Wake WZ neg v Dart CS GSu rd 5 - deaconsource

yieldingrabbleInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

7 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 4 μήνες)

112 εμφανίσεις

CP


Text: The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services should grant

permanent

advance parole
with all necessary extensions to
immigrant investors investing at least

$250,000 of personal or non
-
personal assets

who would otherwise qualify for an Em
ployment Fifth Preference visa


Solves 100% of case


Endelman and Mehta ‘10



(Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and

Cyrus D. Mehta,
nationally recognized in the field o
f immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment
immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum. He also advises lawye
rs on ethical issues
. Based
on 18 years of experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches
a course, Immigration
and Work, Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee

and Co
-
Chair of the AILA
-
NY Chapter Pro
Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE FIAT, April 25, 2010,
http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive
-
immigration
-
reform.html)

For instance,
there is nothing that would bar the
USCIS from allowing the beneficiary

of an approved
employment based I
-
140 or family based I
-
130 petition, and derivative family members
,
to obtain a
n

employment
authorization document (
EAD) and
parole
.
The Executive
, under INA § 212(d)(5),
has the authorit
y to grant
parole

for

urgent humanitarian reasons or
significant
public benefits
. The crisis in the priority dates where
beneficiaries of petitions may need to wait for green cards in excess of 30 years may qualify for invoking § 212(d)(5)
under “urgent hu
manitarian reasons or significant public benefits.” Similarly, the authors credit David Isaacson who
pointed out that the Executive has the authority to grant EAD under INA §274A(h)(3), which defines the term
“unauthorized alien” as one who is not “(A) an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to
be so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General” (emphasis added). Under sub paragraph (B), the USCIS may
grant an EAD to people who are adversely impacted by the tyranny of priori
ty dates. Likewise,
the beneficiary

of an
I
-
130 or I
-
140 petition
who

is outside the U.S. can also be paroled

into the U.S. before the priority date becomes
current.
The principal and the applicable derivatives would

enjoy permission to
work and travel reg
ardless
of whether they remained in nonimmigrant visa status
. Even those who are undocumented or out of status
,
but are beneficiaries of approved I
-
130 and I
-
140 petitions,
can be granted employment authorization and
parole.

The retroactive grant of parole

may also alleviate those who are subject to the three or ten year bars since INA
§ 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) defines “unlawful presence” as someone who is here “without being admitted or paroled
.”
Parole
,
therefore,
eliminates the accrual of unlawful presence
. Whi
le parole does not constitute an admission, one
conceptual difficulty is whether parole can be granted to an individual who is already admitted on a nonimmigrant
visa but has overstayed.
Since

parole is not considered admission,
it can be granted more read
ily to one who
entered without inspection
. On the other hand,
it is possible for the Executive to rescind the grant of
admission

under INA §212(d)(5),
and

instead,
replace it with the grant parole
.

As an example, an individual
who was admitted in B
-
2 statu
s
and is the beneficiary of an I
-
130 petition
but whose

B
-
2 status has expired can
be required to report to the D
epartment of
H
omeland
S
ecurity (DHS).
who can retroactively rescind the grant
of admission in B
-
2 status and instead be granted parole retroact
ively
.

DA

Comprehensive immigration reform will pass now

Lawrence ’10

(
The Prospects for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

1/22/2010
-

Political Social
-

Article
Ref: CP1001
-
4055

By: Stewart J. Lawrence

Counter Punch*
-

Jan 21, 2010

Stewart J Lawrence is a
Washington, DC
-
based public policy analyst and writes frequently on immigration and Latino affairs. He is also
founder and managing director of Puentes & Associates, Inc., a bilingual survey research and communications
firm. Stewart J. Lawrence has worked
as an immigration policy analyst with the U.S. Catholic Conference, the
Inter
-
American Institute on Migration and Labor and the American Immigration Law Foundation.



After months of procedural delay and understandable preoccupation with the economy and he
alth care,
the White House has quietly announced plans to
introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate next month.

The move surprised many political observers who have watched the
Obama administration constantly postpone action on immigr
ation reform in order to address a host of other policy issues. Several White House officials,
most notably Rahm Emmanuel, are known to be deeply skeptical about the wisdom of Obama tackling immigration reform during his

first term in office,
let alone pri
or to the 2010 mid
-
term elections. Indeed, when Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the US Supreme Court last
August, some took it as a sign that Obama was seeking to placate his Latino base with an "historic" appointment, in part to j
us
tify postponing first
-
term
action on immigration reform. And now, in the wake of Tuesday's shocking Democratic Party loss in the US Senate race in Massa
chusetts,
some
political observers fear that immigration reform,

at least for now
, is dead. But

the poli
tical calculus in the White
House and among pro
-
immigration Democrats in the Senate appears to be quite different
. If anything the prospective
defeat of health care reform has highlighted Obama's need for a fresh legislative victory. But three key question
s remain. First, without their filibuster
-
proof majority, do Democrats still have the votes needed to pass immigration reform, or is a prolonged and messy congressiona
l debate like the one that
engulfed health care reform inevitable? Second is the question

of time. With such a late start, and assuming that a measure of contentious debate is
unavoidable, could the White House end up pulling the bill or at least suspending a final vote to make room for the mid
-
term election campaign? And
finally, if the bill
is delayed and Republicans score big in the mid
-
term elections, as they well might, could immigration reform, like cap
-
and
-
trade,
another of Obama's promised first
-
year agenda items, simply wither on the vine?
Despite the loss of his "filibuster
-
proof" maj
ority,
Obama still has a very good chance of passing immigration reform

in the Senate, and if the Senate vote is large enough, he could
probably convince skeptical House Democrats to go along.
That's because
immigration reform is not health care reform in
at
least two key respects
.
First,
the terms of the debate are already well known to the contending parties
, who fought
each other to a legislative stalemate in 2006 and 2007.
What's changed, in addition to Obama's election, is the composition of
the Congre
ss, which is even more Democratic than it was in 2006
, when the GOP lost control of the House. That's no guarantee
of victory, because immigration, unlike health care form, has never been an issue that divides neatly, with Democrats on one
side and Republi
cans on the
other. But it certainly helps. A number of US Senators, including the ailing Harry Byrd (D
-
WV), who was wheeled into Congress to cast his critical "yea"
vote on health care reform, oppose granting legal status to undocumented workers. So do "Bl
ue Dog" Democrats in the House, who have spent much of
the past two years pushing for expanded immigration enforcement. By contrast,
about a dozen GOP Senators have traditionally
"crossed over" to support the Democrats on immigration
. Thus, the good news i
s that pro
-
immigration Democrats won't have to go
hat in hand to Olympia Snowe (R
-
ME) or Susan Collins (R
-
ME) to defeat a GOP filibuster. The bad news is they'll still have to convince a slew of their
fellow Democrats to join the immigration reform bandwag
on. For the White House to win, two steps are essential, sources say. First, the White House
shouldn't defer to Congress but should drive the legislative process "from above." This means Obama should take personal resp
onsibility for the bill and
should be
willing to defend it to the public from the onset. He must also work closely with the two Senate immigration reform captains,

Democrat
Charles Schumer (NY) and Republican Lindsay Graham (R
-
SC), to line up his congressional ducks and forge the bipartisan de
als needed to to ensure
speedy passage. If instead, Obama takes the cautious, hands
-
off approach he did during the health care debate, and simply lets Congress lead, the
likelihood grows that obstructionists, especially House Republicans, will try to take
their case to the public to exploit the same "nativist" fears that twice
sunk immigration reform in 2007.
Obama met with Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle last summer to float
the White House's legislative strategy
.

And
Homeland Security dir
ector Janet
Napolitano has been meeting
quietly with key immigration constituencies for much of the past month to identify and address the key fault
lines in the debate
.
All of these hopeful signs point to an aggressive and pro
-
active White House approach
that
should improve the prospects for a bill's passage
, assuming that no unexpected hitches develop.



The Start
-
up visa would crush comprehensive reform

Khan ’10

('Shooting Itself in the Foot': Is U.S. Turning Away Entrepreneurs? Some Say New Immigration

Policy is Needed Specifically for Skilled Foreign Workers By HUMA KHAN WASHINGTON, April 21, 2010


The bipartisan framework for immigration reform drafted by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D
-
N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R
-
S.C., proposes that certain
immigrants who ar
e receiving degrees in fields like math, science, engineering and technology receive a green card immediately upon their grad
uation,
instead of having to get an H1B visa through an employer. A comprehensive immigration bill drafted by Rep. Luis Gutierrez,
D
-
Ill., expands green cards
for skilled immigrants and seeks to cut the backlog that goes into processing these visas.

In February, Sens. John
Kerry
, D
-
Mass.,
and

Richard
Lugar
, R
-
Ind.,
introduced the Start Up Visa Act of 2010
. The bill would allow immigra
nt entrepreneurs to receive a two
-
year visa if he
or she can show that a qualified U.S. investor is willing to dedicate a minimum of $250,000 to their start
-
up venture. If, after two years, the immigrant
entrepreneur can show that the venture has attracted

$1 million in additional capital investment or achieved $1 million in revenue and generated at least
five full
-
time jobs, the entrepreneur would get legal permanent residency. "There are those little things that can expand the pipeline
without revisiting
the giant debate over immigrant reform," Stangler said. "The Start Up Visa Act is a hugely responsible act." But across the b
oard,
there is little
optimism about whether such an act or piecemeal measures can pass.

"
Congress has its plate pretty full and I
don't know if they have the stomach for another big debate
," Stangler said.
Immigration reform proponents such as
Gutierrez argue that a comprehensive overhaul is the way to go because all the different components are
related, and that immigration shouldn'
t just be about high skilled workers. That, some say, could be the death
of reform for high skilled immigrants altogether. "
I'm pessimistic that anything will happen. Our leaders used all their bullets on
health care and this is a very contentious issue,"
Wadhwa said.
"Both political sides agree on the need for skilled immigrants and
they create jobs and they are good for the economy. "The trouble is that some lawmakers are worried if they
just allow debate of skilled immigrants, this will pass and everyone

will declare success and forget about illegal
immigrants," Wadhwa said. "I see it being more contentious than the health care debate. How many battles can
one government fight?"



Only comprehensive reform solves Mexican relations
-

that’s key to border s
ecurity and stopping
terrorism

Castaneda
et al.

‘5

(NORTH AMERICAN COOPERATION ON THE BORDER HEARING BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION __________ JULY 12, 2005 Castaneda, Hon. Jorge, Glo
bal Distinguished Professor of
Politics and Latin American and Caribbean Studies, New York University, and former Foreign Minister, Mexico
City, Mexico............... Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from Illinois................... 37 Biden, Hon. Joseph R
.,
Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware........... 34



I think that attitudes in Mexico have changed in relation to drugs and I think that they are also changing in relation to ter
rorism, that there is a sense in
Mexico, particularly as cooperation with the Un
ited States increases
--
and it is increasing
--
and as cooperation with Canada is increasing
--
and it is
increasing
--
that
the threats of terrorism

to the United States
are threats that are also extensive to Mexico

and to
Canada and that we have to view this fr
om a North American perspective
. That does not mean, Senator, of course, in the
same way as in the United States, that everyone in Mexico who subscribes to these points of view, as myself, necessarily agre
es with every decision made
by the United States
administration, for example, in the war on terrorism. Senator Biden. I do not agree with it all. Mr. Castaneda. I know fu
ll well, and
I know Senator Dodd does not either. I know that in Mexico there are many views on this. But I do agree with you com
pletely on this fact that
we
have to find a way in Mexico to understand that these are common security threats.

A threat to the United
States, to London, to Spain
, the Atocha attacks in Madrid 2 years ago,
all of these terrorist attacks are attacks
that ca
n happen in Mexico

any day of the year, and for the same absurd reasons that they happen elsewhere
.
There are no good reasons for terrorist attacks and consequently they can happen anywhere at any time.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman
. The Chair
man. Thank you very much, Senator Biden. Please proceed, Senator Obama.
STATEMENT OF

HON. BARACK
OBAMA
, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS Senator Obama. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The ranking member asked some important
questions and I think they
encompass a broader concern
. I think when I think about immigration I think there are a number of
elements to it, some of which have been covered today
.
The
politics of immigration in this country are
extraordinarily complex

and I think Senator Biden was t
ouching on whether the politics in your countries can
generate the same amount of effort.

So let me turn to you, Mr. Castaneda, first and just ask whether
--
from
your testimony, I gather that you believe that
without

comprehensive immigration reform

it is

going to be hard
to initiate anything piecemeal
.
Do you get a sense right now that your country is prepared to make significant
investments if
,

for example, Senator
Kennedy and McCain's bill moves forward
,
that
, in fact,
you would see
some concomitant inv
estments in terms of border security or other strategies on the other side of the border at
this stage
? I mean,
is there enough sort of political momentum that people would see that as a fair trade? Mr.
Castaneda. I do believe so, Senator Obama. I thin
k that precisely what the Fox administration has been able to
do
--
and, of course, it is winding down; we are only a year away from the elections and a year and a half away from President Fox
leaving office. But I
think what the Fox administration has been
able to do is precisely to explain to the Mexican people that
if we can get the sort of agreement
or reform in the United States that addresses all of these issues that I mention in my opening remarks
,
regarding Mexicans already here
, and in your home Stat
e in particular, Mexicans who will continue to come
because that is what the demographics and the economics of our relationship imply,
if we can get many of the
things that we think are important, that we can put an end to the deaths in the desert every si
ngle day, then
Mexico is prepared to do its share, prepared to put its money where its mouth is, but not only its money.

It is
not so much a question on our side of money. It is a question of political will, of

making the very tough
decisions on the sout
hern border,

the very tough decisions in the sending community, the very tough decisions
along the chokepoints on the highways and air routes to the border
,
make the tough decisions that will make an
agreement sellable in the United States and viable in th
e long run for the two countries
. I think that today in Mexico
this is doable, and I must say it is largely doable because President Fox has made an effort to educate Mexican society about

these issues.


Terrorism causes extinction

Hellman ‘8

(Martin Hel
lman, Stanford Professor Emeritus, 2008, “Why worry about nuclear weapons now?
Isn’t the Cold War over?”, http://nuclearrisk.org/1why_now.php,)


One

of the possible triggers for a full
-
scale nuclear war is an act of nuclear terrorism
. Particularly if direc
ted against an
American or Russian city, the
resultant chaos has the potential to push the world over the nuclear cliff, much as a
terrorist act in Sarajevo in 1914 was the spark that set off the First World War
. Conversely,
the danger of nuclear
terrorism

is increased by the large number of nuclear weapons
.
With over 25,000 still in existence and
thousands of people involved in their maintenance, storage and security, the chance for error, theft or illicit
sale is much too high
.

More than fifteen years aft
er the bipartisan Nunn
-
Lugar Act initiated funding for dismantling and protecting "loose nukes"
in the former Soviet Union, that effort is only about half complete [
NTI 2007
]. Loose nukes are not
just a problem in Russia. On August 29, 2007, six
American cruise missiles with dummy warheads were to be transported from North Dakota to Louisiana. After a day and a half it

was discovered that
missiles with real nuclear warheads had inadvertently been t
ransferred instead [
Washington Post 2007
]. Until that mistake was uncovered, these six
nuclear weapons were inadequately protected from theft by terroris
ts and others intent on obtaining such a prize. Society is paying some attention to the
possibility of nuclear terrorism, but
section 3

of this primer provides strong evidence that such a disaster is still
far too likely. This high risk and slow
progress shows that significantly more public concern and attention is warranted for the threat of nuclear terrorism. While n
uclear terrorism gets much
less respect that it deserves, the threat of nuclear war has bee
n almost entirely absent as a societal concern since the end of the Cold War. That is
unfortunate since Russian
-
American relations are again becoming very chilly. Over Russian objections, NATO admitted the Czech Republic, Hungary
and Poland in 1999, and ad
ded Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004. While the West saw NATO's expansion
differently, Russia feels threatened by it. One of the new NATO members, Estonia, is involved in a deeply emotional conflict
with Russia.

Having been
horribly subjugated when it was part of the Soviet Union, the newly independent Estonia has treated its large Russian
-
speaking minority (one third of
the population) so poorly that Amnesty International issued a report entitled "Estonia: Every

third person a potential victim of discrimination."
[
Amnesty International 2006]
. Tensions reached a new high in April 2007 when
Estonia removed a memorial to the Russian troops who died defeating
Hitler. Seen as a memorial to fallen soldier
-
liberators by Russia and many Russian
-
speaking residents of Estonia, the monument was a symbol of past
Russian subjugation to the majority of e
thnic Estonians. Soon after the memorial was removed, a cyber
-
attack caused a major disruption of Estonia's
Internet access. This attack was believed to have emanated from within Russia, with many people believing the Russian governm
ent to be responsible.
With Estonia a NATO member, this raised a very serious question: "If a member state's communications centre is attacked with
a missile, you call it an
act of war. So what do you call it if the same installation is disabled with a cyber
-
attack?” asks a seni
or [NATO] official in Brussels. Estonia's defense
ministry goes further: a spokesman compares the attacks to those launched against America on September 11th 2001.
[The E
conomist, May 10, 2007]

If
these tensions between Russia and Estonia escalate into a major crisis, we could face the prospect of having to either renege

on our NATO obligations or
threaten actions that would expose the entire United States to a nuclear at
tack. No one wants such a confrontation, but nuclear weapons lose all utility if
we admit we can never use them. The U.S., Russia, and all other nuclear weapons states therefore behave as if these weapons h
ave military utility, which
is a very dangerous ga
me in times of crisis. NOTE ADDED AUGUST 2008: Recent developments have made the former Soviet Republic of Georgia an
even more dangerous flashpoint than Estonia. For details see
email #5
sent to participant
s in this project. Another irritant to relations is the differing
Russian and American views of our deployment of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The U.S. says that

the system is intended
solely to protect against the possibility

of an Iranian attack, so Russia has nothing to fear. Russia sees the deployment as a major new threat, and
questions whether the missiles might really be offensive in nature [
Moscow News Weekly
, October 25, 2007
]. Even former President Mikhail Gorbachev,
hardly a Cold Warrior, has voiced concern: Milos Zeman, the former Czech prime minister, said, 'What kind of Iran threat do y
ou see? This is a system
that is being created against Russia,' ...
I don't think Zeman is alone in seeing this. We see this as well as he sees it [targeting Russia, not Iran]. [
Moscow
News Weekly, November 29, 2007
] I have been concerned for some time that the
se differing views could lead to a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In
one scenario, despairing of getting us to understand why they see this deployment as threatening, the Russians ask how we wou
ld feel if they deployed a
similar missile defense in Cub
a. While these Cuban missiles would be only hypothetical and defensive in nature, our nation might well see just the
suggestion as intolerable. We might therefore respond in a forceful manner so that, to maintain face, Russia felt it had to d
eploy at least

a token missile
defense system. If that happened, the resultant crisis could well end with us reimposing a naval blockade of Cuba, at which p
oint there would be a high
risk of further escalation. While such a scenario may at first sound improbable, as det
ailed in
section 3

of this primer it is very similar to the progression
of events that resulted in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Somewhat ominously, several months after I first voiced the abov
e co
ncern, Russian President
Vladimir Putin likened the current American deployment to the Cuban Missile Crisis: I recall how things went in a similar sit
uation in the mid 1960s.
Similar actions by the Soviet Union, when it put rockets in Cuba, precipitated th
e Cuban Missile Crisis. For us the technological aspects of the situation
are very similar. We have removed the remnants of our bases from Vietnam and dismantled them in Cuba, yet such threats for ou
r country are today
being created on our own borders. [
Putin, October 26, 2007
] Putin disclaimed that such a crisis could occur in the friendlier climate that currently exists,
but those good relations are clearly f
raying. Further evidence of the decline in Russian
-
American relations came in November 2007 when, partly in
response to this missile defense system, Russia unilaterally "suspended" implementation of its commitments under the Treaty o
n Conventional Armed
Fo
rces in Europe or CFE
[Pravda, November 30, 2007]
. In December 2007, events deteriorated further when Russia noted that it might target the
system should it be deployed
[Reuters, December 17, 2007]
. NOTE ADDED AUGUST 2008: Recent developments have realized some of my worst fears
and point to a rapidly increasing risk on our present course. Fo
r details see
email #4
sent to participants in this project. On January 30, 2008, at the
Russia Forum in Moscow, former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeniy Primakov stated: Russia's military doctrine, in conditi
ons in which its armed forces
are being reduced, is known to envisage the possibility of using nuclear weapons. But this is only on condition of an attack
on it and its allies, and only
against countries that also possess nuclear weapons. ... In this (Russ
ia's) military doctrine is no different from the military doctrines of other nuclear
states. [Primakov is probably referring to the fact that the U.S. has always rejected calls for a policy of "no first use" of

nuclear weapons.] ... This policy


anti
-
Russ
ian


increases the chances of "a fatal accident." The world may be made to face the threat of a global conflict without anyone wha
tsover
wanting it. [Interfax, January 30, 2008] In the U.S., presidential candidate Barak Obama had to back pedal after initi
ally saying in an interview that he
would not use nuclear weapons against terrorists in Afghanistan or Pakistan. His opponent for the Democratic nomination, Hill
ary Rodham Clinton,
attacked that position, saying,“I think that presidents should be very care
ful at all times in discussing the use or non
-
use of nuclear weapons. Presidents,
since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any bl
anket statements with
respect to the use or non
-
u
se of nuclear weapons.” [
New York Times, August 3, 2007
] Turning to the question raised in the title of this section "Why
worry about nuclear weapons now? Isn’t the
Cold War over?", an ominous chill is descendeding once more on Russian
-
American relations. The nuclear
threat didn't die with the fall of the Berlin Wall. At best, it merely went into hibernation. There are two primary failure m
odes of deterrence: a partia
l one
that results in either a nuclear terrorist incident or a limited nuclear war, and a complete failure that results in full
-
scale nuclear war. Even a small partial
failure would be horrific:
A 10
-
kiloton bomb

[less than one
-
tenth the power of many of
today's warheads]
detonated
at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill some half a million people, and inflict over a
trillion dollars in direct economic damage
. America and its way of life would be changed forever. [
Bunn 2003
, pages viii
-
ix] A complete
failure of deterrence is almost beyond imagination and conjures up mythic analogies. In a 1961 speech to a Joint Session of t
he Philippine Congress,
General Douglas MacArthur, s
tated, "Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. … If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you
stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of doub
le suicide.
" In 1986, former
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara expressed a similar view: "If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the present U.S. a
nd NATO strategy carries
with it a high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed” [McNamara 1986, page 6]
. In January 2007, George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger
and Sam Nunn echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagan’s belief that nuclear weapons were "totally irrational,
totally inhumane, good
for nothing but killing, possibly destructi
ve of life on earth and civilization." [
Shultz 2007
] DoD and related studies, while couched in less emotional
terms, still convey the horrendous toll that a full
-
scale nuclear war would exac
t: "The resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent. Executive
branch calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., from 79 million to 160 million dead) … a change
in targeting could kill
somewhere between 20 million and 30 m
illion additional people on each side ... These calculations reflect only deaths during the first 30 days.
Additional millions would be injured, and many would eventually die from lack of adequate medical care … millions of people m
ight starve or freeze
du
ring the following winter, but it is not possible to estimate how many. … further millions … might eventually die of latent r
adiation effects." [
OTA 1979
,
page 8] The same 1979 OTA report also noted t
he possibility of serious ecological damage [
OTA 1979
, page 9], a concern that assumed a new potentiality
when the "TTAPS Report" [TTAPS 1983] noted that the ash and dust from so many nearly simultane
ous nuclear explosions and their resultant firestorms
might usher in a "nuclear winter" that could erase homo sapiens from the face of the earth, much as many scientists now belie
ve the dinosaurs were
wiped out by an "impact winter" caused by ash and dust
from an asteroid impacting the Earth 65 million years ago. The TTAPS report produced a heated
debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full
-
scale nuclear war. Recent work [
Robock 2007
,
Toon
2007
] suggests that even a limited nuclear exchange, or one between newer nuclear weapons states, such as India a
nd Pakistan, could have devastating
long
-
lasting climatic consequences due to the large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities.
In a full
-
scale
nuclear war civilization would almost surely be destroyed
,
and

there a reasonabl
e possibility that
no

human beings would
survive
. As in the last section, we need to deal with the two failure modes of deterrence: a partial one that results in either a nu
clear terrorist incident
or a limited nuclear war, and a complete failure that resu
lts in full
-
scale nuclear war. With respect to terrorism, Former Secretary of Defense William
Perry has estimated the chance of such a nuclear terrorist incident within the next decade to be roughly 50
-
50 [
Bunn 2007
, page 15]. David Albright, a
former weapons inspector in Iraq, puts those odds at less than 1%, but notes, "We would never accept a situation where the ch
ance of a major nuclear
accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near

1 percent ... A nuclear terrorism attack is a low
-
probability event, but we can't live in a world where it's
anything but 'extremely low
-
probability.' " [
Hegland 2005
]. In a

survey of 85 national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found an average estimate
of 29% for the “probability of an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in the world in the next 10 years,
” with 79 percent of the
respondents belie
ving “it more likely to be carried out by terrorists” than by a government [
Lugar 2005
, pages 14
-
15]. While even the most optimistic of
these estimates is alarming, their wide range emphasizes the

need for our proposed in
-
depth studies to reduce the uncertainty. There is significant
evidence [
Bunn 2007
] supporting the need for greater attention to this issue: Al Qaeda has ... e
xplicitly set inflicting the maximum possible level of
damage on the United States and its allies as one of their organizational goals. Intercepted al Qaeda communications reported
ly have referred to
inflicting a "Hiroshima" on the United States. Al Qaeda'
s spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, has argued that the group "has the right to kill 4 million
Americans
--

2 million of them children," in retaliation for the deaths the group believes the United States and Israel have inflicted on
Muslims. Bin
Laden sought

and received a religious ruling (fatwa) from an extreme Saudi cleric in May 2003 authorizing the use of weapons of mass destr
uction to kill
American civilians [page 38] The al Qaeda terrorist network and elements of the global network it has spawned have
made repeated attempts to get
nuclear bombs or weapons
-
usable nuclear materials to make them, and they have repeatedly tried to recruit nuclear weapons scientists to help them
[page 15] Osama bin Laden has made his desire for nuclear weapons clear in publi
c statements. Al Qaeda launched a focused effort to get such weapons
... long before the 9/11 attacks, and this effort has continued [page 20] terrorist teams [have been] carrying out reconnaiss
ance at nuclear weapon storage
sites and on nuclear weapons tr
ansport trains in Russia, whose locations and schedules are [supposed to be] state secrets; [There have also been] reports
that the 41 heavily armed terrorists who seized hundreds of hostages at a theater in Moscow in October 2002 considered seizin
g the Ku
rchatov Institute,
a site with enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for dozens of nuclear weapons ... Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese doomsday cult
[responsible for the
1995 poison gas attack on the Tokyo subways which killed 12 and injured over 1,000] ... rep
ortedly recruited staff members at the Kurchatov Institute
[page 36 and 44
-
45] It is small comfort that terrorist nuclear ambitions have been thwarted thus far. Al Qaeda failed to destroy the World Tr
ade Center
with its 1993 truck bomb but, to almost every
one's great surprise, succeeded eight years later. The bipartisan
National Threat Initiative

is dedicated to
preventing another, even more catastrophic shock, but needs greater public awareness and support to combat the c
urrent complacency. Society is even
less concerned about the risk of a full
-
scale nuclear war, largely seeing it as a relic of the past. Many people believe that the arms reductions of the last
twenty years have made the world safe. But, reducing from roug
hly 75,000 nuclear weapons to 25,000 today made the world only relatively safer, not
truly safe.
Others believe that because World War III would be so destructive, no one in his right mind would start
such a devastating conflict, and there is therefore no
need to worry
.

But in times of crisis we are often not in
our right minds
.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara

[McNamara 1986, page 13]
sums up what he
learned from participating in three world crises



Berlin in 1961, Cuba in 1962, and the Mideast

war of 1967


each of which had the potential to go nuclear: “
In no

one of the three
incidents did either

… [the United States
or the Soviet Union]
intend to act in a way that would lead to military conflict, but on each of the occasions

lack
of informati
on, misinformation, and misjudgments led to confrontation
. And in each of them
, as the crisis
evolved, tensions heightened, emotions rose, and the danger of irrational decisions increased
."

Because the Cuban
Missile Crisis was the closest the world has com
e to nuclear war, studying its evolution can help us avoid making the same mistakes twice. In 1962, over
Soviet objections, America deployed nuclear
-
armed Jupiter intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBM’s) in Turkey. From our perspective, installing
th
ese weapons secured NATO’s southern flank, helped cement relations with Turkey, and enhanced our nuclear deterrent. The Russi
ans viewed these
missiles very differently. While the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion and other factors contributed to Khrushchev deployi
ng similar IRBM's in Cuba, this
disastrous decision started with a nuclear version of tit
-
for
-
tat as noted by Khrushchev's advisor Fyodor Burlatsky: “Khrushchev and [Soviet Defense
Minister] R. Malinovsky … were strolling along the Black Sea coast. Malinov
sky pointed out to sea and said that on the other shore in Turkey there was
an American nuclear missile base. In a matter of six or seven minutes missiles launched from that base could devastate major
centres in the Ukraine and
southern Russia. … Khrushche
v asked Malinovsky why the Soviet Union should not have the right to do the same as America. Why, for example, should
it not deploy missiles in Cuba?” [Burlatsky 1991, page 171] Once the crisis started, it developed a life of its own. George B
all, a member

of the White
House ExComm which advised Kennedy during the crisis, stated that when a group of Kennedy’s advisors met years later "Much to

our own surprise, we
reached the unanimous conclusion that, had we determined our course of action within the first
forty
-
eight hours after the missiles were discovered, we
would almost certainly have made the wrong decision, responding to the missiles in such a way as to require a forceful Soviet

response and thus setting
in train a series of reactions and counter
-
reac
tions with horrendous consequences." [Ury 1985, page 37] Douglas Dillon, another member of Kennedy’s
ExComm, was less concerned and, at a 1987 conference commemorating the crisis’ 25th anniversary stated: "My impression was th
at military operations
looked
like they were becoming increasingly necessary. … The pressure was getting too great. … Personally, I disliked the idea of an

invasion [of Cuba] …
Nevertheless, the stakes were so high that we thought we might just have to go ahead. Not all of us had detai
led information about what would have
followed, but we didn’t think there was any real risk of a nuclear exchange." [Blight & Welch 1989, page 72] In contrast to D
illon’s belief that some other
ExComm members had detailed information about what would have
followed an invasion of Cuba, facts that later became available showed that none of
them had the least idea of what would likely have transpired. Unknown to Kennedy and his ExComm, the Russians had battlefield

nuclear weapons in
Cuba and came close to givi
ng permission for their use against an American invasion, without further approval from Moscow [Chang & Kornbluh 1998;
Blair 1993, page 109; Fursenko & Naftali 1997, pages 212, 242
-
243, 276]. Not knowing of these weapons, there was strong pressure within t
he ExComm
and from Congress [Fursenko & Naftali 1997, pages 243
-
245] to invade Cuba and remove Castro once and for all. Another ominous aspect of the crisis
was uncovered when key players from both sides met on the 40th anniversary of the 1962 crisis. A So
viet submarine near the quarantine line had been
subjected to signaling depth charges, commanding it to surface, which it eventually did. But not until forty years later did
Americans learn that this
submarine carried a nuclear torpedo and that the Soviet
submarine captain, believing he was under attack, had given orders to arm it. Fortunately, the
submarine brigade commander was on board, over
-
ruled the captain, and defused the threat of a nuclear attack on the American fleet [Blanton 2002].
The world held

its breath as Soviet ships approached the American blockade. If neither side backed down, war seemed inevitable. Finally, Khr
ushchev
stopped the Soviet ships just short of the blockade. While Kennedy won that round of the Cold War, nuclear chicken does no
t always have a winner. It is
a dangerous game to begin with, and even more so when, as in the Cuban Missile Crisis, winning depends on your opponent havin
g less concern than you
for maintaining political power. (As part of the resolution of the crisis, Ke
nnedy agreed to remove the American missiles in Turkey, but he insisted that
part of the agreement be kept secret. The 1962 midterm elections occurred soon after the crisis ended. With the secret protoc
ol unknown, Kennedy was
seen as winning the standoff a
nd the Democratic Party fared significantly better than anticipated prior to the crisis. In contrast, Khrushchev fell from
power two years later, partly due to Russia’s humiliation in the Cuban Missile Crisis [Dobrynin 1995, page 93].) It might be
hoped th
at humanity, after
staring World War III in the face, had learned its lesson and that a similar crisis was inconceivable post
-
1962. Unfortunately, at least two events that
could initiate a similar crisis have since occurred.
As noted in an earlier section
, the current deployment of an American missile defense in Eastern
Europe has the potential to produce a second Cuban Missile Crisis, and has been likened to that standoff by Putin [Putin 2007
]. (S
ee also
my recent
update
for ominous new warning signs.) And, in the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan threatened to reimpose a naval blockade of Cuba to stop it
from aiding a
leftist insurgency in El Salvador [LeoGrand
e 1981]. Such an action would have violated one of our key concessions (lifting the blockade) in return for
which the Russians removed their Cuban missiles. Had Reagan reimposed the blockade, the Russians might well have threatened t
o redeploy missiles
unl
ess the blockade was immediately lifted. Such a reaction was made more likely by the fact that, at that time, Reagan was in t
he process of deploying
Pershing IRBM’s (the "Euromissiles") in Western Europe. While not as close to the Soviet border as the Turk
ish Jupiters, the only way the Soviets could
match such weapons was with missiles based in Cuba. Nuclear proliferation and the specter of nuclear terrorism are creating a
dditional possibilities for
triggering a nuclear war.
If an American

(or Russian)
city

were devastated by an act of nuclear terrorism, the public
outcry for immediate, decisive action would be even stronger than Kennedy had to deal with when the Cuban
missiles first became known to the American public.

While the action would likely not be d
irected against
Russia, it might be threatening to Russia (e.g., on its borders) or one of its allies and precipitate a crisis that
resulted in a full
-
scale nuclear war.

Terrorists with an apocalyptic mindset might even attempt to catalyze a
full
-
scale nuc
lear war by disguising their act to look like an attack by the U.S. or Russia.




DA



A.

GOP will win the house and senate now


voter turnout and momentum.

Charlie
Cook
, National Journal, “Can Republicans Run Out The Clock?”
9/14
/2010, http://www.nationa
ljournal.com/njonline/offtotheraces.php


Having said that, elections aren't over until voters decide they are over. But unless a large number of Republican officehold
ers and candidates begin
taking stupid pills every morning,
the odds of Republicans pickin
g up more than the 39 seats needed to win a majority in
the House is very high, and in the Senate, a net gain of between eight and 10 seats looks probable
.

Keep in mind,
a 10
-
seat gain would give the GOP a 51
-
49 majority.

The trajectory of this election lo
oks
unmistakable
.
Independents
, who the Gallup Organization reports make up 38 percent of all voters and
who trended

so
strongly in
favor of Democrats

in 2006 and 2008,
have reversed course
.

Republican voters are showing twice as much enthusiasm about voti
ng this year as Democrats
,
also an important factor given that voter turnout in midterm elections averages about a third less than in
presidential years
.



B.

Action on immigration is key to Dem victories.

Lawrence, 8/12/10



Washington, DC
-
based immigrati
on policy specialist (Stewart J. “Obama and Latinos.” Counterpunch.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lawrence08122010.html)


President
Obama’s decision to sue Arizona over its

proposed
immigration

enforcement
law

may have reflected the administration’s
honest j
udgment that such laws are repugnant and violate federal authority.


But the lawsuit
was

also
calculated election
-
year politics, a
way of stigmatizing the GOP, and rallying the liberal faithful, especially Latinos.


A Gallup poll

in June
found that
Latino
s were increasingly disaffected from Obama and his policies
, while the President’s favorability rating with Whites and
Black was unchanged.


From a high of 69% in January, Obama's rating with Latinos had fallen 12 points to 57%.


Among Spanish
-
speaking La
tinos, the
drop was even more precipitous:


25%.


According to Gallup, the slide was largely due to Obama’s failure to pursue

comprehensive
immigration reform
, a cause that
is near and dear to
the country’s fastest
-
growing ethnic
constituency,

which some p
ollsters rightly refer to as
the “
sleeping giant
” of American politics
.

But
thus far the Obama gambit isn’t working
-

and that spells trouble.


According to the most recent polls,
a
majority of Latinos

-

nearly 60%, in fact
-

are still disappointed with h
is handling of immigration.


Unless that
perception is reversed, the Democrats face electoral disaster this November
.



Without a strong Latino turnout
in

at least
30
-
35 congressional races where their votes could sway the outcome,
the GOP is almost certai
n to recapture the House, regaining control of the key committee and subcommittee
chairmanships that will shape the nation's policy agenda



including immigration
-

leading up to 2012.


And Republicans could also
win a majority of the governorships and sta
te legislatures which would allow them to dominate the upcoming federal redistricting process, influencing
the composition of the House for at least another decade


perhaps two.


Dems win leads to card check.

St. Louis Dispatch
, “Secret Ballots, Card Che
ck and Politics,” 7/30/
2010
, http://cnn.creators.com/opinion/daily
-
editorials/secret
-
ballots
-
card
-
check
-
and
-
politics.html


Labor officials
, who at first rejected the compromise, might want to rethink that decision in light of Specter's decision. Or they
co
uld bide
their time and focus on the 2010 Senate elections, when a large number of Republican seats will be in play. A
cloture
-
proof 60
-
seat Democratic majority almost surely would help the card check bill to pass in 2011
.


A.

Card check kills democracy.

V
on Spakovsky 3
-
20
-
09
(H
ans A., Legal Scholar in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation and a former
Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, “Cracking the Bedrock of Democracy: Destroying the Secret Ballot in Union El
e
ctions,”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/lm0038.cfm)


Over the past 120 years,
the secret ballot has become the bedrock of our democratic election process in the
United States
, as well as in those of numerous other democracies around the world.

Even

the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of
Human Rights recognizes the importance of periodic and genuine elections "by secret vote."[25]

A
ny proposal to eliminate the secret ballot in
our political elections would rightly be met with pro tests and outrage
at th
e very concept of taking away such
an important guarantee of an individual citi
zen's freedom of choice
.

Vote buying loses its appeal when the vote buyer cannot be sure
that an individual votes the way he was paid to vote. The ability to cast a vote withou
t fear was also one of the major reasons for adoption of the secret ballot, because
"it would protect [voters]...against intimi dation and coercion."[26]

Yet a return to that environment is exactly what is being proposed
for union elections in
the Employee

Free Choice
Act, a bill that
represents a radical departure from democratic
ideals
.
As the Buffalo News opined, "[m]ore than most people,
members of Congress should be publicly devoted to the concept of
the secret ballot...[the] democratic act upon which
this county is predicated. Without it, everything else dies
."[27]


B.

Extinction

Larry
Diamond
, Hoover Institution senior fellow, co
-
editor of the Journal of Democracy, December
1995
, A Report to the Carnegie Commission
on Preventing Deadly Conflict, “Prom
oting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives,”
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm


OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well
-
being in the coming years and decades. In the
former Yugoslavia
nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies throug
h increasingly powerful
international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and

have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous,
democratic ones.
Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons

continue to
proliferate. The very source of life

on Earth,
the

global
ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered.

Most of
these

new and unconven
tional
threats

to security
are

associated with
or
aggravated by the

weakness or
absence of democracy
, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.
LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offer
s important lessons.
Countries that govern

themselves
in a

truly
democratic fashion do not go to war with one another.

They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or
glorify their leaders.
Democratic governments do not ethnically "
cleanse"

their own populations,

and they

are much less likely to
face ethnic insurgency. Democracies
do not sponsor terrorism

against one another.
They do not build w
eapons of
m
ass

d
estruction to
use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form

more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better
and more stable climates for investment.
They are

more
environmentally responsible because they must answer to

their own
citizens, who organize to protest the destru
ction of their environments.

They are better bets to honor international treaties
since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Pr
ecisely because, within their
own borders, they r
espect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on wh
ich a new
world order of international security and prosperity can be built.



1NC


A.

The aff creates and reinforces dichotomies a
nd classifications of immigrants, which
uphold the global neoliberal order of commodification, deregulation, and devaluation,
resulting in war.

Aziz
Choudry
, assistant professor in the Department of
Integrated Studies in Education

at McGill University, “‘F
ree Trade’, Neoliberal Immigration
& The Globalization Of Guestworker Programs,” 6/16/
2008
, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00213.htm


The Declaration of Philadelphia, now an annexe to the International Labour Organization (ILO) constitution, unequi
vocally states: “Labour is not a
commodity” . The ILO is hardly a radical organization, nor is this statement a radical proposition. Yet today, workers, espec
ially
migrant workers,
are routinely commodified,

through
domestic, regional and international ins
truments, policies and
agreements. These include the expansion of temporary
migrant worker programs
, and disputes over the
interpretation of labour mobility provisions

in free trade and investment agreements such as the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Gener
al Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and bilateral and regional free trade and investment agreements (FTAs) outside of t
he WTO. In this
presentation, I will talk about the links between the resurgence of guestworker programs, migrant workers, and free

trade, mainly in reference to the
Asia
-
Pacific.

For all of the talk of postcolonialism in some circles, in 2008, Third World countries are treated as little more than coloni
es of transnational corporations
(TNCs) and powerful governments for natural resou
rce extraction: notably minerals, energy, biodiversity, and even people, either as labour commodities
for export themselves, or producing for export in free trade/special economic zones (FTZs/SEZs), and industrial agriculture.
This system of
capitalist rel
ations is backed by
war, the militarization of borders, conflict
-

and poverty
-
fuelled
forced migration
, and in turn, the criminalization of many migrants and immigrants
. Justin Akers Chacón calls this
phenomenon “neoliberal immigration”
-

“displacement acc
ompanied by disenfranchisement and often internal segregation in host countries” .

Neoliberal policies force people from their farms, jobs, families and communities and into exploitation and
precarity as migrant workers
in other countries. Deindustrializat
ion and the downsizing and privatization of
essential services



accompanied by increasing user fees
-

are other “push factors”, forcing growing numbers to seeking work abroad. Health and
education professionals in shattered public sectors are forced to mi
grate in search of work. Free trade, its advocates (like the US Administration)
promise, will supposedly lead to a reduction of immigration because countries will become more prosperous. Washington proclai
med that the North
American Free Trade Agreement (N
AFTA) would lead Mexico to export goods, and not people to the US, yet so
-
called illegal
immigration to the US has
risen
.

In looking at how free trade and investment agreements can and do affect migrant workers, it is important to frame our unders
tanding o
f them as
comprehensive instruments of imperialism, and avoid compartmentalizing or reducing the discussion to technical trade policy a
nalysis talk which clouds
a more critical “big picture” analysis.

We are witnessing the entrenchment of immigration apart
heid
.
A global

(often Western
-
)
educated elite is
relatively mobile, but of those who are able to leave their home countries at all, the overwhelming majority of
migrants are temporary, non
-
status, exploitable, and often underground
/“illegal”.

Immigration
requirements have tended to become more elitist
, refugee systems leave fewer avenues for appeal,
and for many,
permanent residence is harder to attain
. Meanwhile, in both migrant
-
worker sending and receiving countries, a more general trend of
state withdra
wal for responsibility for provision of social services impacts local and migrant workers alike. Worldwide,
the neoliberal offensive
has also eroded trades jobs, attacked unionism, imposed policies of labour deregulation, flexibilization,
casualization, ex
panded subcontracting chains, and the relocation of industry to cheaper production sites. In
some cases, these changes have fuelled exclusionary or racist practices within unions towards new immigrants
,
instead of solidarity and support for struggles for w
orkplace justice and within wider society.
Immigration status is used as a tool
by governments and business elites to undermine alliance
-
building among workers, while
immigrants still make convenient scapegoats for politicians

the world over
. Simultaneousl
y, there is a
widespread reluctance and denial in many countries to admit the extent to which their economies depend on migrant labour.

In temporary migrant worker schemes,
migrant workers are commodities, pure and simple, temporary labour
units to be recr
uited, utilized and sent away again as employers require, tied to a specific
employer, and therefore often stuck with worse conditions with little recourse to improve them
.
In this context, discrimination and exploitation because of race, immigration statu
s, class, and gender play out together. Women migrant workers are
particularly impacted, comprising the majority in sectors with the least protections, lowest wages and most demeaning conditi
ons. Typically,
guestworkers are not allowed to join unions, so h
ave no collective bargaining power. Sometimes they are not paid on time or maybe not paid at all, may
endure unsafe and unhealthy working conditions, and receive wages far below the average paid to local workers for equivalent
work, toiling long hours,
and

perhaps be more willing to accept this situation because of the relatively short duration of their employment abroad, and are

subject to abuse from
employers.
The labour of international migrants is systematically devalued
. Skilled migrants frequently lea
ve their
countries only to find their qualifications and experience are not valued in the new country, so are locked into
low
-
skilled jobs .

Migrant workers and remittances are a key area of interest to the World Bank

, the European Commission, and the
Int
ernational Organization for Migration (IOM)
and other international agencies, which increasingly promote the concept of
migrant workers' family remittances to keep their native countries from collapsing
. Remittances are what Devesh Kapur,
in a 2004 UNCTAD/
G
-
24 discussion paper calls “the new development mantra” .
The growing dependence on remittances from
migrant workers puts many countries at the mercy of vagaries of anti
-
immigrant sentiment and immigration
(and other) policies of other countries
.
Locked i
nto a neoliberal model, countries that have grown
dependent on exporting workers often have shrinking policy space to pursue other options for
economic development.

Growth of remittances has outpaced that of private capital flows and official development a
ssistance (ODA) during
the last 15 yrs . A 2007 UN International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)/Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) repor
t showed that
migrant remittances were over US $ 300 billion in 2006 , well over twice what ODA contributed.

Of course, migration is certainly not only a South
-
North
phenomenon, but occurs among countries in the South, Indonesian workers in Malaysia, South Asians in Gulf, Filipina caregiver
s in Syria, Lebanon, and
dozens of other countries, and Zimbabwean and Mo
zambican workers in South Africa, as last month’s anti
-
migrant worker violence tragically reminds
us.



B.

Commodification of humanity makes human extinction inevitable through the
destruction of democracy and destruction of human ethics.

Boaventura de Sou
za
Santos
, Professor of Sociology at the University of Coimbra, Collective Suicide?,
http://www.ces.fe.uc.pt/opiniao/bss/072en.php
2003


According to Franz Hinkelammert,
the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to
save humanity
by

destroying part of it
. This is a salvific and
sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the need to
radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over which it is
supposed to have total power.
This i
s how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous peoples, and
the African slaves. This is how it was

in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused millions of deaths
in
two world wars
and many other colonial wars. This is how it was in S
talinism, with the Gulag and in Nazism,
with the holocaust
. And now today,
this is how it is in neoliberalism, with the collective sacrifice of the periphery

and
even the semiperiphery
of the world system
. With the war against Iraq,
it is fitting to ask wh
ether what is in progress is a new
genocidal and sacrificial illusion, and what its scope might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new
illusion will not herald the radicalization and the ultimate perversion of the western illusion: destroying al
l of
humanity in the illusion of saving it.

Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion that is manifested in
the belief that there are no alternatives to the present
-
day reality

and that the problems and difficulties
confronting it arise from

failing to take its logic of development to its ultimate consequences. If there is
unemployment, hunger and
death in the Third World, this is not the result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome
of the market laws not having been fully applied. I
f there is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the
conditions that generate it; it is due, rather, to the fact that total violence has not been employed to physically
eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists
.
This political logic is base
d on the supposition of total power and
knowledge, and on the radical rejection of alternatives; it is ultra
-
conservative in that it aims to infinitely
reproduce the status quo. Inherent to it is the notion of the
end of history
. During the last hundred ye
ars, the West has
experienced three versions of this logic, and, therefore, seen three versions of the end of history: Stalinism, with its logi
c of insuperable efficiency of the
plan; Nazism, with its logic of racial superiority; and

neoliberalism
, with it
s logic of insuperable efficiency of the market
. The first two
periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last one
trivializes democracy, disarming it in the face of
social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatize the State and internat
ional institutions

in their favour.
I have described this situation as a combination of political democracy and social fascism
. One current manifestation of
this combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the w
ar is found to be incapable of halting the war machine
set in motion by supposedly democratic rulers.
At all these moments,
a death drive
, a catastrophic heroism, predominates,
the idea of a looming collective suicide, only preventable by the massive destr
uction of the other
. Paradoxically, the
broader the definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the more likely collective suicide becomes. In its s
acrificial genocide version,
neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalization, neoconser
vatism and Christian fundamentalism.

Its death drive
takes a number of
forms, from the idea of "
discardable populations
"
, referring to citizens of the Third World not capable of
being exploited
as workers and consumers, to the concept of "collateral damage
", to refer to the deaths, as a
result of war, of thousands of innocent civilians.
The last, catastrophic heroism
, is quite clear on two facts: according to
reliable calculations by the Non
-
Governmental Organization MEDACT, in London, between 48 and 260 th
ousand civilians will die during the war and in
the three months after (this is without there being civil war or a nuclear attack); the war will cost 100 billion dollars, en
ough to pay the health costs of the
world's poorest countries for four years. Is it

possible to fight this death drive?
We must bear in mind that, historically,
sacrificial
destruction has always been linked to the economic pillage of
natural resources and
the labor force
, to the
imperial design of radically changing the terms of economi
c, social, political and cultural exchanges in the face
of falling efficiency rates postulated by the maximalist logic of the totalitarian illusion in operation. It is as
though hegemonic powers, both when they are on the rise and when they are in decline,

repeatedly go through
times of primitive accumulation, legitimizing the most shameful violence in the name of futures where, by
definition, there is no room for what must be destroyed. In today's version,
the period of primitive
accumulation consists of c
ombining neoliberal economic globalization with the globalization of war. The
machine of democracy and liberty turns into a machine of horror and destruction
.


C.

The alternative is to
vote negative as a rejection of the 1AC and its foundations in
neoliber
alism



critical examination and rejection is critical to open up new spaces for a
more democratic politics.

Henry A.
Giroux
, 11
-
2
-
06
,

Cultural Studies in Dark Times: Public Pedagogy and the Challenge of Neoliberalism,
http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal/node/2590
4


As collective agents recede under
neoliberalism,

market forces
incessantly attempt to privatize or
commercialize public space
. One consequence is that
t
hose noncommodified spaces

and vernacular
capable of
providing
individuals with the discourses, value
s, and
subject positions crucial to identifying and struggling
over institutions vital to the life of democracy begin to disappear from the political scene
. Under such
circumstances, matters of agency become even more crucial to viable democratic politics
as those spaces
capable of producing critical modes of pedagogy increasingly slip into the black hole of commercialized space.
As public spaces disappear, it becomes more difficult to develop a democratic
discourse for educating collective
social agents ca
pable of raising critical questions about the limits of a market
-
driven society as well as what it
might mean to theorize about the future of public institutions central to the development of truly substantive
democratic society.

In the absence of public s
paces that promote shared democratic values, a new authoritarian
politics and culture emerge in which the state makes a grim alignment with corporate capital, neoconservative
visions of empire, and Christian fundamentalism. Political power is now accumulat
ed behind an alliance of
economic, political, and religious fundamentalists who recognize that "military
-
like discipline abroad requires
military
-
like discipline at home"

(Harvey 2003
:193).
Repressive legislation is used to sacrifice civil liberties in the

cause of national security; the government promotes a culture of fear to implement neoliberal policies at home
and neoconservative visions of empire abroad; dissent is labeled as unpatriotic, and the media and political
parties increasingly become adjunct
s of official power

(Giroux 2003; Barber 2003; Robin 2004).

As neoliberal economics is
accorded more respect than democratic politics, the citizen has been abandoned and
the consumer becomes the only viable model of agency. As public spending decreases, e
ducation is divorced
from democratic politics and the

political state increasingly becomes the corporate state

(Hertz 2003). All the more reason to take seriously Hannah Arendt's (1965)
claim that "
without a politically guaranteed public realm, freedom la
cks the worldly space to make its appearance
"
(p.149 ). And
it is

precisely
within such a realm that subjects are socialized into forms of individual and social agency
in which they learn how to govern rather than be governed, to assume the responsibilitie
s

of engaged citizens
rather than be reduced to consumers or investors
. Arendt (1965) understood quite clearly that
democracy can only
emerge
, if not flourish,
within political organizations in which education was viewed both as a
site of politics and as t
he foundation that provided the pedagogical conditions in which
individuals could learn the knowledge
, skills, and values
necessary for those forms of
citizenship
, leadership, and social engagement
that deepened and extended the realities of an
inclusive d
emocracy.

Politics often begins when it becomes possible to
make

power

visible
, to
challenge

the

ideological

circuitry

of

hegemonic

knowledge
, and to recognize that "political
subversion presupposes cognitive subversion, a conversion of the vision of the w
orld
"(Bourdieu
2001:128).
But another element of politics focuses on where politics happens, how proliferating sites of pedagogy
bring into being
new

forms

of

resistance,

raise

new

questions,

and

necessitate

alternative

visions

regarding

autonomy

and the p
ossibility of democracy itself. Neoliberal ideology and pedagogy have been
reproduced and reinforced within the advanced countries of the West through the development of new sites of
pedagogy and new technologies that penetrate spaces that historically hav
e been beyond the reach of the logic
of commercialism and commodification. Hence, it is all the more necessary for educators

and other cultural workers
to
take seriously both the proliferating sites of these new forms of ideological address and the work th
ey do within
the social order to create agents and subject positions that become complicitous with the brutalizing logic of the
market.

At this point in American history, neoliberal capitalism is not simply too overpowering; on the contrary, "democracy is

too weak" (Barber 2002:A23).
Profound transformations have taken place in the public space, producing new sites of pedagogy marked by a distinctive conflu
ence of new digital and
media technologies, growing concentrations of corporate power, and unparallel
ed meaning producing capacities. Unlike traditional forms of pedagogy,
knowledge and desire are inextricably connected to modes of pedagogical address mediated through unprecedented electronic tec
hnologies that include
high speed computers, new types of di
gitized film, and CD
-
ROMs. Such sites operate within a wide variety of social institutions and formats including
sports and entertainment media, cable television networks, churches, and channels of elite and popular culture, such as adver
tising. The result

is a public
pedagogy that plays a decisive role in producing a diverse cultural sphere that gives new meaning to education as a political

force.

While John Dewey, Paulo Freire, and various other leading educational theorists in the last century understoo
d the important connection between
education and democracy, they had no way in their time of recognizing that the larger culture would extend beyond, if not sup
ercede, institutionalized
education, particularly schools, as the most important educational for
ce over developed societies. In fact, education and pedagogy have long been
synonymous with schooling in the public mind. Challenging such a recognition does not invalidate the importance of formal edu
cation to democracy, but
it does require a critical und
erstanding of how the work of education takes place in such institutions as well as in a range of other knowledge and
meaning producing spheres such as advertising, television, film, the Internet, video game culture, and the popular press. Rat
her than inva
lidate the
importance of schooling, it extends the sites of pedagogy and in doing so broadens and deepens the meaning and importance of
public pedagogy.
What
is being suggested here is that educators
, cultural studies theorists, and others
take seriously t
he role that culture plays
, as
Raymond Williams (1967:15) puts it, a
s a form of "permanent education
."

The concept of public pedagogy as a form of permanent education underscores the central importance of
formal spheres of learning that unlike their popul
ar counterparts

driven largely by commercial interests that
more often miseducate the public

must provide citizens with those critical capacities, modes of literacies,
knowledge, and skills that enable them to both read the world critically and participate

in shaping and
governing it
. Put differently,
formal spheres of learning provide one of the few sites where students can be educated
to understand, critically engage, and transform those institutions that are largely shaping their beliefs and
sense of age
ncy
.

I am not claiming that public or higher education are free from corporate influence and dominant ideologies, but
that

such
sites of education
, at best,
have historically provided the spaces and conditions for prioritizing civic values over
commercial
interests
, for recognizing that consumerism is not the only kind of citizenship, and for vouchsafing
the purpose and meaning of critical education in a democratic society that bears its responsibility to present
and future generations of young people
. In s
pite of its present embattled status and contradictory roles,
higher education
, in
particular
, remains uniquely placed

though also under attack by the forces of corporatization

to prepare
students to both understand and influence the larger educational for
ces that shape their lives
.

Needless to say, those of us
who work in such institutions by virtue of our privileged positions within a rather obvious division of labor have an obligat
ion to draw upon those
traditions and resources capable of providing a cri
tical education to all students in order to prepare them for a world in which information and power
have taken on new and significant dimensions. In fact, the critique of information cannot be separated from the critique of p
ower itself, providing a
substa
ntial new challenge for how we are to theorize politics for the twenty
-
first century.

One way to take up this challenge is to address
the theoretical contributions that a number of radical educators and cultural studies theorists have made in
engaging not
only the primacy of culture as a political force, but also how the relationship between culture and
power constitutes a new site of politics, pedagogy, and resistance.


1NC
Jobs


C
HINA
W
AR IS
I
NEVITABLE



C
OMMUNIST IDEOLOGY
,

MILITARY BUILDUP AND

ALLIANCES
PROVE THAT WAR IS
INEVITABLE
.


J.R.
Nyquist
, Geopolitical Global Analysis, 7
-
1,
2005

(
Recent China Revelation
. Financial Sense.
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0701.html | SWON)


China’s war preparations are deliberate
,

and t
he implications should not be passed over lightly.
China is a
highly secretive country,
like all communist countries.
The objective of communism is world
revolution
,

the overthrow of global capitalism, the destruction of the free market, the elimination
of

the international bourgeoisie
and the
disarming of the United States
.

We should be
puzzled,

indeed,
if Chinese policy did not follow the communist line

(however deviously). Given all this, it is
difficult to account for the dismissive attitude of U.S. int
elligence experts when regarding Chinese intentions. The China
problem is a serious one.

“The people … of the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America should
unite,” said

Chairman

Mao

in 1964.
“The people of all continents should

unite … and so
form the

broadest
united front to oppose the U.S. imperialist policies

of aggression and war and to defend world peace.” In terms
of today’s peace movement, Mao’s sentiments are up
-
to
-
date. They are, I think, a founding inspiration. The supposed “death
of communis
m” may have eliminated a few soiled terms, but not the main idea. The label on old hatreds may be changed,
but the content remains the same.
And because America is asleep, and the market is buzzing with Chinese
goods, the U.S. government has turned a blind

eye.

The truth about China is worse than inconvenient. It is
painful. So a special context has been devised for dismissing inconvenient facts. This context is inculcated at graduate
schools, think tanks and in government. The context for understanding int
ernational affairs must not admit the existence of
a coordinated, secretive and dangerous combination of countries motivated to overthrow the United States. In other words,
the existence of a “communist bloc” cannot be admitted. And China’s role within thi
s bloc


above all


must be rated as a
“crackpot notion.” And yet, the existence of something identical to the old communist bloc


whatever we choose to call it


is indicated by actions across the board by Russia, the East European satellite countries,
North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and
China. Some ideas fall from fashion. But truth is always true, fashion or not.
U.S. experts failed to connect the dots
regarding China’s development of a long
-
range cruise missile, a new attack submarine, new
ground
-
to
-
air mi
ssiles, a new anti
-
ship missile

(for sinking U.S. aircraft carriers) and more.
China is
preparing for war against the U
nited
S
tates,

specifically. As absurd as it sounds to the economic
optimists

who

think trade with China guarantees peace
,
the U.S. and Ch
ina are bound to
collide.

Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t have a sense of history, doesn’t understand
communist thinking

or the overall policy Beijing has consistently followed since 1949. Communist countries
periodically experiment with capitalism, th
ey always seek trade with the West, and they always sink the money and
technology they gain thereby into a military buildup. Ultimately, they don’t care about the prosperity of their people, the
state of the national infrastructure, personal or press freed
om. Some believe that we mustn’t say that China is a threat. Such
a statement would be akin to self
-
fulfilling prophecy. But an honest appreciation of Chinese actions should not be disallowed
by an appeasing diplomacy or wishful thinking. The job of the an
alyst is not to guarantee good relations with countries that
are preparing for destructive war. The job of the analyst is to see war preparations, diplomatic maneuvers and economic
policies and draw a common sense conclusion about them.

If world peace depe
nds on hiding China’s military
buildup, then world peace is like your fat uncle dressed in a Santa Claus suit.

Saying it’s your fat uncle
may ruin Christmas for your little sister, but Santa Claus isn’t a real person


and never will be. On June 27 we read

another
Washington Times article by Bill Gertz:
“Beijing devoted to weakening ‘enemy’ U.S., defector says.”

According to Gertz, a former Chinese diplomat named Chen Yonglin says that

top Chinese officials consider the
United States to be

“the largest enem
y, the major strategic rival”

of China.

There is no reason to
doubt Mr. Chen’s testimony. He is doubtless telling the truth,
which helps to explain China’s rapid military
buildup.

Chen’s statement underscores a certain lack of symmetry between Beijing and
Washington. Top U.S. officials do
not consider China to be America’s largest enemy or major strategic rival. Instead, China is viewed as a major trading
partner, and U.S. economic interests generally prefer the appeasement of China. Consequently, you will
not find the U.S.
Congress cutting off favored trading status for China. The White House has carefully avoided any hint that China is
considered an “enemy country.” Growing Chinese involvement in Latin America is not viewed with alarm. Politicians refuse
t
o acknowledge that China is building a military alliance with Russia, Cuba, Iran and others.
Gertz further tells us that
China is engaged in a massive military intelligence
-
gathering operation against the U
nited

S
tates.

Chinese agents are working

day and n
ight
to monitor its enemies

as well as Chinese nationals living abroad.

Chinese agents are working to influence the military, trade and foreign policies of key countries
like Australia, Canada and the United States.
China is playing a game of
“divide and c
onquer,”
seeking to drive a wedge

between America and its traditional allies.

In fact, Beijing’s influence
operations are so successful that Chinese diplomat Chen’s request for political asylum in Australia was turned down by the
Australian government. The

Chinese penetration of Canada has been outlined by a joint RCMP
-
CSIS report titled
Sidewinder. According to this report, “Hand in hand with their ethnicity and their commercial obligations, the financial
network of the Chinese entrepreneurs associated to
the organized crime and to the power in Beijing has grown exponentially
and very rapidly in Canada. Their influence over local, provincial and national political leaders has also increased. In the
game of influence, several of these important Chinese entre
preneurs have associated themselves with prestigious and
influential Canadian politicians, offering them positions on their boards of directors. Many of those companies are China’s
national companies."


AND,

W
AR
N
OW IS
B
EST



C
HINA WOULD LOSE AND
IT CUTS O
FF FUTURE MODERNIZAT
ION
.


Robert S.
Ross
, Staff Writer for the National Interest, Fall,
2005

(
Assessing the China Threat
. The National
Interest. Lexis | SWON)


The outcome of any war between the U
nited
S
tates
and China would be devastating for Chinese inte
rests.

As
General Zhu Chenghu recently observed,

China has "no capability to fight a conventional war

against the United
States."

Indeed,

China would face near inevitable defeat,

with the military, political and economic costs far
outweighing any costs inc
urred by the United States.

China would risk losing its entire

surface
fleet
, and it would
expose its coastal territory
,

including its port facilities and its surface vessels at port,

to U.S. air and missile strikes.

The
economic costs would also be devast
ating.
China would
lose access to Western technologies

for many years
after the war. It would

also
lose its peaceful international environment

and risk its "peaceful rise" as its
economy shifted to long
-
term war
-
footing
and its budget contended with a prot
racted U.S.
-
Chinese arms
race, undermining domestic infrastructure

development
and

long
-
term civilian and
defense technology
development.

Finally,
the political costs would be prohibitive.
A military loss to the U
nited
S
tates
could

well
destroy

the nationa
list credentials of
the
C
hinese
C
ommunist
P
arty and cause its collapse.




1.
Economic decline doesn’t cause war

Deudney
91


Hewlett Fellow in Science, Technology, and Society at the Center for Energy and

Environmental Studies, Princeton (Daniel, Bulletin

of the Atomic Scientists, Ebsco)


Poverty Wars. In a second scenario, declining living standards first cause internal turmoil. then war. If groups at all leve
ls of affluence protect their standard of living by pushing deprivation on other
groups class wa
r and revolutionary upheavals could result. Faced with these pressures, liberal democracy and free market systems could incr
easingly be replaced by authoritarian systems capable of
maintaining minimum order.9 If authoritarian regimes are more war
-
prone b
ecause they lack democratic control, and if revolutionary regimes are warprone because of their ideological fervor and
isolation, then the world is likely to become more violent
.
The record of previous depressions supports the proposition that widespread

economic stagnation

and unmet economic expectations contribute to international conflict
.
Although initially
compelling,
this scenario has major flaws
.
One is that
it is arguably based on unsound economic theory
.
Wealth is formed not
so much
by the ava
ilability of cheap natural resources
as by capital formation through
savings and more efficient production.
Many resource
-
poor countries
, like Japan,
are very wealthy, while
many countries with more extensive resources are poor
.
Environmental constraints

require an end to economic growth based on growing use of raw
materials, but not necessarily an end to growth in the production of goods and services.

In addition,
economic decline does not necessarily produce
conflict.
How societies respond to economic

decline may largely depend upon the rate at which such declines
occur
.
And as people get poorer, they may become less willing to spend scarce resources for military forces
.
As

Bernard
Brodie observed

about the modein era,
“The predisposing factors to mi
litary aggression are full
bellies, not empty ones
.”’”
The experience of economic depressions over the last two centuries may be
irrelevan
t, because such depressions were characterized by under
-
utilized production capacity and falling
resource prices
.
In

the 1930 increased military spending stimulated economies, but

if economic growth is
retarded by environmental constraints,
military spending will exacerbate the problem
.

Power Wars. A third scenario is that
environmental degradation might cause war by

altering the relative power of states; that is, newly stronger states may be tempted to prey upon the newly weaker ones, or
weakened states may attack and
lock in their positions before their power ebbs firther. But such alterations might not lead to wa
r as readily as the lessons of history suggest,
because economic power and
military power are not as tightly coupled as in the past.
The economic power positions of Germany and Japan
have changed greatly since World War 11, but these changes have not be
en accompanied by war or threat of
war.
In the contemporary world, whole industries rise, fall, and relocate, causing substantialfluctuations in the
economic well
-
being of regions and peoples without producing wars.
There is no reason to believe that chan
ges
in relative wealth and power

caused by the uneven impact of environmental degradation
would inevitably lead to war
.
Even if

environmental
degradation were to destroy the basic
social and
economic fabric of a country

or region,
the
impact on internati
onal order may not be very great. Among the
first casualties in such country would be the
capacity to wage war.The poor and wretched

of the earth may be able to deny an outside aggressor an easy
conquest, but they
are themselves a minimal threat to othe
r states
.Contemporary offensive military operations
require complex organizational skills, specialized industrial products and surplus wealth
.


2.

Studies prove no war


Miller 2K


(Morris, economist, adjunct professor in the University of Ottawa’s Faculty

of Administration, consultant on international development issues, former Executive
Director and Senior Economist at the World Bank, Winter Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, “Poverty as a cause of wars?” 273
)

The question may be reformulated.

Do wars sp
ring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that exacerbates poverty
and growing disparities in wealth and incomes
?
Perhaps one could argue,

as some scholars do
,
that it is some dramatic event

or sequence of such events
leading to the exacerba
tion of poverty that
,
in turn
,
leads to this deplorable denouement
.
This exogenous factor
might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would

then possibly be tempted to seek a diver
sion by finding or, if need be,
fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war.

According to a study
undertaken
b
y

Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of

the
Carnegie
Endowment

for International Peace,

there would not appear to be any merit
in this hypothesis. After studying ninety
-
three episodes of economic crisis

in twenty
-
two countries

in Latin America and Asia in the years since the Second World War

they concluded
that
:
19 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of econo
mic crises may be wrong ...
The
severity of economic crisis



as measured in terms of
inflation and negative growth

-

bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes

...

(or, in democratic states, rarely)

to an outbreak of
violence

.
.. In the cases of dict
atorships and semidemocracies,
the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression

(thereby using one
form of violence to abort another).


3.
Recession now key to avoid depression


perception of solving the crisis only ensures a
worse crash lat
er


Morris

8


(Charles, Practicing Attorney and former banker, 11
-
22, 2008, “The upside to a serious downturn,”
Houston Chronicle, online: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6126845.html)


Virtually all of America's financial and polit
ical artillery has been dragooned into the great task of heading off a recession.
This is exactly the wrong way to go. As painful as it will be in the short run,
a recession is just what we need
.
Our
economic model is broken, and trying to restart it will
just dig us deeper into a hole
.
The massive changes that
are required can be made only through the violent rejiggering that takes place during recessions
. That may sound
coldhearted, but
there's

a

precedent
.
From
19
79 to
19
81
, then
-
Federal Reserve Chairman

Paul
Volcker

masterminded a nasty slowdown that
broke stagflation



the noxious combination of rising prices and no growth.
Among other moves, Volcker pushed the yield on three
-
month Treasury bills up to an unheard
-
of 20 percent,
stopping
the economy in i
ts track
s
. Millions lost their jobs; Volcker was burned in effigy on the Capitol steps. But when Volcker
finally broke inflation's back
in
19
83, healthy growth resumed

almost
immediately
, and Ronald Reagan rode the result
to a landslide victory in 1984


a

little fact that people worried about a one
-
term presidency for Barack Obama should
note. The arithmetic of our current problem is pretty simple: From 2000 through 2007, U.S. households borrowed $6.2
trillion, nearly doubling their debt. Most of it was bo
rrowed against houses, and about two
-
thirds was spent on things
other than another house or paying down mortgage debt


including SUVs, flat
-
screen TVs and all the other consumer
baubles of an American lifestyle. But when house prices collapsed, the home
-
e
quity cash spigot shut tight. U.S. consumer
spending has fallen off the cliff, devastating car companies and shuttering factories throughout China. The Treasury
Department and the Federal Reserve have responded with pyrotechnics. The Treasury has infused h
undreds of billions in
cash into banks and other financial players. Even more remarkably, the Fed has distributed more than $1 trillion in new
loans and credits to a broad range of financial and non
-
financial companies. The automobile manufacturers have no
w
joined the queue, and President
-
elect Obama has signaled that he'd like them to be included in the bailout. So far, none of
this has worked very well. Banks continue to tighten credit and lending standards. Even interbank lending came close to
freezing u
p last month


a level of disruption not seen since the 1970s.
All these frenzied

attempts at staving off
recession
seem to be aimed

merely
at

jump
-
start
ing

the consumer borrowing
-
spending binge that underpinned
the ersatz growth of the 2000s
.
But

the real

need is to shift to a more balanced system that's less addicted to
high
-
leverage finance
.



1nc
Innovation




Biotech cause
s

resource wars killing millions.


MacLeod

99

Ian MacLeod, of The Ottawa Citizen, 9
-
26
-
99 (“Gene Wars Loom on Horizon,” accessed at

http://131.104.232.9/agnet/1999/9
-
1999/ag
-
09
-
26
-
99
-
01.txt
)

Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, D.C. and described here as
a noted author on issues dealing with science, technology and culture, was cited as saying

during

an
interview with the Citizen
about the dangers he sees lurking in the rich new biotech frontier of genetic
commerce, that
warfare could break out

in the coming century
if corporations continue to stake patent
claims on the world's gene pool
, adding
, "
If this generation allows the gene pool to be reduced to political or

fiduciary
intellectual property,
our kids are going to see gene wars in the 21st century
.
Just as we fought

wars

during

the mercantile era
over silver and gold
, wars over
oil and mine
rals

in the industrial era, if the
gene pool is reduced from a commons to political or intellectual property,
there's going to be great global
conflict and millions of people are going to suffer and die
.




***CIR 2NC**


will pass after midterms


Marcana ’
10

(July 1, 2010 Obama Turns To Immigration At A Tough Time by TONY MARCANO


When President Obama spoke Thursday about overhauling immigration policy, he made this observation: "The question now is whet
her we will have the
courage and the political will to

pass a bill through Congress to finally get it done." Short of a sudden mood shift on Capitol Hill, the answer would seem
to be no


at least not this year. So
what was the president's motivation in delivering the speech n
ow? The White House cites a
few r
ecent events, like the president's meetings this week with advocates for immigrants and with the Congressional Hispanic Caucu
s. "The president's
view is that there’s been a lot in the news about immigration lately,'' White House spokesman Bill Burton said
Wednesday. "There's been the Arizona law,
there's been meetings about it, there's been protests about it. He thought this was a good time to talk plainly with the Amer
ican people about his views on
immigration." Undoubtedly, immigration remains on the mind
s of many Americans


and many are not pleased with the president's handling of the
issue. A survey conducted in June by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that only a third of the respon
dents approved of how
Obama is dealing with imm
igration, the lowest approval rating out of nine major issues. The meetings and the president's speech could also signal that

the federal government will soon move forward with a lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration law. But it could also be that

the
White House is
proceeding with its various agendas in a systematic way and is just now getting around to immigration
, said Doris
Meissner, who led what was then called the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration. "I do th
in
k [
the speech] is
an effort to focus on it and reinforce the messages
," Meissner said. "I think
it tees up the issue for early 2011 quite
well, because you have to be working on it now
."

Meissner, now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute in Wa
shington, agreed
that
factors like the Arizona law likely gave the White House further impetus to act now, even though it's
unlikely that Congress will take up the issue before the midterm elections. Dan Tichenor, a University of
Oregon political scientist

and author of a book on immigration reform called Dividing Lines
, said that the speech was
in part aimed at Latino and Asian voters, particularly those who feel that President Obama has not acted quickly enough to fi
x the immigration system.
"He was tryin
g to explain why he has not managed to fulfill his promise," Tichenor said. "
He's saying, 'I'm committed, and here's
specifics of what I want to do



here's the real beef.' " There's not much evidence of action on Capitol Hill. Any legislation would need
R
epublican support in the Senate, and so far, the only Republican who has worked on a bill, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina,
has backed away from
the effort. But Tichenor and Audrey Singer, an immigration policy expert at the Brookings Institution, both sa
id there's too much swirling around the
immigration issue for the president to have waited much longer to address it. "I think the pressure is so great coming on the

heels of the Arizona law and
potential copycat legislation and the anticipated federal law
suit that he runs the risk that if he doesn't say anything, he's not putting his money where his
mouth is," Singer said. The pressure, she said, is coming from all sides, from activists who support a general amnesty to sup
porters of enhanced border
securit
y "It's truly a moment where everybody agrees that something has to be done," she said. "We just don't all necessarily agree
on what it is."


**Commodification**


Link 2NC/oV


B SUBPOINT Is is there Chinese trade arugment
-
They only see immigrants as tools

to
better our economic standing with other countries. AND, we turn case because their
economic exploitation makes war inevitable


William
Eckhardt
, Lentz Peace Research Laboratory of St. Louis,
Journal of Peace Research
, February
1990
, p. 15
-
16


Modern We
stern Civilization used war as well as peace to gain the whole world as a domain to benefit itself at the expense of others:
The expansion of the culture and
institutions of modern civilization from its centers in Europe was made possible by imperialistic
war… It is true missionaries and traders had their share in the work of
expanding world civilization, but always with the support, immediate or in the background, of armies and navies (pp. 251
-
252). The importance of dominance as a primary
motive in civili
zed war in general was also emphasized for modern war in particular:

[
Dominance] is
probably
the most important
single
element in the causation of
major modern
wars’

(p. 85).
European empires were thrown up all over the world
in this process

of benefiting

some at the expense of others, which was characterized by armed violence contributing to structural violence:
‘World
-
empire is built by conquest and maintained by force… Empires are primarily organizations of violence’

(pp. 965, 969).

The struggle for em
pire has

greatly increased the disparity between states with respect to the political control of resources, since there can
never be enough imperial territory to provide for all’ (p. 1190). This ‘disparity between states’, not to mention the dispari
ty with
in states, both of which take the form of racial
differences in life expectancies, has

killed
15
-
20 times as many
people

in the 20th century
as have wars
and revolutions

(Eckhardt & Kohler, 1980; Eckhardt, 1983c).
When this

structural violence of ‘disparit
y between states’ created by civilization is
taken into account, then

the violent nature of civilization becomes much more apparent.

Wright concluded that ‘Probably at least 10
per cent of deaths in modern civilization can be attributed directly or indirec
tly to war… The trend of war has been toward greater cost, both absolutely and relative to
population… The proportion of the population dying as a direct consequence of battle has tended to increase’ (pp. 246, 247).
So far as

structural violence
has
consti
tuted
about
one
-
third of all deaths in the 20th century

(Eckhardt & Kohler, 1980; Eckhardt, 1983c), and so far as structural violence
was a function of armed violence, past and present, then Wright’s estimate was very conservative indeed. Assuming that war

is some function of civilization, then

civilization is responsible for one
-
third of 20th century deaths. This is surely self
-
destruction carried to a high
level of efficiency.

The structural situation has been improving throughout the 20th century, howeve
r, so that structural violence caused ‘only’ 20% of all deaths in
1980 (Eckhardt, 1983c). There is obviously room for more improvement. To be sure, armed violence in the form of revolution ha
s been directed toward the reduction of
structural violence, even

as armed violence in the form of imperialism has been directed toward its maintenance. But

imperial violence came first
,

in the sense
of creating structural violence, before revolutionary violence emerged to reduce it.

I
t is in this sense that
structural
violence was
basically,
fundamentally, and primarily
a function of armed violence in its imperial form. The atomic age has ushered in
the

possibility, and some would say the
probability
, of killing not only some of us for the benefit of others, nor
even of

killing all of us to no one’s benefit, but
of putting
an end to life itself!

This is surely carrying self
-
destruction to some infinite power

beyond all human comprehension. It’s too much, or superfluous, as the Existentialists might say. Why we should car
e is
a mystery. But, if we do, then the need for civilized peoples to respond to the ethical challenge is very urgent indeed.

Life itself may depend upon our
choice
.


The alt solves the case


rejection of neoliberalism and decommidication of immigration a
re
key to effective global regulation of immigration for both labor and asylum


however, the
inclusion of the plan’s instance of commodification makes effective reform impossible.

Henk
Overbeek
, associate professor in international relations at the

Free University, Amsterdam, “Neoliberalism and the Regulation of
Global Labor Mobility,” May
2002
,
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences
, JSTOR


First,
unless an effort is made to address the underlying causes
,

especia
lly of all forms
of involuntary
migration
,
any effort to create an international migration convention will inevitably result in
the codification of the existing extremely restrictive immigration practices of most of the
countries of destination
.
The intern
ational community
(this often abused eulogism)
must address the structural
inequities in the global political economy
producing and/or reproducing poverty among twothirds of the world’s population (such as
unequal exchange, the dumping of agricultural surp
luses, etc.). It should also look very critically at the global arms trade that fuels many of the refugee
-
producing conflicts around the globe. Especially where arms trade and neocolonial political interference with (if not initiat
ion of) regional and loca
l
conflicts by major powers coincide, the results have been disastrous.

Second,
the particular character of globalization as a process of deepening commodification and as a project of
privileging the market over public regulation suggests that to be demo
cratic and responsive to the needs of all
people, certain fundamental principles must underlie any regulatory project.
It is
, first,
of
crucial importance

that the trend to further commodification is reversed and that essential spheres of human life are
wh
olly or
partly decommodified
. This implies also that
we must reassert the primacy of public governance
as opposed to the
market
-
led governance, which neoliberalism advocates for those areas where the interests of capital
predominate
. Finally,
these new for
ms of public governance of global processes must provide for
democratic
decision making and grassroots participation
,

not just at the national and international levels but also
in transnational settings.

At the national level, the institutions to implement

democratic control and popular participation exist, at least in
principle if not everywhere in practice, in the form of political parties, parliaments, and legal systems. At the internation
al level, we have the institutions
and practices of traditional di
plomacy, including the framework of the United Nations system, to guarantee the representation of all sovereign states in
the process. Notwithstanding its many shortcomings, it should be obvious that the United Nations is preferable as a framework

for worl
dwide
agreements to other frameworks. This is so whether these are international but with representation based on economic strength

(such as the IMF or the
WTO) or whether they are bilateral and skewed toward the strongest economic power (as in the bilater
al negotiations between the European Union and
the individual candidate
-
members on their terms of entry).

In such a new, democratic, multilateral context, we might envisage the creation of a comprehensive
international migration framework convention
. The p
urpose of this convention is to set forth and guarantee the
general principles governing the regulation of transnational migrations, to ensure a sufficient degree of
coordination between regional and national migration regimes, and to deal with those migra
tory movements
that cannot be covered in a regional setting
. There are three major components in such a regime.

1. The institutional framework to be developed at the world (and regional) level must be democratic, that is, transparent an
d responsive to t
he needs of
migrants as well as to those of the participating states. The organizational forms for such an enterprise are still to be dev
eloped; they will need to find a
balance between facilitating grassroots participation and democratic representation, w
hich is often lacking in the literature singing the praises of global
civil society and of transnational nongovernmental organizations.

2. The asylum and refugee framework providing the basis for the existing international refugee regime (i.e., the 1951 G
eneva Convention and the 1967
New York Protocol) must be amended to take account of the changed nature of international refugee movements. Here the proposa
ls put forward by
Zolberg, Suhrke, and Aguayo (1989) may serve as a starting point. They propose to i
ntroduce as the central principle &dquo;the immediacy and degree of
life
-
threatening violence&dquo; (p. 270) to afford protection to the &dquo;victims&dquo; on an equal footing with the more common
subjects of present
asylum law, the &dquo;activists&dquo;
and the &dquo;targets.&dquo; The asylum policies of the OECD countries deserve special mention here: these
tend to produce illegal immigrants in large numbers through the practice of denying official status to asylum seekers who can
not be returned to their

countries of origin because of humanitarian concerns.

3. An equivalent framework for voluntary migration (permanent and temporary) must be created in which states undertake to b
ring their national and
regional immigration policies in accordance with an
internationally negotiated set of minimum criteria formulated to safeguard the interests of migrants
as well as the interests of the signatory states. The existing provisions of international labor organization conventions and

the GATS should be
incorporat
ed into such a framework or replaced by it where they conflict with the fundamental principles set out above. One important p
rinciple to be
obeyed here is that the legal position of long
-
term residents must be improved. Both the return of migrants to their

home countries and their effective
integration into the host society are obstructed by their insecure status (i.e., by the difficulty in many host countries of
obtaining full membership in the
welfare state and by the difficulties they encounter on return

to their home countries). These problems could be substantially reduced, for instance, by
expanding the possibilities for dual citizenship or by allowing reimmigration with full retention of rights in case of failed

return migration.

On the basis of su
ch a comprehensive set of principles, regional migration conventions can then create the
institutional and operational settings for their practical implementation
. It is plausible that only in regional settings will it be
possible to develop effective inst
ruments to deal with such undesirable developments as the increasing role of organized crime in the trafficking of people
(and drugs and arms). As with Prohibition in the 1930s, an exclusively repressive policy only raises the price of the prohibi
ted goods

(in this case access
to the labor markets of the OECD countries) without substantially reducing the flow.
These regional regimes might be expected,
depending on specific circumstances, to
incorporate regional development, educational and
employment initia
tives, preferential trade agreements, effective measures against trafficking in
people, agreements on the readmission of illegal migrants, arrangements for temporary labor
migration, quota for permanent immigration, return migration schemes, and improvemen
t of
the legal position of migrants in host countries
. An integral and comprehensive approach is essential.
If certain
elements, such as temporary labor provisions, are realized in isolation from the other elements
and principles, such schemes are bound to

serve only the interests of the employers looking for
cheap workers
. Public governance of these processes must guarantee the balance between the various elements of the conventions.

This article has put forward that there is a possibly irreconcilable tens
ion between commodification on one hand and emancipation and deprivation on
the other.
The present trend in the global economy is to privilege private market forces over public regulation.
We
are presently
on the threshold

of global initiatives to shift th
is balance even further, especially with respect
to the management of global migration flows.
This article maintains that
the answer cannot be a return to strictly
national forms of migration control and should not be a complete capitulation to marketdrive
n regulation of
migration
. Polanyi’s (1957) “double movement” is now, more than ever, operative at the global level, and this implies that
we must actively
develop global forms of social protection

(complementing, not replacing, national forms)
to counter
the destructive effects of
deepening
commodification. Resisting the subordination of international labor markets to the neoliberal
regimes
of the WTO (via GATS and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment)
must be an integral component of the struggle for
a
more democratic global economic order.



Impact 2NC


And, we control the direction of all impacts


commodification renders life valueless and
makes destruction of human life both possible and logical.

Michael
Dillon
, professor of politics and internatio
nal relations at the University of Lancaster, April
19
99
, Political Theory, Vol. 27, No. 2,
“Another Justice,” p. 164
-
5


Quite the reverse. The subject was never a firm foundation for justice, much less a hospitable vehicle for the reception of t
he call of

another Justice. It
was never in possession of that self
-
possession which was supposed to secure the certainty of itself, of a self
-
possession that would enable it ultimately to
adjudicate everything.
The very indexicality required of sovereign subjectivi
ty gave rise

rather
to a commensurability

much more
amenable to the expendability required of the political and material economies of mass societies

than it
did to the singular, invaluable, and uncanny uniqueness of the self.
The value of the subject becam
e the standard unit of currency

for the political arithmetic of States and the political economies of capitalism. They trade in it still to devastating globa
l effect. The technologisation of the
political has become manifest and global.
Economies of evalua
tion necessarily require calculability.

Thus no valuation without
mensuration and no mensuration without indexation.
Once rendered calculable
, however,
units of account are necessarily
submissible

not only to valuation but also, of course,
to devaluation.

Devaluation, logically, can extend to the point of
counting as nothing
.

Hence, no mensuration without demensuration either. There is nothing abstract about this:
the declension of
economies of value leads to the zero point of holocaust.
However liberating
and emancipating systems of value
-
rights
-
may claim to be
, for example,
they run the risk of counting out the invaluable. Counted out,
the invaluable
may then lose its purchase on life
.

Herewith, then, the necessity of championing the invaluable itself. For

we must never forget that, “we are
dealing always with whatever exceeds measure.” But how does that necessity present itself? Another Justice answers: as the su
rplus of the duty to answer
to the claim of Justice over rights. That duty, as with the advent
of another Justice, is integral to the lack constitutive of the human way of being.


And, neoliberalism devalues the meaning of life itself


immigrants face no choice but to flee
their homes in search of economic security, while natives see their wages an
d job security
decline, creating a cycle of insecurity which turns case.

Jerry D.
Rose
, a retired sociology professor from State University of New York, “How Neo
-
Liberalism Has Created The World's Immigration Crisis,”
2/12/
2008
, http://www.countercurrents.
org/rose120208.htm


Well, how about we start with recognizing what may be the crux of the matter: that
the U.S. and the rest of the world is caught in a
trap of "neo
-
liberal" globalization which has made corporate profit the be and end
-
all of public policy
. Under
the inspiration of this philosophy, the world economy is re
-
made as a global playground of profit
-
seeking for its
corporate entrepreneurs, with "privatized" societies which
render each individual an atom of existence
to be manipulated for corporate

profit at the expense of the
pleasures

and

supports

of the
social commons.

These "atoms," cut loose from the bonds of family and community, are not only free but
compelled for their own survival to move from their ancestral homelands to other places where

they have a
chance of survival
.

Given that the more "developed" countries offer employment opportunities that are
marginally better than those available to people in the "under
-
developed" ones, the immigration flow is
predominantly from under
-
developed to

developed ones, as from Latin Americans to the U.S. and Canada,
Africans and Asians to "old" countries of western Europe
.

The clash we now seeing playing out in these "developed" countries is based on what has been happening to
working people in those cou
ntries as well. "
Neo
-
liberal" policies have certainly not spared them
either
. Under the influence of Ronald Reagan in the U.S., to mention one bellwether in this movement (like Margaret Thatcher in Bri
tain),
the
security of workers has been severely challe
nged
by anti
-
labor policies that have reduced the organized labor
movement to a shadow of its former self;
while one after another political administration

(especially Republican but
also Clinton Democratic)
has hammered away against the social compact
of
public concern for the welfare of
individuals
.
It became relatively easy to "starve the beast" of educational, health and other services for citizens,
since these years of retrenchment of government services corresponded with the growth of

a (truly) voraci
ous beast of
expenditures

for (often) needless military purposes that sapped budgets and created huge deficits that helped to undermine Social Security

and any
chance of a truly national health system.

So there you have it.
Workers from under
-
developed cou
ntries deprived of opportunities to make a living at
home "flood" into
countries like
the United States
, The Netherlands or France
and the socially insecure native
workers of these countries see the immigrant workers as the source of their problems
. As Jim

Hightower says in an
article just published in Alter Net, American workers look down on the immigrant as a competitor for work and for scarce publ
ic services, when they
should be looking up to the people on Wall Street and in Washington who are the really

responsible parties for their insecurities. In exactly the same way,
it has been noted that the people who hunted and executed witches in Salem in 1692 were traditionally agrarian
-
oriented people made to feel insecure by
the new class of capitalist mercha
nts coming to prevail in that community. However they did not attack the power
-
wielders in the town and village
precisely because they were powerful but instead looked (way) down to some of the outcastes who could serve as appropriate sc
apegoats on which t
o
express their insecurity. Perhaps immigrants in industrialized countries today are the witches of the 21st century.


AT: Perm


2.

Footnoting


perm results in the alt becoming a footnote to the plan, undermining its
transformative potential.

Huffington P
ost
, Jan 22,
2006

[The Dishonest Economic Fantasies Screwing Over Ordinary Americans,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david
-
sirota/the
-
dishonest
-
economic
-
fa_b_14263.html]


Let me be very clear
-

we can have a debate about all of these core economic issues, a
nd people like Gene Sperling have some good points to make on the
neoliberal side. But they have points to be made within the context of a debate. And
that's the core problem:
when you look at the
discourse between politicians or the news coverage of these

economic issues, you barely ever see a debate at all
,
and
when you do,
the side arguing against the free market fundamentalism

and for the positions supported by the majority of
ordinary Americans
is automatically portrayed by the Establishment as margina
l
. What's really going on is obvious:
the
political/media Establishment is trying to dishonestly create

the
perception that it is just a fact

that the

Big Money
position on

key economic issues (ie. corporate
-
written trade deals and
neoliberal economics) ha
s resulted and always will result
in major benefits to society.

The
Establishment does this even though almost every factual indicator about these
policies of import to ordinary people
-

real wages, trade deficits, health care & retirement benefit levels
-

are on
the negative swing
. Oh sure, corporate profits continue to skyrocket
-

but the indicators that actually matter to the vast majority of hard working
Americans in their day
-
to
-
day lives are not. The most interesting question of all is why?

Why would
the Establishment so deliberately
bias its economic coverage?
For politicians
,
the
answer is easy

-

the
more they toe the corporate

line, push economic
policies that screw over ordinary citizens and pad Big Money's bottom line,
the more our corrupt, pay
-
to
-
play political process
rewards them with huge wads of campaign cash. For the media
, it is more complex, having partly to do with the fact that the
media is owned by corporations with a huge incentive to push ultraconservative economic policies and partly
to do with the fact that in today's journalist
-
as
-
celebrity era,
many of the most important opinion
-
setting reporters are upper
-
crust elites who never have to deal
with the consequences of the economic prescriptions they push
. The result, as I argue in my
upcoming book, is an intense
propaganda system that destructively distorts reality and an America that increasingly tunes out the media and politics altog
ether. The public is not
stupid
-

the public knows that what they read, see and hear from the Establis
hment is often highly
-
biased fiction divorced from the average citizen's daily
economic challenges, and deliberately designed to make anyone who questions the Establishment's economic agenda feel marginal
ized. My book shows
how these policies are the resul
t of a hostile takeover of our government by Big Money interests. And in doing so, the book aims to be an average citizen's
guide to decoding all this B.S.
-

because
the first step towards changing the media/political system is understanding in a
very fund
amental way how it is being used by the Establishment to wage a merciless class war against ordinary
people
.




4.

Movement Tradeoff



a.

Perm fails


the choice between globalization from above and below is zero sum.

Jeremy
Brecher et al
,
Expert on labor,

world trade and economics, Globalization from Below,
The Nation, December 4,
http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20001204&s=brecher

2000


Some within the movement advocate c
entralized global government as the solution to corporate globalization; others seek a reassertion of national or
even local sovereignty. But the problems of globalization are unlikely to be solved either by some central global authority o
r by national or
local autarky.
The real choice today is between a globalization from above that disempowers people at every level and a
globalization from below that expands self
-
government not only at a global level but at regional, national and
local levels as well
. The

movement faces many potential pitfalls,

and given the power of those it opposes, there is no guarantee
that it can actually modify globalization enough to preserve people and environment, let alone to build a decent world order.

But that is more
likely to

be achieved by means of a movement that is unified across the boundaries of countries, issues and
constituencies than by any other approach.
Globalization from above made ordinary people around the world
seem powerless; globalization from below has the po
tential to change the power equation.

Rarely in human
history have ordinary people had such an opportunity to transform the world for the better.




b.

Specifically, only grassroots solutions to labor commodification can solve.

Aziz
Choudry
, assistant prof
essor in the Department of Integrated Studies in Education at McGill University, “‘Free Trade’, Neoliberal Immigration
& The Globalization Of Guestworker Programs,” 6/16/
2008
, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00213.htm

Where some liberalization of
labour movement has been written into agreements like GATS Mode 4 and similar provisions in FTAs, it is highly
restrictive, and framed in the interests of TNCs and overseas investors who are the true beneficiaries and authors of these d
eals. Generally, FTA
s have
tended to deepen, accelerate and broaden liberalization and deregulation, but in this area, they have thus far had very limit
ed effect.
We cannot
place any hope or faith in these instruments to advance workers’ rights to migrate.

There remains a dan
ger that
such agreements could in future become institutional frameworks covering temporary migrant labour flows.
Political sensitivities about immigration have to contend with ageing populations and shrinking domestic
labour

(and taxpayer)
pools in many N
orthern countries, putting new pressures to bring in new workers
.

Struggles for dignity and justice and a living wage for migrant workers cannot be left to be
fought in arenas which commodify them
, like GATS and FTAs,
by governments which are themselves
fr
equently antagonistic to people’s struggles domestically and internationally by their embrace
of neoliberal and imperialist policies
. Global capitalism fragments labour and the lives of working people everywhere. Across the
board,
WTO and FTAs serve the in
terests of TNCs and other political and economic elites, not the people
. GATS and
services liberalization under FTAs are fundamentally about advancing and locking in privatization, deregulation, and unrestri
cted foreign investment
and contracting
-
out that
workers around the world have been resisting on many fronts.
Just as many movements have rejected the idea
of giving global capitalism a happy face by incorporating so
-
called “social” and “green” clauses linking free
trade to labour and environmental stand
ards, so too
we must assert that neoliberal globalization is
fundamentally exploitative of workers, and insist that
such agreements have no legitimacy to deal with
the lives of migrant workers
.

To expect to harness or transform them into instruments that w
ill somehow
advance migrant workers’ struggles is like expecting a tiger to become a vegetarian.
Injustices perpetuated in the WTO
and FTAs are not unintentional imbalances to be resolved by polite NGO lobbying, but underpin the very values and framework o
f these instruments.
Rather than fighting to expand terms and provisions in these trade and investment agreements,
we must
support struggles of immigrant workers for regularization, justice and dignity
. Support migrant worker organizations like
Migrante ,
the New York Taxi Workers Alliance , immigrant workers centres , and encourage established trade unions to support immigrant
workers’
struggles. As a 2004 Canadian Labour Congress discussion document argues,
this struggle “is critical in holding the line a
gainst
declining wages and working conditions for the entire labour movement. [Migrant workers] are at the edge of
the economic divide and must be protected and involved in our collective struggle in order for real change to
occur.

A worker is a worker is
a worker.”




6.

Foreclosure


any inclusion of neoliberalism corrupts the public sphere necessary for
rejection, foreclosing the possibility of change.

Giroux
, Prof of Comm @ McMaster,
2004

p. xviii
-
xix (Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)


As Fredric Jam
eson has argued in The Seeds of Time,
it has now become easier to imagine the end of the world than the end
of capitalism
. The breathless

rhetoric of the global victory of free


market rationality

spewed forth by the mass media, right

wing intellectuals, a
nd governments alike has found its material expression in an all

out attack on democratic values arid in the growth of a range of
social problems including virulent and persistent poverty, joblessness, inadequate health care, racial apartheid in the inner

cities, and increasing
inequalities between the rich and the poor. Such problems appear to have been either removed from the inventory of public dis
course and social policy or
factored into talk

show spectacles in which the public becomes merely a staging

area for venting private interests and emotions.
Within the
discourse of neoliberalism that has taken hold of tile public imagination, there is no way of talking about what
is fundamental to civic life, critical citizenship, and a substantive democracy. N
eoliberalism offers no critical
vocabulary for speaking about political or social transformation as a democratic project. Nor is there a language
for either the ideal of public committment or the notion of a social agency capable of challenging the basic
a
ssumptions
of corporate ideology as well as its social consequences.

In its dubious appeals to universal laws, neutrality, and
selective scientific research,

neoliberalism “eliminates the very possibility of critical thinking, without which
democratic deba
te becomes impossible.
This shift in rhetoric makes it possible for advocates of neoliberalism
to implement the most ruthless economic and political policies without having to open up such actions to
public debate and dialogue.
Hence, neoliberal policies t
hat promote the cutthroat downsizing of the workforce, the bleeding of social services,
the reduction of state governments to police precincts, the ongoing liquidation of job security, the increasing elimination o
f a decent social wage, the
creation of a s
ociety of low
-
skilled workers, amid the emergence of a culture of permanent insecurity and fear hide behind appeals to common sense and
alleged immutable laws of nature.



1NR


Republicans will support comprehensive reform after the elections

Page ’10

(Su
san Page, Washington bureau chief, USA Today ANALYSIS AIR DATE: July 1, 2010 Obama
Renews Calls for GOP Support on Immigration Reform


SUSAN PAGE: Well, I think the White House would love if that happened. But, you know, this
--

he has not previously given

a speech
that's devoted to immigration during his presidency.
That's been disappointing for some of his staunchest supporters. His support
among Hispanic voters has gone down since he was inaugurated. But it's still 57 percent in the Gallup poll. That's h
igher than for the country as a whole.
It's higher than for Anglo voters. It's important to
--

to many of these Hispanic voters and others that he show he remains committed to this issue. It
seems
--

it's hard to believe this is going to get done this year
. But you could see changes in the Republican Party, or you could see this being a second
-
term kind of issue. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, that's what I was going to ask. What is it thought that the prospects are next year?

LINDA FELDMANN:
Well, it depends on what

happens in November. If the Democrats lose control of either house of Congress, then forget it. They can set the agenda. If t
hey
maintain control, I think... JUDY WOODRUFF: Is that right? Immigration is dead if Republicans take... LINDA FELDMANN: I think

so, if the
Republicans take over. I just think that's it, until the Democrats take over again. JUDY WOODRUFF: No
--

no concern on the part of Republicans that
they're seen as opposing this? SUSAN PAGE: I think it's possible that
Republicans will take a sof
ter position after the election. For
one thing, they will be looking at a presidential race. It's hard to get to 51 percent in this country if you have
really alienated Hispanics, the nation's largest
--

well, fastest
-
growing group. Also, you have some Rep
ublican
Hispanic candidates on the ballot in November, Marco Rubio, the Cuban American in the Florida Senate race.
You have got Susana Martinez, who is a Latina running for governor in New Mexico. She would be the

first
Latina governor in the country if sh
e wins. And those voices may succeed in altering to some degree this very
staunch Republican opposition we see now.



Republicans and Obama both have an incentive to pass immigration reform

Kondracke ’10

(Roll Call July 29, 2010 Thursday Hope Exists for Im
migration 'Down Payment' BYLINE:
Morton M. Kondracke SECTION: PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE LENGTH: 918 words


Republican presidential candidates have an interest in getting the divisive immigration issue "off the table" for
2012 and stopping the party's hemorrhage
of Hispanic voters
.
So do party luminaries such as

Jeb

Bush.

Obama
ought to be in the lead working on legislative strategy

-

partly
to repair his own reputation with Latinos

disappointed at his failure to push comprehensive reform
.



Even advocates don’t w
ant the reform piecemeal
-

it destroys comprehensive reform

Hing ’10

(by Julianne Hing ShareThis | Print | Comment (6) Tuesday, July 27 2010, 9:43 AM EST


But not everyone appreciates their aggressive and public tactics. The DREAM Act online organizing cle
aringhouse DreamActivist.org released a
recording of a phone call that took place last week between protesters in Sen. Harry Reid’s office and Illinois Rep. Luis Gut
ierrez. Gutierrez remains one
of the last congressional voices who still has hope for compr
ehensive immigration reform this congressional session.
Gutierrez scolded the
activists for demanding the DREAM Act be pushed independently from the broader immigration reform
package: “Every time someone says the whole thing cannot pass, only part of it,
it weakens us, it divides us, it
confuses us, it scatters us all over the place.

We once had a united movement for comprehensive immigration reform. Now we don’t have
a united movement, and that is causing, that is detrimental to the movement for all of us
.” It’s a tense, emotional phone call, but not an unusual
conversation among immigration activists long used to hearing promises, followed by foot
-
dragging and delays, that rarely lead to action.
Mainstream immigrant rights groups in the Beltway have often

joined Democrats in discouraging the
DREAMers and others who are pushing for a piecemeal approach to reform
.
The DREAM Act has won strong
bipartisan support in the past, but even those who still support it have softened. Even the bill’s author, Sen.
Dick
Durbin, claims he’s still holding out hope for comprehensive reform

leaving the bill with a steep climb as
a stand
-
alone effort. Meanwhile, anything that resembles the forbidden “amnesty” is dangerous territory for
both parties.



Comprehensive reform is k
ey to prevent food insecurity

Gaskill ’10

(Ron Gaskill is director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Worker shortage urges immigration reform efforts April 9, 2010 Season Right for Meaningful Immigration
Reform By Ron Gask
ill


Even in these times of higher
-
than
-
usual unemployment, most
farmers

and ranchers still
struggle to find all the workers they need
for a successful season
.
Serious concerns that not enough domestic workers will choose to work in agriculture
has become
a harsh reality

across the countryside. About 15 million people in the United States choose non
-
farm jobs at wages that are actually
lower than what they could earn by working alongside farmers and ranchers. The on
-
farm jobs and opportunities are there, bu
t many workers choose not
to take advantage of them.
The issue is rapidly moving from one centered on a lack of resources, to one with food
insecurity at its heart.

Farmers and ranchers are the ones being squeezed; caught between a domestic labor force tha
t doesn’t want agricultural
work, government policy that fails to recognize the seriousness of the problem and an administration that consistently makes
it harder to hire workers.
U.S. consumers will continue to eat fresh fruits and vegetables regardless o
f how the labor scenario ultimately plays out. But, whether or not those fruits
and vegetables are grown in the U.S. or imported from other countries where labor is more plentiful greatly concerns Farm Bur
eau. It’s past time for our
nation’s policymakers t
o translate grassroots concern into meaningful action. As much as we believe in a farmer’s right to farm, Farm Bureau fully
respects the right of U.S. workers to choose other lines of work. But, on the flip side, as employers, we must be able to leg
ally em
ploy those who do want
to work, even if they’re from other countries.
Comprehensive immigration reform is needed, so that America’s farmers and
ranchers can continue to produce an abundant supply of safe, healthy food, as well as renewable fuels and fiber
for our nation
.



Food

insecurity kills billions

Brown ‘5

(Lester Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute, February 7, 2005, People and the Planet,
“Falling water tables 'could hit food supply',”
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2424


Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security, but for much of humanity, the effect of water shortages and

rising temperatures on
food security are far more important issues.
For

the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day

or less and who spend up to 70 per
cent of their income on food,
even a modest rise in food prices can quickly become life
-
threatening
. For them, it is
the next
meal that is the overriding concern
."


Food i
nsecurity sparks World War 3

Calvin ’98

(William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist


U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No.
1, p. 47
-
64)


The population
-
crash scenario is surely the most appalling.
Plummeting crop yields would cause

some
powerf
ul countries to

try to
take over

their
neighbors or
distant

lands

--

if only because
their armies
, unpaid and
lacking food,

would go marauding
, both at
home and
across
the
borders
. The better
-
organized
countries would
attempt to
use their armies
, before th
ey fell apart entirely,
to take
over countries with
significant
remaining resources
, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the
same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food.
This
would be a worldwide

problem
--

and
could lead to a Third World
War

--

but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered E
urope's climate as far
east as Ukraine. Present
-
day Europe has more than 650 mil
lion people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it
lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.



Econ Doesn’t Cause War


AT: Mead 09

Also, it wasn’t caused by economic collapse


Germany started the war

after its economy had
already recovered

Ferguson 6

prof of history, Harvard and Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution (Niall, “The Next War of the World,” September/Oc
tober 2006,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/the_next_war_of_t
he_world.html) //khirn


Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed.
What

may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography
links the

Great
Depression to

the rise of
fascism and

the outbreak of
World War II
. But that simple story
leaves too
much out
. Nazi
Germany started the war

in Europe only
after its economy

had
recovered
. Not all the countries

affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes
start wars

of aggression. In fact,
no

general
relatio
nship between economics and conflict is discernible

for the century

as a
whole. Some
wars came after

periods of
growth
, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe,
and

some severe economic
crises were not followed by wars.



2NC



*
Science
Diplomacy Impact



Financial crisis is key to momentum for global scientific co
-
op and innovation


Nature Magazine

8


(11
-
13, 2008, “Danger and opportunity,” Vol. 456, No. 141)


Also encouraging is the emerging appreciation that short
-

a
nd long
-
term measures to address the economic crisis need not
be mutually exclusive. Often they can and should be considered simultaneously. After trillion
-
dollar rescues of the banking
system, for example,
many countries are indeed contemplating massive e
conomic stimulus packages
. But instead
of crafting conventional, spending
-

oriented plans focused solely on tax cuts for individuals and spending increases,
policy
-
makers should look for ways to give the economy a quick shot in the arm while also
boosting
investment that
spurs productivity, growth and innovation
.
China seems to be thinking in those terms
. Last weekend, Beijing
announced a 4
-
trillion
-
yuan (US$586
-
billion) stimulus package, at least some of which


details remain vague


will go
on research t
ax credits and investments in infrastructure.
The U
nited
S
tates, which is debating a stimulus package of
similar magnitude,
may do likewise
: Barack
Obama
, the US president
-
elect,
campaigned

on the need
for

major
investments in
clean energy, education, heal
th and infrastructure
, most of
which will have a strong research
component
. Innovative thinking Good specific ideas are emerging. On 29 October, for example, the Information
Technology & Innovation Foundation, a think tank based in Washington DC, outlined
eight possibilities in the IT realm.
Among them were increased grants for universities to buy research equipment in 2009, a tax credit for investments in
energy
-
efficient equipment in 2009 and billions of dollars to buy computers and broadband for low
-
inco
me families with
children at home. In the area of clean energy, meanwhile, others have suggested the use of stimulus money to spur
demand for new technologies, much as consumer subsidies to use solar energy in Germany have helped drive the growth
of solar
start
-
ups


not only in that country, but also in the United States and China. Indeed,
the crisis is providing
multiple opportunities for governments to take decisive action on innovation
, and policy
-
makers should champion
those possibilities as they hamme
r out stimulus packages.
Given the deeply intertwined nature of the modern global
innovation system, they should act collaboratively



as they have already begun to do in addressing the problems of
the global financial system.
International cooperation at
this level has been all too rare in recent years.

But there is
every reason to hope that
the experience provided by this crisis will be a model for future efforts to combat
challenges

such as climate change and water shortage

by a world aptly described by
Obama in his victory speech as
"connected by our own science and imagination".


That solves all extinction scenarios


Fedoroff

8


(Nina, Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID,
Testimony Before the House S
cience Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, 4/2,
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/102996.htm)


Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives The welfare and stability of countries and regions in
many parts of the globe require

a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render
countries fragile and cause states to fail. Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to
provide economic opportunity, are susceptible t
o extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As
well,

the world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health
emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religio
us extremism
.

These threats can
undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries,
becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing

world and
the
scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous.
Addressing these common challenges demands

common
solutions and necessitates
scientific cooperation
, common standards, and common goals
.
We must increasingly
harness the power of American
ingenuity in science and

technology through strong partnerships with the
science community

in both academia and the private sector
, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies,
to advance
U.S. interests in foreign policy
.
There are also important challenges to

the ability of states to supply their populations
with sufficient food. The still
-
growing human population, rising affluence in emerging economies, and other factors have
combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edibl
e oils and grains. Encouraging and
promoting the use of contemporary molecular techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal for US
science diplomacy.
An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic
opportunity c
an do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon
.

The war of ideas is a war
about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by
providing ideas and opportunities that improve

people’s lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science
still generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals. Additionally,
the Department
continues to use science as a means to reduce

the
proliferation

of the weapons’ of mass destruction

and prevent
what has been dubbed ‘brain drain’. Through cooperative threat reduction activities, former weapons scientists redirect
their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative international research in a large

variety of scientific fields. In addition,
new global efforts
focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing
best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create su
stainability
.