle East’s geopolitical influence will be dramatically different from what they are today. The Middle East will remain an important player, but it will no longer be able to act as the “central bank of oil,” as the princes of Saudi Arabia style their kingdom. Moreover, it will forever lose the ability to credibly threaten to wield oil as a weapon. The sword of Damocles that has implicitly hovered over the West since the 1970s will be gone. That means the central goal of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East will essentially be achieved: no power will be able to threaten the United States with unacceptable leverage over the American economy. That is because oil itself will be less important, and the world oil market will be more diffuse and diverse. The importance of this development cannot be overstated. It is a tectonic shift in the geopolitical balance of power, a strategically pivotal development only slightly less momentous than the fall of the Soviet Union. It is the slow-motion collapse of the Middle Eastern oil empire. In turn, the United States can and should begin to adapt its foreign policy to reflect these realities. It can look with more complacency on the rise and fall of particular regimes across the Middle East and North Africa. The Arab Spring, even if it brings to power moderate Islamist governments, is unlikely to threaten American interests. Washington also can play a less active part in conflicts between states, reverting to a role more like its indirect support for Iraq against Iran and less like its direct involvement in the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars. Further, it can speak out more freely against tyranny and human-rights abuses, especially in Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive countries on earth. It can reclaim its position as the advocate of global liberalism, undoing the damage to the U.S. brand done by its close association with Middle Eastern dictators. THE UNITED States has additional interests in the Middle East, but they are outweighed by those in other parts of the world. For example, the region is a hotbed of terrorism and may become a major locus of WMD proliferation. But South Asia hosts terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, that threaten the United States more directly. Further, South Asia is home to two declared nuclear powers. Thus, South Asia—not the Middle East—should be the focus of U.S. counterterrorism and counterproliferation efforts in coming decades. Additionally, the Middle East has two of the world’s most important choke points for ocean-going trade: the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz. But governments in the region, heavily reliant on exports, have strong interests in keeping trade routes open. Despite Iranian leaders’ recent threats, no government is likely to cut off its own economic lifeline voluntarily. Meanwhile, the Malacca Strait in East Asia will remain important for a diverse array of ocean-going trade for the foreseeable future. Finally, the United States rightly is committed to Israel’s security. If Iran succeeds in building a nuclear weapon, Israel could face a potential existential threat—the same threat fellow U.S. allies in East Asia, including South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, have been facing from North Korea since 2006. Once again, U.S. interests in the Middle East are no more, and probably less, important than U.S. interests in other regions. The changing realities of the world energy market do not mean the United States can or should ignore the Middle East. Certainly, Israel’s security and Iran’s behavior will keep the region a focus for policy makers’ attention. But, placed in a global perspective, the United States has more or deeper interests at stake in other regions of the world—especially Europe and Asia—than in the Middle East. Budget cuts are concentrating minds inside the Beltway with newfound discipline. And a new presidential term begins next January, either with President Obama or Mitt Romney taking over. This confluence of events gives American policy makers a powerful opportunity to reassess U.S. grand strategy, along with its attendant military-deployment and force structure. As they do so, they should recognize the emerging realities in the Middle East. Our rationale for guaranteeing the region’s stability in exchange for cheap oil is fading, and that mission quickly is becoming more trouble than it is worth.
|
Miller 12 [Paul, assistant professor of international-security studies at the National Defense University, “Fading Arab Oil Empire”, 6/28/12, http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-fading-arab-oil-empire-7072?page=1]
|
the United States has sought to prevent any power from dominating the Middle East’s oil supplies the United States supported anticommunist monarchies and autocracies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain, among others, has armed Saudi Arabia supported Iraq it invaded and occupied Iraq over fears, later proven overblown, that Iraq’s WMD proliferation might give Saddam Hussein or allied terrorists unacceptable leverage in the region. This military infrastructure guarantees a long-term U.S. military presence in the region. Those policies were largely sensible efforts to maintain the security of world energy supplies they make less sense in light of the brewing realities in the world oil market. These developments the world’s increasing energy efficiency and the Middle East’s loss of its comparative advantage in oil production have been under way for several decades In two decades or so, the global oil market and the Middle East’s geopolitical influence will be dramatically different e Middle East will no longer be able to act as the “central bank of oil,” it will forever lose the ability to credibly threaten to wield oil as a weapon That means the central goal of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East will essentially be achieved: no power will be able to threaten the United States with unacceptable leverage over the American economy oil itself will be less important, and the world oil market will be more diffuse and diverse. It is a tectonic shift in the geopolitical balance of power, a strategically pivotal development only slightly less momentous than the fall of the Soviet Union the United States can adapt its foreign policy to reflect these realities. It can look with more complacency on the rise and fall of particular regimes across the Middle East and North Africa t can speak out more freely against tyranny and human-rights abuses, especially in Saudi Arabi It can reclaim its position as the advocate of global liberalism, undoing the damage to the U.S. brand done by its close association with Middle Eastern dictators interests in the Middle East are outweighed by those in other parts of the world. South Asia hosts terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, that threaten the United States more directly South Asia is home to two declared nuclear powers. Thus, South Asia—not the Middle East—should be the focus of U.S. counterterrorism and counterproliferation efforts in coming decades the Middle East has the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz governments in the region have strong interests in keeping trade routes open. Despite Iranian leaders’ recent threats the United States rightly is committed to Israel’s security. If Iran succeeds in building a nuclear weapon, Israel could face a potential existential threat—the same threat fellow U.S. allies in East Asia, including South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, have been facing from North Korea since 2006 interests in the Middle East are no more, and less, important than U.S. interests in other regions placed in a global perspective, the United States has more or deeper interests at stake in other regions of the world Budget cuts are concentrating minds inside the Beltway with newfound discipline This confluence of events gives American policy makers a powerful opportunity to reassess U.S. grand strategy, along with its attendant military-deployment and force structure. As they do so, they should recognize the emerging realities in the Middle East. Our rationale for guaranteeing the region’s stability in exchange for cheap oil is fading, and that mission quickly is becoming more trouble than it is worth.
|
Middle East oil dependence erodes US Hegemony
| 6,150 | 45 | 3,604 | 992 | 7 | 578 | 0.007056 | 0.582661 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,291 |
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War I and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe’s stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War II, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn ’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.
|
Kagan 07 Senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [Robert Kagan (Senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund), “End of Dreams, Return of History,” Policy Review, August & September 2007, pg. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html]
|
Nationalism is back so is international competition for power and status American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying Were the United States to diminish its influence in regions where it is currently the strongest power other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: often through confrontation and wars One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars more catastrophic It is dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing stability in the world In a more multipolar world Nations would compete for naval dominance Conflict between nations would involve struggles . Armed embargos and major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists on a foundation provided by American power. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. A different configuration would produce its own kind of order War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in the U S and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the U S and i Europe to intervene Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel These, too, could draw in the U S Such conflicts are more likely to erupt if the U S weakens from its positions of regional dominance the departure of the U S from the scene could tempt Russia to a forceful approach on its periphery this could increase the likelihood of conflict which could draw the U S back in The alternative to American predominance is not balance and peace It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the U S back in In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is intensified competition
|
US Hegemony prevents global nuclear conflicts
| 8,742 | 45 | 1,829 | 1,443 | 6 | 308 | 0.004158 | 0.213444 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,292 |
A: Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research: "According to a New York Times report on April 15, Maduro reached out to the Obama administration through Bill Richardson just before the election. The administration gave its answer within 48 hours, and it was a lot worse than 'no, thank you.' By refusing to recognize Venezuela's election results, and saying that a '100 percent audit' of the vote count was 'necessary,' the Obama administration was saying, 'we hate you, and we are going to do everything we can to undermine your ability to govern.' It was really an escalation of Washington's involvement in Venezuelan politics not seen since its support for the military coup of 2002. It was also disingenuous: given the results of the election-day audit of votes from 53 percent of the voting machines, a further audit could not possibly change the result. A statistical analysis we did shows that the probability of getting the April 14 audit result if the true winner were Capriles is far less than one in 1 quadrillion. The Obama administration's attempt to delegitimize Venezuela's election, although it was completely isolated in the world, indicates that there is no inclination from Washington to significantly improve relations with Venezuela in the foreseeable future. This is regardless of what Maduro does. As for businesses' political risk, I don't see any reason these would increase. The risk of expropriation has always been very small compared to normal investment risks such as prices of outputs or inputs."
|
Weisbrot, 13 --- co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (5/3/2013, Mark, “What Does the Future Hold for U.S.-Venezuela Relations?” http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3297)
|
Maduro reached out to the Obama administration through Bill Richardson just before the election. The administration gave its answer within 48 hours, and it was a lot worse than 'no, thank you the Obama administration was saying, 'we hate you, and we are going to do everything we can to undermine your ability to govern It was really an escalation of Washington's involvement in Venezuelan politics not seen since its support for the military coup of 2002 The Obama administration's attempt to delegitimize Venezuela's election, although it was completely isolated in the world, indicates that there is no inclination from Washington to significantly improve relations with Venezuela in the foreseeable future. This is regardless of what Maduro does.
|
Improvement in relations unlikely in the squo
| 1,558 | 45 | 750 | 253 | 7 | 118 | 0.027668 | 0.466403 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,293 |
The passing of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela unleashed an epic outpouring of grief among his supporters in Venezuela, the likes of which may only be eventually paralleled with the passing of another larger-than-life figure in Latin American socialism, Cuba’s Fidel Castro. Matthew Carnes, S.J., assistant professor of government at Georgetown University, said Chávez will be remembered as a leader who had an “outsized impact in Venezuelan politics.” Father Carnes said Chávez’s passing offers an opportunity for the United States, politically and economically, to revive its relationship with Venezuela. Occasionally “capricious and doctrinaire,” Chávez was “someone the United States had a hard time negotiating with,” according to Father Carnes. Whether his designated political heir, Vice President Nicholas Maduro, or an opposition candidate, most likely Henrique Capriles Radonski, governor of the Venezuelan state of Miranda, is elected to replace Chávez, Father Carnes expects a more pragmatic and less confrontational leadership to emerge. That could mean improved ties not just with Venezuela but throughout the region, he said, and a possible opening for renewed U.S. investment and partnership with the Venezuelan state oil industry. Despite Chávez’s notorious distaste for U.S. political leaders, under his leadership Venezuela remained one of the largest suppliers of oil to the United States. This is likely to continue.
|
Clarke 13 --- Associate Editor of America The National Catholic Review and MA in International Studies from DePaul University (3/25/2013, Kevin, “Chavez Death Brings New Chance For U.S.-Venezuela Engagement,” http://americamagazine.org/issue/chavez-death-brings-new-chance-us-venezuela-engagement)
|
Carnes assistant professor of government at Georgetown said Chávez’s passing offers an opportunity for the U S economically, to revive its relationship with Venezuela. Maduro Carnes expects a more pragmatic and less confrontational leadership to emerge That could mean a possible opening for renewed U.S. investment and partnership with the Venezuelan state oil industry Despite Chávez’s notorious distaste for U.S. political leaders, under his leadership Venezuela remained one of the largest suppliers of oil to the U S
|
Negotiations over oil sanctions are key to the future of relations
| 1,440 | 66 | 521 | 211 | 11 | 78 | 0.052133 | 0.369668 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,294 |
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us to think about the value of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same point; by eliminating rivets, we play Russian roulette with global ecology and human futures: “It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings remain heavily dependent on food. By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in which a billion human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization.” Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama: What then will happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the face of climatic change, soil erosion, loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by pests. Conversion of productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates will become harsher. Humanity will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As ecosystem services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will lower life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will bring upon itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict, it appears that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang but a whimper.
|
Takacs 96 (David, Institute for Earth Systems Science and Policy – California State University, Monterey Bay, The Idea Of Diversity: Philosophies Of Paradise, p. 200-201)
|
biodiversity keeps the world running It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings remain heavily dependent on food. the extinction of species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in which a billion human beings perished the famines could lead to a thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization.” Humanity will bring upon itself consequences similar to those expected from a nuclear winter civilization will disappear
|
Amazon destruction sparks nuclear extinction
| 2,093 | 44 | 603 | 329 | 5 | 91 | 0.015198 | 0.276596 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,295 |
The array of plants and trees in the Amazon is an important source of natural pharmaceuticals; deforestation may also spread diseases as the natural hosts of viruses and bacteria are displaced to other regions. A social and political collapse would directly affect significant U.S. economic interests and American investors. Brazil's fate is inextricably linked to that of the entire South American region, a region that before its debt and inflation crises in the 1970s bought large amounts of U.S. goods and is now potentially the fastest-growing market for American business over the decades to come. In sum, were Brazil to succeed in stabilizing over the long term, reducing the massive gap between its rich and poor, further opening its markets, and privatizing often inefficient state-run industries, it could be a powerful engine for the regional economy and a stimulus to U.S. prosperity. Were it to fail, Americans would feel the consequences.
|
Chase 96 (Robert S., PhD Candidate – Economics Yale U., Et Al., Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, Lexis)
|
Amazon deforestation may spread diseases as the natural hosts of viruses and bacteria are displaced to other regions. A collapse would directly affect significant U.S. economic interests and American investors. Brazil's fate is inextricably linked to that of the entire South American region, a region that the fastest-growing market for American business were Brazil to succeed in stabilizing it could be a powerful engine for the regional economy and a stimulus to U.S. prosperity. Were it to fail, Americans would feel the consequences
|
Amazon destruction causes disease spread and global economic collapse
| 952 | 69 | 538 | 151 | 9 | 83 | 0.059603 | 0.549669 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,296 |
Bullets and bombs may be the weapons of the present, but plagues, viruses and killer microbes are the arsenal of the future. Together with the sarin gas which it released on the Tokyo underground in April, the Japanese Ohm cult had stockpiled a lethal bacterium which it chose not to unleash. Crippling continents by using killer infectious diseases is no far- fetched idea of sci-fi novels. But the scientists’ inability to distinguish between naturally emerging and synthetic disease outbreaks means whole areas could be laid waste before anyone realised what was happening, warns Laurie Garrett, author of a ground-breaking book on the burgeoning of infectious disease. All this on top of the fact that new diseases are emerging naturally at an alarming rate - representing a real threat to the survival of the human species - says The Coming Plague. Meticulously researched over the past decade, Garrett’s book charts the history of our age-old battle against the microbes, and concludes that we are beginning to cede the advantage to the disease-carriers. The optimism born out of defeating smallpox in the Sixties was dangerously premature. Everything from overuse of antibiotics to increased promiscuity have helped smooth the path for the microbes ever since. “The survival of the human species is not a pre- ordained evolutionary programme,” warns Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg in The Coming Plague. When Garrett’s book was released in the United States, it caused such widespread alarm that Vice President Al Gore set up a special task force to review American preparedness to tackle newly-emerging epidemics. In July, the evaluation concluded that the microbial threat was not just a domestic problem, but a national security question. It is no longer just governments which had the capability to engage in biological warfare.
|
Scotsman, 95 (9-11, “The Mega Death”, p. 13, Lexis)
|
plagues, are the arsenal of the future. new diseases are emerging naturally at an alarming rate - representing a real threat to the survival of the human species The survival of the human species is not a pre- ordained
|
Second, disease spread causes extinction
| 1,842 | 40 | 221 | 292 | 5 | 39 | 0.017123 | 0.133562 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,297 |
Brazil has worked hard to manage the forest. New data is expected to confirm that this last year has seen a drop of almost 50 percent in the rate at which deforestation is happening. In fact, Brazil is the best country in the world when it comes to fighting the problem of deforestation. Senator-elect Eduardo Braga represents Amazonas state. He says the people in his state don't deforest because they're stupid, or even because they're smart. He says they do it to survive. Braga attributes the positive data to better relationships with the forest people, as well as improved satellite technology. Regular scans of the forest show changes to groundcover, and highlight where new damage is happening. This allows the authorities to clamp down on illegal activity sooner. Paulo Adario has other ideas about the recent slow down. Food is big business and it is the recent dip in the profitability of food production has slowed the rate of deforestation, says Adario, not only the improved environment policing. Adario showed me the charred trunk of a Brazil nut tree, an icon of the Amazon. Growing at its base was a corn stalk. A tree like this takes 400 years to grow, he says. And it's being forcibly removed, for the sake of corn, which takes just four months to grow. Brazil is one of the key countries in favor of the UN's Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation scheme (REDD), which pays people to look after the rainforest, and teaches the economic importance, says Eduardo Braga. The COP16 UN Climate Change Conference takes place in Mexico next month, but the wranglings of global governments felt a long way away from Boca do Acre. Brazilian NGOs and the government are united in their desire to protect the trees. They are pushing for zero deforestation; the rate at which trees are disappearing to slow to a complete stop.
|
Maguder, 10 (Natasha, “Can Brazil continue to slow deforestation in the Amazon?”, November 24, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/23/brazil.rainforest/index.html)
|
Brazil has worked hard to manage the forest New data is expected to confirm that this last year has seen a drop of almost 50 percent in the rate at which deforestation is happening Brazil is the best country in the world when it comes to fighting the problem of deforestation. Brazilian NGOs and the government are united in their desire to protect the trees. They are pushing for zero deforestation
|
Amazon improving now – deforestation slowed 50%
| 1,856 | 47 | 399 | 317 | 7 | 71 | 0.022082 | 0.223975 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,298 |
But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are 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, today’s and tomorrow’s 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,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 inWashington’s 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? Washington’s 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 country’s 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.
|
Ayson 10 (Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies & Director, Centre for Strategic Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33: 571-93)
|
a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons 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 if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully respon suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors , if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension inWashington’s relations with Russia and/or China would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Washington’s 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 in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert 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. any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response
|
Nuclear terror would cause super power nuclear war
| 4,676 | 50 | 1,414 | 758 | 8 | 225 | 0.010554 | 0.296834 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,299 |
Is it really plausible that terrorists could get and use a nuclear bomb? 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-Ind.), 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.
|
Washington Post 07 (Nuclear Terrorism FAQ, Sept. 26, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401154.html?sid=ST2007092501877)
|
terrorist use of a nuclear bomb is a very real danger 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. 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 even a 1 percent chance would be enough to call for rapid action to reduce the risk
|
Risk of nuke terror high now
| 934 | 28 | 510 | 161 | 6 | 97 | 0.037267 | 0.602484 |
Venezuela Affirmative - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.