ADI 2010 1Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

H-1B Cap Ne g

***ECONOMY*** ................................................ 2 Economy High Now (1/)......................................................3Economy High Now (2/)......................................................4Economy High Now (3/)......................................................5Competitiveness – U – High Now........................................6Competitiveness – U – Innovation Increasing......................7Competitiveness – U – Inevitable.........................................8Competitiveness – AT: International Integration.................9Competitiveness – No Link – Labor Turnover...................10U – No Labor Shortage.......................................................11Jobs – Link.........................................................................12Wages – Link......................................................................13Body Shopping DA............................................................14Body Shopping – Links......................................................15AT: Tech Innovation..........................................................17No Solvency – Demand (1/)...............................................18No Solvency – Demand (2/)...............................................19No Solvency – Financial Sector.........................................20U.S. Not Key to Global Economy......................................21Economy Key to Heg.........................................................25Advantage Counterplan 1NC (1/).......................................26Advantage Counterplan 1NC (2/).......................................27

***SCIENCE DIPLOMACY*** ....................... 28 U – Increasing Now............................................................29Alt Cause – H.R. 4801 Bill (1/2)........................................30Alt Cause – H.R. 4801 Bill (2/2)........................................31Alt Cause – USAID............................................................32Alt Cause – ITER...............................................................33No Solvency.......................................................................34Science Diplomacy Bad – Soft Power DA.........................35AT: Warming Impacts (1/).................................................36AT: Warming Impacts (2/).................................................37AT: Disease........................................................................38AT: Russia War..................................................................39AT: Indo-Pak......................................................................40AT: Middle East.................................................................41

***HEGEMONY*** ........................................... 43 U – Tech Leadership High Now.........................................48No Solvency.......................................................................49Heg Unsustainable..............................................................50Heg Unsustainable – AT: Power Vacuum..........................51AT: China War Inevitable..................................................52AT: Aerospace (1/).............................................................53AT: Aerospace (2/).............................................................54AT: Aerospace (3/).............................................................55

***BRIC DA*** .................................................. 56 BRIC – 1NC (1/)................................................................58BRIC – 1NC (2/)................................................................59BRIC – U – Econ Increasing..............................................60

ADI 2010 2Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

***CHINA DA*** ............................................... 61 China – 1NC (1/)................................................................62China – 1NC (2/)................................................................63China – U – China Transitioning to Tech-Based Econ (1/)64China – U – China Transitioning to Tech-Based Econ (2/)65China – U – Economy Unsustainable (1/)..........................66China – U – Economy Unsustainable (2/)..........................67China – U – Economy Unsustainable (3/)..........................68China – AT: H-1B Workers Return Home.........................69China – Taiwan Impact......................................................70China – Dollar Dump Impact.............................................71AFF – Non-Unique – Brain Drain Now.............................72AFF – No Impact – US Solves...........................................73AFF – No Impact – No Taiwan War..................................74Taiwan is increasing economic ties with China – means no risk of war 74

***TOPIC DA LINKS*** .................................. 75 Terrorism DA Link.............................................................76Politics – Bipartisan............................................................77

ADI 2010 3Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

***ECONOMY***

ADI 2010 4Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Economy High Now (1/)

Economy up – increased business spending makes up for lost consumer spendingHoman 10 (Timothy, reporter, Bloomberg, 7/27, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/orders-for-durable-goods-in-u-s-probably-climbed-as-investment-picked-up.html) JAS

Orders for durable goods probably increased in June for the sixth time in the past seven months, showing business spending is supporting the U.S. recovery, economists said before a report today. Bookings for goods meant to last at least three years rose 1 percent after dropping 0.6 percent in May, according to the median of 76 projections in a Bloomberg News survey. Excluding transportation gear, orders may have grown 0.4 percent. Eaton Corp. is among manufacturers benefitting from a pickup in demand as companies in the U.S. and abroad update equipment. The gains will compensate in part for a slowdown in consumer spending that is causing the world’s largest economy to cool heading into the second half of the year. “Business spending, particularly for capital equipment, is holding up,” said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics LLC in Pepper Pike, Ohio. “Ordering is strong as companies ramp up and resupply.” The Commerce Department’s report is due at 8:30 a.m. in Washington. Survey estimates ranged from a drop of 1 percent to an increase of 4 percent. Projections for bookings excluding transportation ranged from a decline of 1.5 percent to a 1 percent gain. Eaton, the Cleveland-based maker of engine valves and transmissions, last week boosted its profit projections for 2010 on rising demand for truck parts and hydraulic systems. ‘Better’ Year “This year is shaping up to be better than we had forecast,” Chief Executive Officer Sandy Cutler said in a July 21 statement. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser said July 26 that there is fundamental strength in the economy. The Fed will release at 2 p.m. today its Beige Book survey of business in each of the central bank’s 12 regions. “I think there is underlying strength there that is still there,” Plosser said in an interview with Bloomberg Television in Washington. Manufacturing shares are outperforming the broader market. The Standard & Poor’s Supercomposite Machinery Index, which includes Eaton and Moline, Illinois-based Deere & Co. is up 14 percent so far this year. The broader S&P 500 Index is down 0.1 percent. A jump in aircraft orders may have boosted durable-goods bookings. Boeing Co., the world’s second-biggest commercial- plane maker, said it received 49 orders last month, compared with 5 in May. Industry data may not correlate with the government statistics on a month-to-month basis. Exports Jump Growing demand from overseas is also helping American factories. Exports climbed 21 percent in the 12 months ended May, the biggest year-over-year gain since comparable records began in 1992, according to Commerce Department data. A cheaper dollar is restoring the competitiveness of American products abroad, contributing to higher sales. After gaining 17 cents against the euro from mid April to early June on mounting concern over the European debt crisis, the dollar has retreated about 11 cents since June 7 on growing signs the continent is weathering the turmoil. Recent reports showed Europe’s service and manufacturing industries unexpectedly accelerated in July, German business confidence surged to a three-year high and the British economy grew in the second quarter at the fastest pace in four years. A Commerce Department report in two days may show the U.S. economy grew at a 2.5 percent annual pace from April through June compared with a 2.7 percent rate in the first three months of the year, according to the median estimate of analysts surveyed. Consumer spending rose 2.4 percent after a 3 percent first-quarter gain, the survey showed.

Economy stable now- Government policies ensure growth will continue Runningen 10Roger, agriculture and commodities reporter in the Bloomberg News Washington bureau July 11, “Axelrod Says U.S. Economy Stable, Rejects Anti-Business Label,” http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-11/axelrod-says-u-s-economy-stable-rejects-anti-business-label.html, d/a 7-27-10, ADS]

White House adviser David Axelrod rejected criticism that the Obama administration is over- regulating and anti-business, asserting that the U.S. financial system “is now stable, instead of collapsing.” “We’re working closely with business,” Axelrod said on the ABC “This Week” program. “We’re not micro-managing anything.” Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications Inc., in a speech last month, said White House regulatory policies were discouraging job growth and creating an anti- business climate. “By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace, and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses,” Seidenberg said, according to a tape played by ABC. Retail sales in the U.S. fell in June for a second month and industrial production cooled, signs the expansion will moderate in the second half, economists said before reports this week. Financial Stability Axelrod rejected the argument that government has intervened in the U.S. economy too much, saying that company profits are increasing and that “our financial system is now stable, instead of collapsing, which would have been devastating.” Axelrod defended Obama’s efforts to overhaul the financial regulatory system, reining in bank risk-taking that could further threaten the U.S. economy. A final vote on the legislation may come in the Senate as early as this week. “You can’t simply let industry in each and every case self-regulate,” he said on ABC. As Congress returns from its July 4 recess, the administration will be pushing for passage of additional tax relief for small business and make another attempt to obtain an extension of unemployment insurance.

ADI 2010 5Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Economy High Now (2/)

Econ recovering rapidly now- employment and retail sectors proveListon 10 [Ed, Staff Writer, 03/13, “Geithner Expects U.S. Economy To Recover Faster And Stronger Than Other Advanced Economies,” http://www.benzinga.com/users/ed-liston, d/a 7-26-10, ADS]

Bloomberg reports that U.S. Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, predicted on Friday that the U.S. economy will rebound from the recession faster and stronger than other advance economies. “We’re going to come out of this stronger than the other major economies and we’re going to come out more quickly,” said Geithner in Washington on Friday. He added that global growth is expected to be at 4% in 2010 and 2011 and the forecasts are going up. Geithner further said that the credit crisis and the collapse of Wall Street caused a huge amount of damage to basic confidence among businesses and families; however, he believes that the economy is healing and gradually strengthening across the board. The U.S. economy lost fewer-than-expected jobs in February. The economy lost 36,000 jobs in February, even as the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.7%. Earlier on Friday, the Commerce Department released a report, which showed U.S. retail sales posted a surprise gain in February. This is the fourth time in the past five months that the U.S. retail sales data has been positive. “We’re not going to make the mistakes that many other countries have made in the past, which is to, at the first signs of life and hope, step on the brakes and hope this thing will take care of itself,” Geithner said. “We think it’s important for the government in Washington to keep providing some reinforcement in targeted ways that can get investment going again, job creation more rapidly,” he added.

Economy’s still growing or at worse it’s on pause – we’ve just hit a temporary rough patchChen 10 (Vivien Lou, reporter, Bloomberg, 7/28, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/san-francisco-fed-s-john-williams-says-economy-will-overcome-rough-patch-.html)

The U.S. economy’s “rough patch” in recent months, caused in part by weaker consumer confidence and spending, isn’t the start of a sustained slide back into a recession, said John Williams, research director for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. “Recent economic data have been disappointing and there’s no denying that the economy has hit a bit of a rough patch,” Williams, 48, said in the text of a speech today in Portland. “Although discouraging, the recent softness in the economic data looks much more like a bump in the road” than “a swerve into the ditch.” Williams’ comments buttress the Fed’s Beige Book business survey released today, which showed U.S. economic growth slowing in some areas over the past two months. Figures from the Commerce Department show orders for U.S. goods meant to last at least three years unexpectedly dropped 1 percent in June, adding to evidence the recovery is losing strength. “We economists keep a list of words we use to describe economic growth,” said Williams, a former senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton who has been the bank’s research director since last year. “The silver lining is that we’re still better than ‘meager’ and ‘anemic,’” Williams said. “Thankfully, we are still several notches above ‘double-dip recession.’” The San Francisco Fed expects growth of 2.5 percent this year and 3.5 percent to 4 percent in 2011, he said at a community leaders’ luncheon. Unemployment should remain at its current level of 9.5 percent through the end of this year, dropping to about 8.5 percent in December 2011, Williams said. ‘Remain Vigilant’ The inflation rate should remain low, falling to about 1 percent before climbing back to 2 percent, the economist said. He added that the odds for sustained deflation, or continuously falling prices, are “highly unlikely.” “What all of this means is that the economy is still on a recovery path,” Williams said. “We face significant risks to this outlook and need to remain vigilant.”

ADI 2010 6Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Economy High Now (3/)

According to Fed officials, the economy is on the rise, and the slowdown in recovery is just temporaryDerby 10 (Michael S., business and financial writer, the Wall Street Journal, 7/28, http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/07/28/sf-fed-official-economy-suffering-from-temporary-weakness/?mod=rss_WSJBlog&mod=marketbeat) JAS

The recent slowdown in the U.S. economy should prove transient, although it will take years for the nation’s unemployment rate to fall toward more acceptable levels, an official at the Fed eral Reserve Bank of San Francisco said Wednesday. “The recent softness in the economic data looks much more like a bump in the road of what we already thought would be a gradual recovery, rather than a swerve into the ditch,” said John Williams, the bank’s executive vice president and director of research. He noted that “monetary policy remains highly supportive of recovery” and “interest rates are extraordinarily low.” While he holds a prominent position at the San Francisco Fed, Williams isn’t a policy maker on the interest-rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee. He spoke as his current boss, Janet Yellen, awaits a confirming vote by the full Senate to become the Fed’s second in command, having gotten approval of the Senate banking committee on Wednesday. The San Francisco Fed has already launched a search to find a replacement for the veteran policy maker. Williams’ comments came from a speech before a local group in Portland, Ore. He didn’t comment on the interest-rate outlook in his prepared remarks. The official doesn’t expect the economy to slide back into recession, and he doesn’t believe deflation, a broad-based retreat in prices, will take hold either. He noted that U.S. housing activity is again moribund, and consumer spending has weakened. Williams tied much of the recent weakness to trouble in Europe, coupled with the volatile stock market, soft housing and ugly conditions in labor markets. “Unemployment will come down with agonizing slowness,” Williams said, according to a transcript of his remarks. “I expect unemployment to end 2010 at about its current level of 9 1/2%,” and “once growth picks up to a more robust pace, the unemployment rate should gradually decline, but only to about 8 1/2% by the end of next year,” he said. “I expect inflation to remain low, dipping to around 1%, but not get stuck in negative deflationary territory,” Williams said. “Inflation should move gradually back to about 2% as the economy fully recovers,” he added.

ADI 2010 7Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Competitiveness – U – High Now

Competitiveness is high WALDEN 7-28 (MICHAEL, NCSU Economist, local tech wire, Jul. 28, 2010, http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/news/blogpost/8050877/) AJR

To many, the recession of the last two years is a symptom of a larger economic problem in the nation - that we just can't compete anymore. This viewpoint says that in today's globalized economy, where businesses can locate virtually anywhere and then ship their products physically or send their services electronically, it's a losing battle to think the U.S. can go head-to-head against lower wage countries. So should we just throw in the towel and wait for the day when everything we use will be made somewhere else? Is it inevitable that we become a nation of consumers and not producers? Based on the latest report from the World Economic Forum (WEF), the answer is a resounding "no." The WEF, which organizes a highly publicized and well-attended annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland each year, produces a Global Competitiveness Index for over 130 countries. The index is based on scores of factors, including worker costs and training, education quality, financing, infrastructure like roads and airports and innovation. The WEF combines these factors into a single number based on their relative importance to business persons and investors. And now the drum roll please. Based on the WEF Global Competitiveness Index, where does the U.S. rank in the latest reading for 2010? The answer is number two out of 133 countries. Only Switzerland ranked higher. The U.S. actually ranked number one in 2008 and 2009 and only missed the top spot this year due to the depth of the recession.

States are increasing competetivenessWALDEN 7-28 (MICHAEL, NCSU Economist, local tech wire, Jul. 28, 2010, http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/news/blogpost/8050877/) AJR

So if we have some good news about U.S. competitiveness, what about North Carolina? Again, we can smile, because North Carolina for many years has received high rankings for being attractive to businesses. Just recently CNBC rated our state fourth behind Texas, Virginia and Colorado among top states for business. Indeed, North Carolina has many positive attributes for producers. The state ranks ninth in the country in worker productivity, is among the lower half of states in cost-of-living, and is in the middle range for electricity prices and taxes. The state's elementary students have consistently done very well in national standardized math tests while being close to average on reading. Public college costs are very affordable compared to other states, and growth in college graduates has been among the leading group of states in the country.

Competetiveness is high – manufacturingLeybovich July 13, (Ilya Industry Market Trends, July 13, 2010, http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2010/07/signs-of-us-export-initiative-paying-off-report-claims.html ) AJR

A recent government initiative to double U.S. exports by 2015 is starting to show positive results and seems on track to meet long-term trade goals. Will it be enough to jump-start new markets and jobs growth? In March, President Obama signed an executive order to create a new policy aimed at bolstering United States competitiveness abroad by promoting a single, comprehensive strategy to promote American exports. The National Export Initiative (NEI), the goal of which is to double U.S. exports within the next five years and combat still-high unemployment, has already begun to show signs of success, new data indicate. According to a progress report issued by the White House last week, NEI policies coupled with the global economic rebound resulted in a 17 percent increase in U.S. exports in the first four months of 2010 compared with the same period last year. This gain puts the U.S. on track to reach the intended goal of doubling exports and improving the employment market within five years. The report also found that over the past nine months, the increase in exports contributed more than one percentage point to overall U.S. economic growth, equivalent to the contribution from domestic consumption during the economic recovery.

ADI 2010 8Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Competitiveness – U – Innovation Increasing

The United States rank very high in innovation and efficiency WALDEN 7-28 (MICHAEL, NCSU Economist, local tech wire, Jul. 28, 2010, http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/news/blogpost/8050877/) AJR

Why are business people and investors so bullish on the U.S.? It's because we rank very high on two out of the three broad categories of factors important to the economy: innovation and efficiency. The U.S. ranks number one in the world on innovation. We are still the land of opportunity, where smart, creative and foresightful people can take a chance to follow their dream and hit it big. The U.S. also has excellent colleges and universities that both produce these entrepreneurs and support them with discoveries and practical applications. Efficiency means businesses get a lot of bang for their bucks spent on workers and other inputs. While worker costs in the U.S. may be higher than in other countries, the productivity of our workers - what they can produce in a given time period - is also commensurately higher. Investors also rate the U.S. high on worker flexibility. This means it's much easier to both downsize and upsize businesses and move workers from one firm to another. Again, our excellent higher education system helps with this transition.

ADI 2010 9Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Competitiveness – U – Inevitable

US competitiveness is inevitable – manufacturing sectorOstermayer 10 (Jeff, National Association of Manufacturers, 7/08/10, http://www.nam.org/Communications/Articles/2010/07/President-Export-Council.aspx) AJR

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President John Engler issued the following statement today regarding President Obama’s appointments to the President’s Export Council:  “Expanding exports is absolutely essential to the long-term health and security of manufacturing in America. The number of manufacturing executives named to the President’s Export Council demonstrates the importance of manufacturing to the Administration’s National Export Initiative and its goal of doubling exports in five years.   Manufacturers account for two-thirds of U.S. exports of goods and services.   The members of the President’s Export Council are well suited to advise the President on trade policies. The NAM will continue to advocate for domestic policies that will boost U.S. competitiveness and open new markets for U.S. exports.”      

ADI 2010 10Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Competitiveness – AT: International Integration

H-1B visa holders just look to green cards - stunts economic integrationZimmerman, 08 (Eilene, Editor for FORTUNE - Small Business, 4/18/2008, “H-1B visa crunch: 'I can't grow my business'”, http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/16/smbusiness/immigrant_visa_tech.fsb/index.htm, 7/28/10, atl)

Litan argues that the visa crunch could impede U.S. economic recovery because it disproportionately hurts small businesses, the engine of recovery in past recessions. "We are shooting ourselves in the foot," he says. Mark Bartosik is a British software engineer who works for a multi-media company in New York City. Bartosik holds an H-1B visa and has been waiting for a green card for eight years. To avoid losing his place in the green card line, Bartosik remained in the same position with the same company for that entire period. Bartosik says he came to the U.S. with an invention around which he planned to launch a company. "It was leading-edge when I developed it in the U.K., and I had a working prototype," he said. "But after four years of waiting in the U.S. for my green card, I gave up because I could see the market for it closing up." The only option for many businesses is to outsource work or open up offices in other countries. Axiom, for example, is considering opening subsidiaries abroad in order to hire the workers it needs. U.S. employers worry that H-1B holders who are frustrated by the long wait for a green card will leave for jobs in other countries. Ironically, a significant portion of the foreign nationals that want to work for U.S. companies were also educated in the U.S. Foreign nationals now make up more than 60% of the Ph.D.s in computer science and engineering at U.S. colleges.

ADI 2010 11Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Competitiveness – No Link – Labor Turnover

High rate of turnover disproves competetivenessFAIR 8(Federation For American Immigration Reform, March 2008, http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters593f) AJR

The advocates for increasing the admission of H-1B workers suggest that our ability to compete internationally depends on being able to employ the ‘best and the brightest’ professional workers from around the world. This claim is belied by the fact that nearly half of all of the approved petitions are for persons with undergraduate degrees rather than advanced degrees (see chart below). In addition, the rate of conversion of H-1B workers to green card holders indicates that most employers are not keeping their temporary workers after their temporary visa expires.

ADI 2010 12Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

U – No Labor Shortage

No worker shortage nowFAIR 8 (Federation For American Immigration Reform, March 2008, http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters593f) AJR

Industry lobbyists with Microsoft’s Bill Gates at the forefront have tried to convince Congress that there is a shortage of specialty occupation workers and American competitiveness will suffer if they are not able to hire more foreign workers. They have tried to convince Congress and the public that they only hire the ‘best and brightest’ foreign workers and do so only when comparable U.S. workers are unavailable. This propaganda campaign ignores the fact that there is no requirement in the H-1B visa program that employers have to hire available U.S. workers first. It also ignores the fact that nearly half of the foreign workers that they seek visas for have no more than an undergraduate degree. Because H-1B visas allow employment for up to six years, the number of H-1B foreign workers in the country at any point is the sum of those who have been admitted and remained within the last six years. In 2002, there were an estimated 710,000 H-1B holders in the United States. Although the H-1B program is meant to provide companies with labor unavailable in this country, no evidence exists of a worker shortage; to the contrary, there are many laid off, unemployed and underemployed American high tech workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that February, 2008 unemployment among professional and related occupations stood at 656,000 persons. This BLS report refers to official unemployment persons receiving unemployment benefits. Not included are those persons who have lost unemployment coverage, those who have taken part-time jobs because they could not find full-time jobs and those who have yet to find their first job. Generally, this more comprehensive focus on unemployment yields an estimate about twice as high as official unemployment.1

ADI 2010 13Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Jobs – Link

The H-1B program is causing a US native brain drain and displacing workers even before they reach the job marketTrembly 09 (Ara C., founder of Ara Trembly, The Tech Consultant, and a noted speaker on and longtime observer of technology in insurance and financial services, 11/3/09, Is H1B Policy to Blame for Shortage of U.S.-born Technology Graduates?, http://www.information-management.com/news/technology_graduates-10016453-1.html, 7/28/10, atl)

In a recent blog, I speculated on the reasons for the seeming lack of interest in computer science and engineering careers among our budding college graduates. I noted that many of the Millennial generation seem bored with the technology on which they were weaned, while others are too busy dreaming of becoming the next superstar (sports, entertainment) thanks to the well-meaning—but ultimately damaging—lie that “You can be anything you want to be.” One reader, however, took me to task for not mentioning what he believes is the real reason behind the lack of enthusiasm for technology among recent graduates. This reader pointed out that thanks to H1B, visas issued by the federal government, low-paid foreign IT workers are flooding the U.S. market and companies are snapping them up rather than pay more for homegrown workers. As a result, potential graduates see little future in an IT career—at least in the United States. According to Workpermit.com, a Web site devoted to “immigration advice,” an H1B visa is a non-immigrant visa, which allows a U.S. company to employ a foreign individual for up to six years. Individuals can’t just apply for an H1B visa to allow them to work here. The employer must petition for entry of the employee. H1B visas are also subject to annual numerical limits. When it comes to IT workers brought in under H1B visas, however, American companies get a whopping bonus, because they can pay such workers far below the standard wage paid in the United States for their work . The companies get cheap labor, but U.S. workers, as my reader suggests, get the shaft. I agree with my reader that the H1B program—ostensibly set up to fill a labor gap—has negatively affected the market for homegrown IT talent, and I have written as much on several occasions. On the other hand, the companies that ask for H1B workers claim they do so because there is a shortage of American workers who can perform the same tasks, and the rapidly declining numbers of computer science graduates seems to give credence to that claim. It seems legitimate for these companies to complain that there is insufficient U.S. IT talent out there to meet the immediate needs of our industries, including insurance. At the same time, however, there is little incentive for American students to pursue an IT career based on the potential job market, so the call for more foreign workers only increases. Is there a political angle to all this? You bet. At the recent SAS Premier Business Leadership Series conference in Las Vegas, SAS CEO Jim Goodnight said that for his company, “It has become more and more difficult to hire Ph.D.-level people interested in writing code, and we’re not producing homegrown people.” As a result, SAS is asking Congress to approve more H1B visas to fill the gap, but Goodnight says there is political resistance to that idea. “Nancy Pelosi refuses to give in on bringing smart people in until the 12 million people who are here illegally—most of whom will vote Democratic—are granted amnesty,” he stated. Interestingly, SAS is very active in funding computer education and literacy in U.S. schools, an effort for which they should be applauded. Is there an easy solution to this mess? Probably not. Perhaps the Obama administration, which seems fond of telling companies what they should pay their employees, should insist that any workers hired through the H1B system be paid the same as American workers in the same jobs. While that would seem to level the playing field, however, I would oppose it on the grounds that the government needs to keep its hands off what private industry pays its employees—although the trend now is disturbingly in the opposite direction. I would favor eliminating the H1B program as an incentive for companies to train up their own IT professionals, as Chubb once did. It seems clear at the moment that we cannot depend on our colleges and universities to supply these workers. The reader who took me to task has chosen to remain anonymous thus far, but perhaps he will now post a comment here. Or perhaps you will.

Foreign workers using H1B visas displace American workers- teaching proves Cutler 2010 (Michael, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, Family Security Matters, April 18, 2010, http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6015/pub_detail.asp) AJR

Here is the question that no one seems to be willing to ask, including the American Federation of Teachers Union President Randi Weingarten whose labor union provided the legal muscle to pursue that law suit in Louisiana: why would the United States Department of State, in conjunction with the United States Department of Labor be issuing H1b visas for foreign nationals seeking to teach in the United States when so many American teachers (and not just in California) are losing their jobs because of the economic woes that are hammering communities and states across this nation? Of course the Labor Department may issue temporary work visas if the community in which the jobs are to be carried out do not have qualified workers, but under the present situation, would it not make sense for school boards across the nation who have the need and the financial resources to hire teachers to offer employment to American teachers first?  

ADI 2010 14Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Wages – Link

H-1B workers drive down wagesWoehrer, 07(Carol, coordinates the licensure and baccalaureate programs in long-term care administration in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota, “H-1B and L-1 Visas Hurt Tech Careers and U.S. Economy”, 7/27/10, atl)

Since 2003, the number of H-1B visas granted to people abroad has reverted to 65,000. Individuals who earn a Master's degree or Ph.D. In the U.S. are exempt from the cap. (“A Legislative History of H-1B and Other Immigrant Work Visas,“ <http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/H1BHistory.htm > .) However, there is currently pressure from many leaders of tech corporations and outsourcing companies to raise the cap. Some people such as Governor Pawlenty and Bill Gates think there should be no limit on the number of H-1B visas granted. A study by the Center for Immigration Studies reports that applicants for H-1B visas were for an average of $13,000 less than the prevailing wage in the same state and occupation, and wages for H-1B visa holders were overwhelmingly at the bottom of the computer programming wage scale. Employers who are the largest users of H-1B visas are so called “bodyshops.” This term refers to the practice of sponsoring large numbers of H-1B workers who perform IT tasks for companies on a contract basis. Often the contract workers perform tasks once done by a higher paid American worker. Filling H-1B visa quotas on the first day they are issued, body shops sponsor a large number of H-1B workers who have no actual assignment before they arrive in the U.S. The shops circulate lists of available workers. To find work, increasing numbers of American IT workers are also forced to work for lower wages for contracting agencies. The large bodyshops pay their H-1B visa holders on average $9,000 less than firms with 1 to 10 H-1B employees (John Miano, “The Bottom of the Pay Scale: Wages for H-1B Computer Programmers,” <http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1305.html > .) Ron Hira of the Economic Policy Institute notes that the practice of paying H-1B visa holders low wages is indeed driving wages lower in computer professions. He confirms that paying these temporary visa holders less is very common, and notes the Department of Labor has approved visas for programmers who are paid as low as $8.15 an hour, including over 100 programmers from Infosys, one of the largest Indian outsourcing firms, approved for $9.15 an hour (Ron Hira, “Outsourcing America's Technology and Knowledge Jobs,” an Economic Policy Institute Briefing, March 28, 2007).

Not training workers and importing foreign work increases the competition between the already low supply of domestic workers - this increases unemployment and decreases wages - turns caseGordon 09 (Edward E. president of Imperial Consulting Corporation, “Unemployment numbers don’t tell the real jobs crisis story”, http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/unemployment-numbers-dont-tell-the-real-jobs-crisis-story-2682607-1.html, 7/29/10, atl)

For the economy to grow between 2010 and 2020, the U.S. education-to-employment system needs to be rebuilt. If left unchanged, we may see increasing numbers of people, even degreed individuals, with poor job prospects. While the overall unemployment rate in October 2009 was 10.2%, analysis reveals that there was great variation by age and educational attainment. For those with less than a high school diploma the rate was 15.5%; for high school graduates, 11.2%; those with some college, 9.0%; and for holders of Bachelor’s degrees or higher, 4.7%. What is the likely scenario for unemployment in the next decade? At the end of the last major U.S. recession in April 1982 the unemployment rate reached a high of 10.8%.  It seems likely that the unemployment rate will peak between 10.5 and 11% by June 2010, and it is likely to remain stubbornly high – perhaps about 8% by the end of 2011. What will occur by mid-decade, beyond the massive retirement of the baby boomers, will largely depend on the future revamping of the U.S. education-to-employment system. According to U.S. Department of Labor data, 62% of all U.S. jobs in 2010 will require higher skill levels.   While 97 million people will be needed, only 43 million Americans will have the educational qualifications for these jobs. Businesses will try to make up the difference by using the failing talent safety valves discussed earlier. On the other hand, 38% of all U.S. jobs in 2010 will still be low-pay/low-skill requiring 61 million workers, but 115 million Americans will be competing for these jobs. Without a massive overhaul in our education-to-employment system we predict that by 2020 the U.S. labor market will be significantly out of balance. High pay/high/skill jobs will rise to 74% of the U.S. labor market; 123 million people will be needed, but only 43 million are likely to be qualified. On the other hand, low-pay/low-skills jobs will shrink to 26% of the total; 44 million people will be needed, but over 142 million will be available. The impact of this talent meltdown will probably be greatest on small and mid-sized companies, with larger corporations merging or leaving the United States. Large companies will poach the talent they need from smaller businesses. Wages in key STEM occupations will begin to rise rapidly. Over the next decade, more dollars will chase scarce talent worldwide. Businesses in the United States, China, and India are already feeling the effects of wage inflation in retaining or attracting workers in many STEM occupational areas. The United States has faced difficult economic odds before and beaten them throughout our history by encouraging flexibility, renewal, and growth. America’s competitiveness can be revived by moving away from a dependence on consumer consumption and expanding technological innovations that boost exports and the manufacturing and service sectors. Will 2010 be a year in which the meltdown of our labor force continues or the beginning of economic growth based on regenerating U.S. talent? We all can play a part in making that decision by investing in new talent strategies at the local community level and supporting changes at the federal level that foster business liquidity and training.

ADI 2010 15Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Body Shopping DA

H-1B visas lead to body shoppingCromwell 9 (Courtney L.JD candidate at Brooklyn Law School, The Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial Law, 3(2) p. 469) JJN

Critics argue that many U.S. employers abuse the H-1B program, specifically with the use of “body shopping.” Body shopping is the name given to the practice whereby placement agencies bring H-1B visa workers into the United States and “then contract the workers out to other companies on a work-for-hire basis, in an attempt to avoid statutory wage requirements.” The advantage of body shopping for employers is that they can pay the employees lower wages by allowing the contracting employer to claim it never hired any H-1B workers, and the body shopping company to say it never fired any U.S. employees. While body shopping is a large problem in the United States for various reasons discussed more fully below, body shopping is likely a result of, rather than a justification for, the cap.

Body shopping destroys the benefits of the H-1B programCromwell 9 (Courtney L.JD candidate at Brooklyn Law School, The Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial Law, 3(2) p. 470) JJN

Some studies claim that the top twenty H-1B employers in the United States, with the exception of Oracle, are body shoppers. In addition, the same studies estimate that two-thirds of the H-1B workers “in computer programming occupations are going to employers in the . . . [body shopping] industries.” If body shopping is actually as prevalent as some critics assert, then body shopping employers frustrate the aims of the H-1B program by abusing foreign workers, displacing U.S. workers and using up much needed visas otherwise available for legitimate employment positions. Thus, those opposing an increase in the visa cap argue that by banning the practice of body shopping or limiting the number of H-1B visas a single employer can have, a great majority of visas will open up, quashing the necessity of increasing the cap.

ADI 2010 16Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Body Shopping – Links

Body shops encourage the abuse of foreign workers and the displacement of U.S. workersCromwell 9 (Courtney L.JD candidate at Brooklyn Law School, The Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial Law, 3(2) p. 469-470) JJN

There are a multitude of problems with the practice of body shopping. “[B]ody shops circulate lists of available H-1B workers to employers, placing them in direct competition with U.S. workers seeking similar jobs.” Body shopping also leads to abuse of foreign workers. For example, since companies contract out their H-1B workers, sometimes not all of the workers have work assignments. Instead of paying the workers the prevailing wage as they are required to do, body shopping agencies “bench” the H-1B workers by not paying them or “pay[ing] them a reduced rate when they have no actual work.” In addition, body shopping adds to the problem of displacement of U.S. workers because the H-1B workers are paid lower wages and are thus more attractive to employers.

H-1B visas cause the exploitation of Indian workersPathkar, 06 (Suresh, editor and writer for India Daily news, 3/14/06, “More H1-B visa from America but very little legal immigration for Indians”, http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/7426.asp, 7/28/10, atl)

There is nothing to be very ecstatic about doubled H1B visas to US. H1B allows American companies to exploit Indians at a lower wage and deprive American citizens from decent jo bs. In recent days it has become more and more difficult for Indians to get green cards through labor certifications. Exceptionally qualified Indian talents get temporary jobs in US with H1B visa but they work with little respect. When it comes to the point of providing the green card, increasing smaller numbers are qualifying. Most of these talented Indians give their prime part of their life ( 22 years through 32 years of age) and then are forced to go back to India or Canada or elsewhere. Indian media is ecstatic about the fact that H1B visa numbers are getting doubled. This will allow more exploitation of indian workers by American companies and increasing dissatisfaction from America employees but not much long term good for Indians.

Immigrants are mistreated, underpaid and displace American engineers, computer programmers Cutler 2010 (Michael, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, Family Security Matters, April 18, 2010, http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6015/pub_detail.asp) AJR

These industries as well as, farms, meat processing plants and restaurants are known for hiring illegal aliens.  What many folks don't realize is that even "legal" immigration is fraught with fraud and abuses. The high tech industries don't generally hire illegal aliens.   They hire temporary workers who have the education that makes them desirable as employees of many high tech industries.   These foreign workers also have another valuable trait:   they will accept significantly lower salaries than their American counterparts.  Often, immigration law firms, not unlike salesmen who want to close a deal, do whatever they can to get employers to hire foreign workers.  For the law firms, their livelihood depends on this and so they are very motivated to make certain that foreign workers take priority over American workers. If you don't believe me, check out this video of a segment of Lou Dobbs Tonight that aired on November 15, 2007 and dealt with the issue of H1B visas and made it clear that there is no shortage of American engineers, computer programmers and others with graduate degrees in the high tech industries.

ADI 2010 17Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AT: Tech Innovation

Reports of tech industries suffering - especially aerospace - are liesTyson 09 (Laura D'Andrea SK and Angela Chan Professor of Global Management Haas School of BusinessUniversity of California, Berkeley, October 16, 2009 “Think U.S. High Tech Isn't Healthy? Look at the Data”, http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/restoring-american-competitiveness/2009/10/according-to-gary-pisano-and.html, 7/29/10, atl)

According to Gary Pisano and Willy Shih, the U.S. has lost or is in the process of losing the ability to manufacture many cutting-edge products because of the outsourcing of development and manufacturing work abroad, which has caused a damaging deterioration in the collective capabilities that serve high-tech industries. This is a disturbing hypothesis backed up by anecdotal data about a variety of high-tech products that can no longer be manufactured in the U.S . As someone who has worried about the global competitiveness of U.S. high-tech industries for years, I find their analysis chilling — but not entirely convincing. A look at some of the recent data on global market shares supports a more nuanced and optimistic assessment: The U.S. retains significant shares of global markets for high-tech products and services. And the reduction in costs and prices made possible by outsourcing upstream component production to low-cost foreign locations has helped U.S. companies maintain their competitiveness in high-value-added downstream products. According to the National Science Board's latest (2008) Science and Engineering Indicators, on a value-added revenue basis the U.S. continues to have the largest share of global markets in both knowledge-intensive services (business, communications, financial, education, and health services) and high-tech manufacturing industries (aerospace; computers and office machinery; communications equipment; pharmaceuticals; and scientific instruments). Between 1995 and 2005, the U.S. maintained about a 40% global share in knowledge-intensive services and about a 35% global share in high-tech industries, keeping the lead in four of them. Indeed, despite the high value of the dollar and the rapid growth of emerging markets between 1995 and 2005, the U.S. increased its global share in all but the aerospace industry. The U.S. share in communications equipment increased by more than 20 percentage points as Japan's share plummeted, and the U.S. doubled its share in computers and office equipment, although it was overtaken by China in 2003. These are the two sectors that encompass most of the products and companies that are the focus of the Pisano and Shih analysis. The increase in China's share in computers and office machinery — from 2% in 1995 to 46% in 2005 — was remarkable, but it is not a sign that China has gained on the U.S. in innovative capacity in this sector or others. China's exports of high-tech products turn out to be not very high tech and not very Chinese: 80%-90% of China's high-tech exports come from firms that are partially or wholly foreign-owned — in many cases by American or Japanese companies — and 95% are processing exports, the high-tech components of which are produced elsewhere and imported into China. China accounts for about 35% of the value added in its exports — and considerably less in many of its high-tech exports sold under the brand names of U.S. high-tech companies like Apple, Microsoft, and HP. Pisano and Shih also argue that the national identity of high-tech companies is meaningless — that U.S. multinational companies are no more important to the innovative capacity of the U.S. than foreign MNCs. Again the data suggest otherwise. According to a study by Matthew J. Slaughter of Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business, in 2007 U.S.-based MNCs accounted for 19% of private-sector employment, 25% of private-sector output, 31% of private sector investment, 48% of exports, 37% of imports, and an amazing 74% of U.S. corporate R&D spending in the U.S. U.S. MNCs are especially important in manufacturing, accounting for 61% of manufacturing value-added and 49% of manufacturing employment in the U.S. And within manufacturing they are particularly important in high tech, accounting for 85% of value-added in computers and electronics, 76% in transportation equipment, 73% in chemicals/pharmaceuticals, and 49% in electrical equipment, appliances and components And despite outsourcing, most of the activity of U.S. MNCs remains at home: they purchase 89% of their intermediate inputs from other companies in the U.S. and their U.S. operations account for 70% of their worldwide employment, 72% of their worldwide output, 75% of their worldwide investment, and 87% of their worldwide R&D. Nor have these shares declined meaningfully in the last decade. Moreover, the evidence suggests that the offshoring of activity by U.S. MNCs — either to reduce the costs of their supply chain or to serve foreign customers — increases rather than decreases their U.S. activities. According to a recent study by Mihir A. Desai and C. Fritz Foley of Harvard Business School and James R. Hines Jr. of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor Law School , both the domestic and foreign investment and the domestic and foreign employment of U.S. MNCs move together. Overall, the data do not indicate that the U.S. has lost its innovative capacity or that the outsourcing of production to low-cost locations has undermined the global competitiveness of U.S. high-tech companies — at least not yet.

ADI 2010 18Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

No Solvency – Demand (1/)

H1-B workers aren’t hired during a bad economyImmigration Policy Center 9 (2/19/09, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/us-economy-still-needs-highly-skilled-foreign-workers , accessed 7/27/10) GEC

H-1B workers are not “cheap labor.” H-1B Visas and Job Creation points out that employers are required not only to pay an H-1B employee the higher of either the “prevailing wage” or “actual wage” paid to similarly employed Americans, but must also pay about $6,000 in legal and government fees for each H-1B hire, plus up to $12,000 more to sponsor an H-1B worker for permanent residence in the United States. The NFAP study points out that use of H-1B visas by employers varies according to the demand for skilled workers in general. For instance, Congress raised the H-1B cap to 195,000 per year for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 and FY 2003, but employers used only 79,100 and 78,000 in each of these years, respectively, when U.S. economic conditions worsened and labor demand declined. If H-1B workers were being used as “cheap labor,” as some critics allege, then one would expect employers to hire as many as possible during economic hard times in order to reduce labor costs. In fact, “H-1B filings at U.S. technology companies declined when companies were losing money or hit hard times.”

H1B applications will be down inevitably because of the economyFitz 9(Marshall, Center for American Progress, p. 13 http://www.mygreencard.com/downloads/HighlySkilled_December2009.pdf)

T he most widely used high-skilled immigration classification for temporary workers is the H-1B visa . The availability of H-1B visas in our current system is regulated by a congressionally established annual numeric ceiling—or “cap” as it is commonly called. The current annual allotment of new H-1B visas is set at approximately 85,000, including 20,000 that are reserved for individuals with an advanced degree from a U.S. college or university.32 That number was drawn from the political ether, not from any concrete policy analysis or any specific economic indicators. And the last decade has clearly demonstrated just how arbitrary these numbers are. We have repeatedly seen over the last decade that demand in the H-1B program tracks the business cycle, and not in a way that would indicate that employers rely on the program to hire cheap labor. When the economy is humming and job growth is robust, demand for high-skilled foreign workers rises despite the additional costs and the time it takes to hire a worker permanently. When the economy is in retreat and losing jobs, the demand for such workers declines significantly. If employers thought these workers were a good source of cheap labor, one would expect usage to rise during belt-tightening periods. The opposite appears to be true.

Recession prevents H1-B applications – plan can’t solve the economy without solving the economy firstPlaza, 10 (Sonia, WorldBank Blogs, No takers for H1-B Visas? http://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/no-takers-for-h1-b-visas)

The slow recovery of the US economy is affecting the hiring of high-skilled immigrants.   This lower demand is reflected in fewer applications for H1-B visas.  The current annual cap is set at 65,000, with an additional 20,000 for holders of advanced degrees. The present crisis is exhibiting similar characteristics as the 1991 downturn:   1) Lower demand for new foreign high-skilled workers. US firms are not recruiting overseas; and 2) Lower demand for foreign high-skilled graduates of US universities. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) put out a statement on April 08, 2010 that “it has received approximately 13,500 H-1B petitions counting toward the Congressionally-mandated 65,000 cap during the first two weeks of April 2010.” (See USCIS - USCIS Continues to Accept FY 2011 H-1B Petitions). That’s far fewer than the 42,000 requests filed during the same period last year (See post). Unlike in previous years, foreign graduates of US universities are not finding jobs in US. The applications for foreign workers with advanced degrees have only reached 5,800 applications by April 15, 2010. This is the second year that the annual quota for H1B visas has not been filled during the first week of April. Since the recession worsened in late 2008, the annual quota has remained open longer than in the previous years (see graph below). For the US 2010 fiscal year (the fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30), it took until December 21, 2009 to fill the quota (280 days). In 2009, it closed in one day and in 2008, it closed in two days. Only in 2004, when the quota was reduced from 195,000 to 65,000, there were still visa slots available as of October 1, 2003 (323 days). It seems that for the 2011 fiscal year, the annual quota will remain open longer than last year.

ADI 2010 19Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

No Solvency – Demand (2/)

The recession is slowing H-1B visa demandSchoeff 9 (Mark, Jr. - Reporter, April 20, “H-1B REQUESTS DROP, BUT LIMIT LIKELY TO BE HIT, http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/immigration-law-passports-visas-employment/12317092-1.html) JJN

Applications for visas for highly skilled immigrants got off to a slow start in their first week and are expected to decline because of the recession, but technology companies maintain that foreign-born talent represents a small but crucial part of the pool they must tap to remain competitive. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service began accepting H-1B visa applications for fiscal year 2010 on April 1. As of April 7, the limit had not been reached, marking the first time in recent years that the government had not received the necessary number of petitions to meet the cap within the first week, according to law firm Jackson Lewis. The cap for H-1B visas was reached in the first five business days in 2008 and in the first two days in 2007, according to agency statistics cited by the firm. There are 65,000 visas available for foreign workers who have the equivalent of a bachelor's degree. An additional 20,000 are available for those who have obtained an advanced degree from a U.S. university. Last year, USCIS received 163,000 applications during the first week of April. It resorted to a lottery to determine recipients. This year, although demand was down in the first week, observers predict that the visa limit will be hit. The economy is affecting the way that companies are using H-1B visas. Many of the applications will be for employees who are currently working but were denied visas in previous lotteries, according to Robert Hoffman, vice president for government and public affairs for Oracle and co-chair of Compete America. The workers are holding jobs under an optional practical training designation, which provides a 12-month bridge between a student visa and an H-1B. In many cases, Microsoft is applying for H-1Bs for workers who are currently employed on L visas because they have transferred to the U.S. from a foreign operation. ``What you are seeing is the program being used to meet different needs this year than in previous years,'' says Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel. The H-1B visas are coming under attack, however, as the country grinds through a severe recession. Microsoft plans to lay off as many as 5,000 employees, or 5 percent of its workforce. Similar cuts at many other companies are raising economic anxiety and contributing to the backlash in Washington against H-1B visas, which detractors say deny opportunities to American workers and reduce salaries. As part of the massive stimulus package, Congress imposed H-1B restrictions on companies that receive federal bailout funding. Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, are expected to reintroduce a bill that would place higher requirements on all companies that use the visa. Smith says H-1B workers constitute a minuscule but critical portion of the U.S. workforce that contributes to product breakthroughs. The U.S. does not produce enough scientists and engineers to meet the demand of the tech sector, according to Smith. He cited a 2006 study by the National Center for Education Statistics that showed 61 percent of computer science Ph.D. students in the U.S. were international. ``We're not talking quantitatively about a large number, but we are talking qualitatively about people who boost economic competitiveness,'' Smith says. H-1B opponents assert that using the visas is especially galling this year. ``During the down times, you get to see the absurdity of industry clamoring for H-1B visas in a recession,'' says John Miano, founder of the Programmers Guild. ``It's cheap labor in good times or bad.'' But a study by the National Foundation for American Policy shows that for every H-1B position, another five jobs are created. Hoffman disputes the notion that a gain in H-1Bs is a loss for American employees. ``These are visas that work to complement the U.S. workforce,'' he says.

ADI 2010 20Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

No Solvency – Financial Sector

The stimulus bill curbs the hiring of H-1B workers into the financial sector, risking brain drainMcGee 9 (Marianne Kolbasuk, I.T. journalist, Feb. 18, “Stimulus Package Makes It Harder To Hire H-1B Workers,” http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/h1b/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214500968)

The $787 billion economic stimulus bill signed into law Tuesday by President Obama will make it more complicated for financial services companies and banks that received federal bailout money to hire foreign workers on H-1B visas. The new stimulus package contains provisions that for two years deem all companies that received federal funding from the Troubled Asset Recovery Program that was signed into law last year as "H-1B dependent." Till now, "H-1B dependent" has been a category of employers for which H-1B visa holders represent 15% of more of their workforce. H-1B-dependent companies have additional requirements when hiring H-1B visa workers. For instance, those companies have to attest they've made "good faith" efforts to recruit American workers for positions for which they're seeking H-1B talent, said Elizabeth Espin Stern, an attorney and leader of the global immigration practice of law firm Baker & McKenzie International. Also, the employers must attest they're offered a minimum of "prevailing wages" during recruitment efforts, haven't displaced a U.S. worker within the 90 days before or after filing an H-1B petition, and have offered the job to an U.S. worker who applied and is equally or better qualified than the H-1B worker. If those companies attest they've followed the rules but are later audited by the U.S. government and found to have violated the requirements, the employers face possible financial penalties and being banned from participating in the H-1B visa program, said Stern. The provisions are expected to impact new hires, not existing H-1B visa holders in the United States looking to renew their visas, she said. It's estimated that in the financial services and banking sector, less than 1% of workers have H-1B visas, said Stern. So while the new provisions will make it more burdensome for financial services and banks that have received federal bailouts to hire H-1B visa workers, the new rules themselves aren't likely to make an sizable dent in the overall demand for H-1B visas, said Stern. The United States currently grants petitions for up to 85,000 new H-1B visas annually. Originally, the H-1B amendments introduced into the stimulus legislation by Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called for companies that received TARP funding to be barred from hiring H-1B visa workers. However, the provisions that ended up being part of the final bill instead make it more complicated for these companies to hire H-1B visa workers by classifying the employers as H-1B dependent. Nonetheless, the final provisions signed into law satisfy what the senators are trying to accomplish, said a spokeswoman for Grassley. "The goal is to make qualified American workers a top priority," she said. But attorney Stern said the biggest impact on employers will be in making it slower and more arduous to hire hard-to-find expertise. "Many of these financial services, credit card companies use H-1B for specialized IT talent related to risk management, enterprise systems," she said. "Why tie one hand behind their backs" in employing this talent? she said. Immigration attorney Frida Glucoft of law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp said the biggest impact will be on foreign grad students attending U.S. colleges and universities who are seeking jobs in the United States in the fields of economics, technology, mathematics, and business. "There will be a brain drain of talent that will go elsewhere," she said. "This is a slippery slope for the U.S."

ADI 2010 21Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

U.S. Not Key to Global Economy

US not key – China outweighsLa Monica 9 (Paul R., CNNMoney.com editor at large, CNNMoney.com, 6/3, http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/03/markets/thebuzz/) JAS

U.S. economic might, decided to sell its Hummer brand to a Chinese manufacturer after GM (GMGMQ) filed for bankruptcy. We may not like to admit it, but it's time to get used to this fact: emerging markets such as China and India are quickly becoming the world's new economic powerhouses. In fact, according to a report from a leading economic research group released earlier this week, emerging market economies may overtake the U.S. and the rest of the Western world this year. The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), a London-based economic consulting firm, predicted that the United States, Canada and Europe will contribute 49.4% to the world's total gross domestic product in 2009. According to the CEBR, this will be the first time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th century that non-Western economies produced more than half of the world's GDP. The CEBR said it had originally predicted emerging markets would make up a bigger portion of the world's economy than the West -- but not until 2015. The firm said the resurgence of China's economy is the main reason why it expects the West's share of global GDP to dip below 50% this year. "We had expected this to happen, but not quite so soon. The West will have to start to get to grips with the fact that we are no longer dominant and cannot expect to have things our own way," said Douglas McWilliams, chief executive of CEBR, in a statement. Now the United States is still the world's economic leader. If the global economy were a basketball team, the U.S. is Kobe Bryant. But China is LeBron James (sorry, Cavs fans). In other words, China isn't the champ yet, but it's catching up fast. Along those lines, CEBR forecast that China will surpass Japan this year as the world's second largest economy. China is already the largest holder of U.S. Treasury notes and the country's second biggest trading partner. Those are key reasons why Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is in China this week: he's trying to make nice with our largest creditor and a key market for exports. It's smart to do so. Talkback: Are you concerned by the increased economic clout of China, India and other emerging markets? Leave your comments at the bottom of this story. After Chinese leaders expressed concerns earlier this year about how much debt the U.S. government is incurring to bail out financial firms and stimulate the economy, it's important to convince China that the dollar is not going to be devalued into oblivion and that Treasurys will remain safe investments. "China is now the largest of the U.S. creditors and its willingness to absorb U.S. Treasurys could be key to the success of the U.S. fiscal stimulus and banking sector rescues," wrote analysts for RGE Monitor, the economic research firm run by NYU Stern economics professor Nouriel Roubini, this week. "No wonder Treasury Secretary Geithner faced questions about the U.S. fiscal deficit reduction plan in Beijing." This doesn't necessarily mean that the United States is doomed to a massive economic fall from grace. In fact, it does not appear to be a coincidence that hopes of a U.S. economic recovery have helped lead a surge in stocks in China, India, Latin America and other emerging markets. According to mutual fund research firm Morningstar, emerging markets funds have actually outperformed the broader U.S. market since the rally began in March. Latin American stock funds, for example, are up a staggering 78% in the past three months, while Pacific/Asia funds (excluding Japan) are up 66%. The S&P 500, by way of comparison, is up about 35% during the same period. If nothing else, both the reaction to a potential U.S. recovery and the fallout from the problems in the U.S. housing and credit markets should prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the notion of economic decoupling was a myth. America led the rest of the West into recession, as many European banks had massive exposure to bad mortgage loans in the United States. The credit crisis wound up contributing to a slowdown for China and other emerging markets. China's economy grew at its lowest level in nearly two decades during the first quarter. And now that the United States is showing some signs of economic stabilization, emerging markets have snapped back. So rather than bemoaning the West's inevitable slip in economic importance, investors need to embrace emerging markets and realize that interdependence is key to the global economy. "China and other emerging markets have tied themselves intricately to the U.S. economic system," said James Swanson, chief investment strategist with MFS Investment Management in Boston. "As the U.S. recovers, that means that there will be a lot of earnings growth coming out of China and other emerging markets like India and Brazil." With that in mind, Swanson said investors need to be thinking more about buying shares of multinational U.S. construction firms that will benefit from increased demand in emerging markets, as well as mining, energy and manufacturing companies in China, India and Brazil. So if companies such as Alcoa (AA, Fortune 500), Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) and ExxonMobil (XOM, Fortune 500) are in your portfolio, you might also want to take a look at Aluminum Corp. of China (ACH), India's Tata Motors (TTM) and Brazil's Petrobras (PBR) as well. "U.S. investors can't have 80% to 90% of their portfolio in the U.S. anymore," Swanson said. "The old notion of having 5% to 10% in international stocks is outdated. Americans should increase their weight in emerging markets."

ADI 2010 22Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

The U.S. economy cannot independently spur global growth – interdependence with other emerging markets required

Faiola 9 (Anthony, Washington Post staff writer, the Washington Post, 4/2, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040102094.html) JAS

On the eve of a global economic summit here, President Obama delivered an unusual warning Wednesday for an American leader: The "voracious" U.S. economy can no longer be the sole engine of global growth.The statement signaled a recognition of a new economic era with a less dominant U.S. role. Although Obama said the United States should not miss "an opportunity to lead" the way out of the crisis, he suggested he would not be the globe's financial decider. "I came here to listen," he said, "not to lecture."His message also amounted to a challenge to world leaders that highlights the core differences expected at Thursday's summit. As more than 20 heads of state write a plan to combat the crisis, major European powers are firmly resisting calls to further open their coffers and cut taxes to spur the global economy.Such resistance may not have mattered as much in the past. In previous downturns -- including the Asian crisis in the late 1990s -- the United States was by and large the driving force of global recoveries. But in the wake of the current crisis, Obama said, Washington will have to deal with "our long-term fiscal position" and the notoriously low consumer savings rates that for years drove Americans further into debt even as U.S. imports soared.This time, he said, the rest of the world cannot depend on the "United States being a voracious consumer market.""Those are all issues that we have to deal with internally, which means that if there's going to be renewed growth, it cannot just be the United States as the engine," he said during a news conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. "Everybody is going to have to pick up the pace."The sense of a new economic order with the United States sharing the stage is hanging over this Group of 20 summit. In this relatively new forum, leaders of industrialized powers including the United States, Britain and Japan as well as emerging giants such as China, India and Brazil are grappling together for an answer to the global economic crisis.Nations will produce a communique Thursday with a list of carefully worded prescriptions, including the regulation of hedge funds and more rigorous standards for banks, a move to shed light on the secrecy of tax havens, new ways for regulators in different countries to coordinate their oversight and dramatically increased funding for the International Monetary Fund, according to a draft of the agreement.Obama noted that faulty financial regulations in Europe and elsewhere contributed to the crisis. But he did not try to deflect the blame directed at Washington and Wall Street, most vociferously by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and leaders from developing countries. "Given our prominence in the world financial system, it's natural that questions are asked -- some of them very legitimate -- about how we have participated in global financial markets," Obama said.It was a candid assessment of the limits to his influence here as he works with other leaders to clean up a mess that began at home, and where more spending in the United States cannot be the only answer."We cannot rely on the U.S. being the global locomotive," said Willem H. Buiter, former member of the Bank of England monetary policy committee and a London School of Economics professor. "Those days are gone."In the 1980s global downturn, the U.S. economy accounted for about one-third of the world's economy, he noted. It now accounts for one-quarter. The U.S. government is also far more indebted than it was in the '80s.

ADI 2010 23Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Because of globalization, economic hegemony will be transferred to China and other rising superpowersTabor and Maniam 10 (L. Garrett, and Balasundrum, assistant professor of finance, Journal of American Academy of Business Summer Business Review, 15(1), p.39) JAS

So what is expected from this abrupt transformation? Well, the possibilities seem limitless. Author and economist Leslie Davis predicts a transfer in wealth and economic power from western civilization to the east (Davis, 2009). Martin, in agreement with Davis, suggests that globalization refers mainly the modernization of the non-Western world (Martin, 2008). Both prophecies seem plausible due to recent economic conditions. The United States dependence on China's economy has placed them in tremendous debt, and their reliance on China is not likely to come to a halt. Additionally, Russia's abundance in petroleum resources may elevate them to superpower status due to the world's increasing reliance on energy sources. Although the U.S. appears to remain as a superpower, anticipate the United States' virtual strength to decline in all aspects even armed forces. Due to the emergence of new world governance and new superpowers, the structure of the international system and its players realized today will no longer be the same in the year 2025 (Davis 2009). Following new world governance, new structure offering a potential systemic solution to these challenges will promote civil society and non-governmental organizations to assimilate, and international financial and political institutions to transform (Martin, 2008). Parallel to power transition we can expect businesses, religious groups, criminal networks, and other non-state factors to showcase their strengths as well (Davis, 2009).

ADI 2010 24Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

ADI 2010 25Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Economy Key to Heg

The economy is the foundation of military power – it’s key to hegBradley A. Thayer, associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, 2007, American Empire: A Debate, p. 20American economic power is critical to the maintenance of the American Empire because economic power is the wellspring of military power. A good rule of thumb in international politics is that a country’s gross domestic prod uct equals the strength of military power, or GDP = Military Power. So, a healthy American economy helps to ensure adequate military strength to pre serve America’s position in the world. Fortunately for the United States, it has the world’s largest economy and its relative economic strength, like its relative military power, is astonishing.

ADI 2010 26Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Advantage Counterplan 1NC (1/)

CP: The United States Federal Government should reallocate funding to Community Based Organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations

Supply of foreign workers will continue to decline cap or no cap - H-1B visas are a short term remedy that will end up screwing us in the end - to pass the plan would be to cripple the USGordon 09 (Edward E. president of Imperial Consulting Corporation, “Unemployment numbers don’t tell the real jobs crisis story”, http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/unemployment-numbers-dont-tell-the-real-jobs-crisis-story-2682607-1.html, 7/29/10, atl)

Over the past several decades, the United States has muddled through these skilled people shortages using two major talent safety valves: 1)  America has imported large numbers of high-skill workers using H1-B visas. 2)  U.S. businesses have used outsourcing, not just of low-wage jobs, but also millions of high-skill, high-wage jobs which they have placed in countries with wages either equivalent or higher than the United States, including: Germany, Japan, Singapore, Korea and Canada. But these business talent safety valves are about to fail. As we have seen, many nations are beginning to experience severe yearly population declines. This population shrinkage includes a significant decline in the size of their workforces. And the go-to sources of talent that countries could once easily rely on, such as India and China, are having challenges of their own. Both India and China graduate about 400,000 engineers each year. Yet according to several McKinsey & Company studies and other sources, only about 25% of Indian graduates are considered qualified for employment in international businesses. Worse yet, only 10% of Chinese graduates meet world-class multinational expectations. As India’s and China’s economies have become more sophisticated, they are moving from low-skill to high-skill products and services. To meet these demands, both countries have begun to call home millions of expatriates—engineers, scientists, medical personnel, and others—to fill the large talent gaps growing across their economies. One indication of this change is the change in H-1B visa applications. For the fiscal year 2010 after 211 days there were still thousands of H-1B visa slots available. For 2009 it took one day to fill all the slots and in 2008 two days. Would be immigrants from India and China are finding good career opportunities at home. This is the globalization paradox. In the immediate future, U.S. businesses will fail to import nearly enough high-skill talent. Nor will they be able to export enough high-skill jobs overseas. How will America keep pace with both new job growth and finding the massive amount of talent needed to replace departing boomer workers? The bottom-line answer: the U.S. labor market must begin equipping more Americans with the education and skills to fill these jobs.

ADI 2010 27Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Advantage Counterplan 1NC (2/)

And, Investing in NGOs and CBOs solvesGordon 09 (Edward E. president of Imperial Consulting Corporation, “Unemployment numbers don’t tell the real jobs crisis story”, http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/unemployment-numbers-dont-tell-the-real-jobs-crisis-story-2682607-1.html, 7/29/10, atl)

The United States needs an immediate major overhaul of its talent creation and distribution systems. If not addressed, Manpower, Inc. predicts that over the next decade, 10% to 20% of U.S. businesses that cannot fill key positions will be forced to close. Businesses will face the dire possibility of 12 to 24 million vacant positions. There are, however, businesses and communities that have begun working to change this talent black hole into a decade of opportunity. They are beginning to forge partnerships that I call “Gateways-to-the Future.” Across America, numerous community-based organizations (CBOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been at work for more than a decade expanding business-education partnerships. They have mobilized the broad participation of chambers of commerce, unions, parent organizations, workforce boards, economic-development organizations, and other community groups. In Santa Ana, Calif., Fargo, N.D., Danville, Ill., Mansfield, Ohio, and in many other communities, these local CBOs and NGOs are now making significant local investments to reinvent their local and regional education-to-employment systems. They have helped businesses stay competitive through worker retraining and elementary/secondary/postsecondary career-education programs, including career academies. These CBOs and NGOs are rebuilding talent pipelines and helping to attract new businesses offering higher-wage, higher-skilled jobs for their communities. CBOs/NGOs are often regional entities that can encompass many communities. They act as neutral civic spaces that begin the conversation of what needs to be done and then building a broad network of partners that engage in the “strategic doing” needed to reinvigorate local labor markets. Such action is urgently needed as our research shows that students must be informed that there are fewer and fewer occupations that will not require some formal professional, scientific, mathematical and/or humanistic-based career education beyond high school. Also, for the majority of those currently employed, lifelong learning updates are essential. But even more is needed. At the national level, the U.S. Congress can encourage these community investments by allowing businesses to capitalize investments in training and education, just as they now capitalize investments in plants and equipment. This will help reduce unemployment by encouraging companies to once again offer entry-level job trainee positions to fill vacant positions. Businesses will also have an incentive to invest in career information and education programs in community elementary, secondary, and postsecondary institutions to rebuild the shattered education-to-employment pipeline . In 2009, U.S. businesses invested $53 billion annually in training and education. This could grow to over $100 billion by 2020 if such tax legislation was enacted by the U.S. Congress. (Read more about capitalization of training and education in Gordon’s article in the January issue of EBN.)

ADI 2010 28Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

***SCIENCE DIPLOMACY***

ADI 2010 29Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

U – Increasing Now

Non-unique – Clinton is aggressively pursuing science diplomacy Turekian 10 (Vaughan C., Chief international officer, AAAS, Washington, DC. Medical News Today, 21 July. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/195393.php) JM

"Innovation, science [and] technology must again become fundamental components of how we conduct development work," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told a "high-level meeting of international development and science experts" last week, SciDev.net reports. The meeting, Transforming Development Through Science Technology and Innovation, "was originally billed as a consultation to help map out a 'bold new' science strategy for [USAID]. But observers say it went beyond that, putting science and innovation firmly at the heart of USAID's work and the administration's development policy." The article notes that the meeting "follows the recent appointment of a science and technology adviser and repeated calls for USAID to consider more focused approach to its support of science and technology in developing countries," the news service writes. Specifically, Clinton "emphasised the need to collaborate with the private sector, non-governmental organizations and, particularly, local groups." She also said the administration is encouraging science diplomacy and exploring ways to promote innovation by including competitions "that encourage more people to put their own intellectual capital to work."

ADI 2010 30Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Alt Cause – H.R. 4801 Bill (1/2)

The H.R. 4801 Bill will pass and will dramatically increase the US’ science diplomacyU.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation, 10 (July 23, 2010 “CRDF Hosts Capitol Hill Briefing on Science Diplomacy” http://www.crdf.org/newsroom/newsroom_show.htm?doc_id=1308533, 7/28/10, atl)

Now more than ever, science engagement is needed as a critical tool to advance U.S. diplomacy and global development, according to speakers at a briefing hosted by CRDF on July 22, 2010 . This event built on a recent bipartisan statement signed by leaders in the foreign policy and science communities supporting science as a way to advance diplomacy. In addition, speakers acknowledged important legislation to advance science diplomacy that has been introduced during the past two years by the House and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees as well as the House Science Committee. Held in conjunction with the office of Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ), the CRDF briefing featured brief comments by invited members of Congress and a panel of officials from U.S. government agencies and the private sector. All addressed the importance of increasing scientific partnerships to tackle global challenges while improving diplomacy, international security and economic prosperity. In her welcome address, CRDF President and CEO Cathy Campbell noted the growing awareness of the importance of international science and technology cooperation. "We know from many surveys and our work overseas that engaging with the U.S. in science and technology is a high priority. Polls have shown that U.S. leadership in S&T is an area that many countries admire, and they want to work with the U.S. in these areas," Campbell underscored. "This is something that the U.S. has seen over the last 15 years since we've walked the walk and engaged with scientists all over the world." In his remarks, Rep. Rush Holt , co-chair, House Research and Development Caucus, recognized CRDF for its role in science engagement . "CRDF has been one of the most important partners in the international science diplomacy and development world," Rep. Holt said. "They were created on the idea that science and scientists share not only a common language around the world, but also a common desire to solve problems and improve human welfare. Science has been a very important tool in science diplomacy and development and could be much more so." Representative Brian Baird (D-WA) described why science diplomacy is so important to him: "That core value of merit, of reason, of evidentiary-based decision making, is fundamental to a constitutional democratic republic. It's fundamental to good relationships among people, and it's fundamental to good relationships among nations. Everything we can do to foster that as a core value to only our society but with other countries is essential. I urge everyone here to do what they can to support this mission." In his remarks, Representative Russ Carnahan (D-MO) pointed out that science and technology advances have had a global reach. "So many of the issues that we're dealing with today- nonproliferation, water resources, climate change, disease, health issues-are going to be driven by science ," Rep. Carnahan noted. "We have that common ground, that common thread, that can bring us together." Dr. Jason Rao, senior policy advisor at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, provided an overview of the successes and challenges faced by federal agencies and in Congress in promoting international science cooperation. "We need sustained collaboration to promote U.S. leadership. It's a market share issue," Dr. Rao said. "We know many are out there promoting these kinds of things. We need to maintain our leadership and develop centers of excellence and promote education and digital knowledge sharing." Mr. Lawrence Gumbiner , deputy assistant secretary of state for science, space & health, U.S. Department of State, noted that science diplomacy is an increasingly significant part of the U.S. foreign policy agenda and an increasingly significant aspect of State Department activities overseas. "Science diplomacy opens doors that establish lasting bonds between scientists and policymakers. It solves problems and also promotes democratic values," Mr. Gumbiner said. "U.S. science has a great reputation, and other countries want us to be involved at high levels." Dr. Alex Dehgan, science and technology adviser, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), described his agency's increasing use of science and technology to transform its development activities around the world. "Our security and prosperity as a nation are inextricably linked to global prosperity and security abroad, which is why we have a need for science cooperation," Dr. Dehgan said. "Addressing these shared challenges will be our nation's legacy. The best way for us to address the future is that we need to invent it." Dr. Gail H. Cassell, vice president of scientific affairs and distinguished research scholar for infectious diseases, Eli Lilly and Company, and a member of CRDF's Advisory Council, drew upon her extensive private and public sector experiences to underscore the need for science diplomacy. "Science diplomacy is absolutely critical to U.S. competitiveness," Dr. Cassell said. "In order to be able to have science diplomacy, if we don't have a very strong and robust research enterprise in this country, we will lose the push, and it will be pushed onto other governments."

ADI 2010 31Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Alt Cause – H.R. 4801 Bill (2/2)

HR 4801 bill solves science diplomacy and technological competitivenessU.S. Committee on Foreign Affairs, 10 (U.S. House of Representatives, March 10, 2010, “Berman Introduces Legislation to Boost U.S. Science Diplomacy”, http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov /press_display.asp?id=715, 7/28/10, atl)

Washington, DC – Congressman Howard L. Berman (D-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today introduced bipartisan legislation to enhance U.S. efforts at science diplomacy. “China, Iran, and Venezuela are sending their scientists around the world and signing cooperative agreements with new partners,” Berman noted. “They clearly recognize science diplomacy as an important instrument of statecraft. We need to keep America in the business of sharing one of our greatest natural resources – our intellectual and creative capacity through science – to strengthen relationships with allies and forge new bonds with potential partners.” The Global Science Program for Security, Competitiveness, and Diplomacy Act (H.R. 4801) would establish a program to provide grants to U.S. and foreign scientists, expand existing academic exchanges, strengthen the research infrastructure and curricula of institutes of higher learning in eligible countries, foster cooperative work on nuclear nonproliferation and encourage free or low-cost access to science journals on the Internet. Cosponsored by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), the legislation also formalizes the Obama Administration’s intention to enhance international science cooperation. In November Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced the creation of a science envoy program. She indicated that that these envoys will "travel to North Africa, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia to fulfill President Obama’s mandate to foster scientific and technological collaboration." Berman noted, “In a world where so many countries are putting their best scientific minds to work on building nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, science diplomacy is a peaceful means through which we can engage one another constructively.”

H.R. 4801 is on the top of Obama’s docket – solves advantageFrontier India Human Resources, 10 (March 10th, 2010 “Berman Introduces Legislation to Boost U.S. Science Diplomacy”, http://frontierindia.net/hr/berman-introduces-legislation-to-boost-u-s-science-diplomacy/173/, 7/28/10, atl)

Congressman Howard L. Berman (D-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today introduced bipartisan legislation to enhance U.S. efforts at science diplomacy . “China, Iran, and Venezuela are sending their scientists around the world and signing cooperative agreements with new partners,” Berman noted. “They clearly recognize science diplomacy as an important instrument of statecraft. We need to keep America in the business of sharing one of our greatest natural resources – our intellectual and creative capacity through science – to strengthen relationships with allies and forge new bonds with potential partners.” The Global Science Program for Security, Competitiveness, and Diplomacy Act (H.R. 4801) would establish a global program to provide grants to U.S. and foreign scientists, expand existing academic exchanges, strengthen the research infrastructure and curricula of institutes of higherlearning in eligible countries, foster cooperative work on nuclear nonproliferation and encourage free or low-cost access to science journals on the Internet . The legislation, cosponsored by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), also formalizes the Obama Administration’s intention to enhance international science cooperation. In November Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced the creation of a science envoy program. She indicated that that these envoys will “travel to North Africa, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia to fulfill President Obama’s mandate to foster scientific and technological collaboration.” Berman noted, “In a world where so many countries are putting their best scientific minds to work on building nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, science diplomacy is a peaceful means through which we can engage one another constructively.

ADI 2010 32Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Alt Cause – USAID

Obama solved the advantage already – just appointed a new high profile USAID science and tech advisor Johnson 10 (Jenny. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 8 April. http://www.scidev.net/en/news/usaid-appointment-boosts-science-diplomacy-focus.html) JM

The US government's international development agency is stepping up its focus on science and technology with a key appointment intended to enhance the agency's programmes in the Middle East and bolster the Obama administration's push for science diplomacy. Alex Dehgan was appointed USAID's science and technology advisor last month (11 March). The agency described him in a statement as "the focal point for implementing the Administrator's vision to restore science and technology to its rightful place within USAID". An agency spokeswoman said that Dehgan will work closely with USAID's senior counselor and director of innovation, Maura O'Neill, and will help shape development strategies, as well as create "novel science-based initiatives". Dehgan's appointment is widely seen as strengthening the administration's commitment to science diplomacy — the use of scientific programmes, such as efforts to forge international cooperation among scientists and engineers, to achieve broader political objectives. Dehgan, a conservation biologist and an attorney in international law, has worked for the US State Department in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East. He also has experience working on large-scale conservation projects in the non-governmental sector. The appointment is "very encouraging", said Caroline Wagner, author of The New Invisible College: Science for Development. "Dehgan has a long background in science diplomacy, he is a bench-trained scientist, and he is young — he has energy and drive." She said that this appointment adds to a growing list of high-level experts currently promoting US science diplomacy. "There is a lot of interest and experience that's being brought to this issue." Al Teich, director of science and policy programmes at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), said that the appointment of Dehgan — who has worked as an AAAS fellow, helping to set up an electronic library of scientific journals in Iraq — shows that science diplomacy is "an idea whose time has come".

ADI 2010 33Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Alt Cause – ITER

Non-unique – recent funding increase for the ITER Kanter 10 (James, journalist. New York Times, 21 July. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/europeans-plug-gap-in-nuclear-fusion-project/#more-63016) JM

A project to prove the viability of energy from nuclear fusion at a site in the south of France won a reprieve this week from the European Commission after costs ran significantly over budget. The commission announced proposals to plug the hole in the project’s finances with an injection of 1.4 billion euros (about $1.8 billion) from research funds and unused money from other parts of the union’s budget. The money would be made available for 2012 and 2013. European Union governments and lawmakers must sign off on the plan. The overrun has raised new questions about whether big-ticket projects like fusion, which may take decades to commercialize, are an effective use of tight resources at a time when budgets are being slashed as part of austerity efforts. Some politicians in Europe have renewed calls for the project to be abandoned because wind and solar resources are already available. “Several studies have come to the conclusion that renewables will be able to cover the E.U.’s energy supply by 2050,” Rebecca Harms, a German member of the European Parliament and the president of the Greens, said this month. “Since fusion will not be commercially available before that, it has become irrelevant for Europe’s energy future.” The project to build what originally was called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor – which includes contributions from the European Union, the United States, Russia, Japan, China, India and South Korea – would create electricity from the same process that powers the sun without producing large amounts of radioactive waste or emitting greenhouse gases while drawing on fuel sources that are virtually inexhaustible. “It is one of the world’s most ambitious research endeavors,” the commission said in its announcement of the additional funds. It said the project “could dramatically change the world’s energy landscape, opening the way to a safe, affordable, inexhaustible and CO2-free source of energy.”

ADI 2010 34Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

No Solvency

They don’t access science diplomacy – must engage in a comprehensive strategy, not just foster new tech Zewail 10 (Ahmed, Obama’s science envoy to the Middle East and prof of physics @ Cal Institute of Technology. Christian Science Monitor, “Science, not Hollywood or Starbucks, is America's best soft power” Jun 28 2010. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2010/0628/Science-not-Hollywood-or-Starbucks-is-America-s-best-soft-power) JM

First, the US needs to define a coherent and comprehensive policy for pursuing science diplomacy with Muslim-majority countries. Despite many efforts by both public and private organizations, their initiatives remain fragmented. Second, the focus of a better-integrated effort should be on improving education and fostering the scientific and technological infrastructure that will bring about genuine economic gains and social and political progress. One way to build human capital in science, for example, would be for the US to encourage and support the creation of relatively simple earth science labs in elementary schools, along with the teacher training necessary to stimulate curiosity about workings of nature. For older students, I propose a new program, “Reformation of Education and Development,” whose acronym, READ, would have special significance for Muslims, as it is the first word of the Quran. Through the READ program, the US would support the establishment of centers of excellence in science and technology that can serve as educational hubs for talented high school and university students throughout the region. Third, these efforts must complement, not replace, US efforts to promote human rights and democratic governance in the Muslim world. The United States must also continue to pursue a just and secure two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and work toward freeing the Middle East from nuclear proliferation.

Proper science diplomacy is impossible – not enough diplomatsLord et al 09 (Kristin - vice president at the Center for a New American Security and a nonresident fellow of the Brookings Institution, Vaughan Turekian, chief international officer and director of the Center for Science Diplomacy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “The Science of Diplomacy” http://www.cnas.org/node/918, 7/28/10, atl)

Facing a complex set of foreign-policy challenges, the United States can no longer afford to overlook such a useful instrument of statecraft. Regrettably, the U.S. government is not well organized to take advantage of science diplomacy. The National Science Foundation and technical departments (Energy, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Defense) apply their resources to science -- but not to its diplomatic use. Thus, the Obama administration should appoint a senior-level ambassador for science and technology cooperation in the State Department. He or she could convene an interagency group coordinating the strategic use of science diplomacy.

ADI 2010 35Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Science Diplomacy Bad – Soft Power DA

No internal link to the impacts – science trades off with real diplomacy, introduces controversial ideas which highlights tension and doesn’t solve any impacts – SESAME and failure of Copenhagen prove Dickson 10 (David, director of SciDev. SciDev.net, 28 June. http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/category/science-diplomacy-conference-2010/) JM

There’s a general consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of science diplomacy, at least in the somewhat restricted sense of the need to get more and better science into international negotiations, is a desirable objective. There is less agreement, however, on how far the concept can – or indeed should – be extended to embrace broader goals and objectives, in particular attempts to use science to achieve political or diplomatic goals at the international level. Science, despite its international characteristics, is no substitute for effective diplomacy. Any more than diplomatic initiatives necessarily lead to good science. These seem to have been the broad conclusions to emerge from a three-day meeting at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK, organised by the British Foreign Office and the Royal Society, and attended by scientists, government officials and politicians from 17 countries around the world. The definition of science diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of “public diplomacy”, or what US diplomats have recently been promoting as “soft power” (“the carrot rather than the stick approach”, as a participant described it). Others preferred to see it as a core element of the broader concept of “innovation diplomacy”, covering the politics of engagement in the familiar fields of international scientific exchange and technology transfer, but raising these to a higher level as a diplomatic objective. Whatever definition is used, three particular aspects of the debate became the focus of attention during the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how diplomacy can assist science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel for quasi-diplomatic exchanges by forming an apparently neutral bridge between countries. There was little disagreement on the first of these. Indeed for many, given the increasing number of international issues with a scientific dimension that politicians have to deal with, this is essentially what the core of science diplomacy should be about. Chris Whitty, for example, chief scientist at the UK’s Department for International Development, described how knowledge about the threat raised by the spread of the highly damaging plant disease stem rust had been an important input by researchers into discussions by politicians and diplomats over strategies for persuading Afghan farmers to shift from the production of opium to wheat. Others pointed out that the scientific community had played a major role in drawing attention to issues such as the links between chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and the growth of the ozone hole, or between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. Each has made essential contributions to policy decisions. Acknowledging this role for science has some important implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora, from Canada’s International Development Research Centre, complained of the lack of adequate scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the developed and developing world alike. Nor – perhaps predictably – was there any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such diplomacy can play a significant role in facilitating science exchange and the launch of international science projects, both essential for the development of modern science. Europe’s framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the first of these. Examples of the second range from the establishment of the European Organisation of Nuclear Research (usually known as CERN) in Switzerland after the Second World War, to current efforts to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER). Less positively, increasing restrictions on entry to certain countries, and in particular the United States after the 9/11 attacks in New York and elsewhere, have significantly impeded scientific exchange programmes. Here the challenge for diplomats was seen as helping to find ways to ease the burdens of such restrictions. The broadest gaps in understanding the potential of scientific diplomacy lay in the third category, namely the use of science as a channel of international diplomacy, either as a way of helping to forge consensus on contentious issues, or as a catalyst for peace in situations of conflict. On the first of these, some pointed to recent climate change negotiations, and in particular the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a good example, of the way that the scientific community can provide a strong rationale for joint international action. But others referred to the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit last December to come up with a meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the limitations of this way of thinking. It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a misplaced belief that scientific consensus would be sufficient to generate a commitment to collective action, without taking into account the political impact that scientific ideas would have. Another example that received considerable attention was the current construction of a synchrotron facility SESAME in Jordan, a project that is already is bringing together researchers in a range of scientific disciplines from various countries in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and Turkey). The promoters of SESAME hope that – as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a research centre involving, for example, physicists from both Russia and the United States – SESAME will become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense, it would become what one participant described as a “beacon of hope” for the region. But others cautioned that, however successful SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the Middle East peace process should not be exaggerated. Political conflicts have deep roots that cannot easily be papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional colleagues coming from other political contexts. Indeed, there was even a warning that in the developing world, high profile scientific projects, particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage by inadvertently favouring one social group over another. Scientists should be wary of having their prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as patronising, appearing unaware of political realities. Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice committed to promoting the causes of peace and development were reminded of the need to take into account how advances in science – whether nuclear physics or genetic technology – have also led to new types of weaponry. Nor did science automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities. “Science for diplomacy” therefore ended up with a highly mixed review. The consensus seemed to be that science can prepare the ground for diplomatic initiatives – and benefit from diplomatic agreements – but cannot provide the solutions to either.

ADI 2010 36Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AT: Warming Impacts (1/)

No impact – warming slowing now. Science Daily, 5/5 [Science Daily, May 5 2008, “Will Global Warming Take A Short Break? Improved Climate Predictions Suggest A Reduced Warming Trend During The Next 10 Years”, <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080502113749.htm>]

To date climate change projections, as published in the last IPCC report, only considered changes in future atmospheric composition. This strategy is appropriate for long-term changes in climate such as predictions for the end of the century. However, in order to predict short-term developments over the next decade, models need additional information on natural climate variations, in particular associated with ocean currents. Lack of sufficient data has hampered such predictions in the past. Scientists at IFM-GEOMAR and from the MPI for Meteorology have developed a method to derive ocean currents from measurements of sea surface temperature (SST). The latter are available in good quality and global coverage at least for the past 50 years. With this additional information, natural decadal climate variations, which are superimposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trend, can be predicted. The improved predictions suggest that global warming will weaken slightly during the following 10 years. “Just to make things clear: we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change won’t be as bad as previously thought”, explains Prof. Mojib Latif from IFM-GEOMAR. “What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years”, adds Latif. “That is like driving from the coast to a mountainous area and crossing some hills and valleys before you reach the top”, explains Dr. Johann Jungclaus from the MPI for Meteorology. “In some years trends of both phenomena, the anthropogenic climate change and the natural decadal variation will add leading to a much stronger temperature rise.”

Warming is not anthropogenic. Singer, distinguished research professor at George Mason and Avery, director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, 2007 (S. Fred, Dennis T, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years” Pages 7-8)

The Earth has recently been warming. This is beyond doubt . It has warmed slowly and erratically-for a total of about 0.8 degrees Celsius-since 1850. It had one surge of warming from 1850 to 1870 and another from 1920 to 1940. However, when we correct the thermometer records for the effects of growing urban heat islands and widespread intensification of land use, and for the recently documented cooling of the Antarctic continent over the past thirty years, overall world temperatures today are only modestly warmer than they were in 1940, despite a major increase in human CO2 emissions. The real question is not whether the Earth is warming but why and by how much. We have a large faction of intensely interested persons who say the warming is man-made, and dangerous. They say it is driven by releases of greenhouse gases such as CO2

from power plants and autos, and methane from rice paddies and cattle herds. The activists tell us that modern society will destroy the planet; that unless we radically change human energy production and consumption, the globe will become too warm for farming and the survival of wild species. They warn that the polar ice caps could melt, raising sea levels and flooding many of the world's most important cities and farming regions. However, they don't have much evidence to support their position-only (1) the fact that the Earth is warming, (2) a theory that doesn't explain the warming of the past 150 years very well, and (3) some unverified computer models. Moreover, their credibility is seriously weakened by the fact that many of them have long believed modern technology should be discarded whether the Earth is warming too fast or not at all. Many scientists - though by no means all- agree that increased CO2 emissions could be dangerous. However, polls of climate-qualified scientist show that many doubt the scary predictions of the global computer models. This book cites the work of many hundreds of researchers, authors, and coauthors whose work testifies to the 1,500-year cycle. There is no "scientific consensus," as global warming advocates often claim. Nor is consensus important to science. Galileo may have been the only man of his day who believed the Earth revolved around the sun, but he was right! Science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false. If we can find proof, not just that the Earth is warming, but that it is warming to dangerous levels due to human-emitted greenhouse gases, public policy will then have to evaluate such potential remedies as banning autos and air conditioners. So far, we have no such evidence. If the warming is natural and unstoppable, then public policy must focus instead on adaptations-such as more efficient air conditioning and building dikes around low-lying areas like Bangladesh. We have the warming. Now we must ascertain its cause.

ADI 2010 37Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AT: Warming Impacts (2/)

Growing emissions in developing countries make CO2 reduction impossible—modeling is irrelevantWilliam Koetzle, Ph.D. and Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Institute for Energy Research, 4/13/2008(“IER Rebuttal to Boucher White Paper”, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/04/13/ier-rebuttal-to-boucher-white-paper/)

For example, if the United States were to unilaterally reduced emissions by 30% or 40% below 2004 levels[8] by 2030; net global CO2 emissions would still increase by more than 40%. The reason is straightforward: either of these reduction levels is offset by the increases in CO2 emissions in developing countries. For example, a 30% cut below 2004 levels by 2030 by the United States offsets less than 60% of China’s increase in emissions during the same period. In fact, even if the United States were to eliminate all CO2 emissions by 2030, without any corresponding actions by other countries, world-wide emissions would still increase by 30%. If the United States were joined by the other OECD countries in a CO2 reduction effort, net emissions would still significantly increase. In the event of an OCED-wide reduction of 30%, global emissions increase by 33%; a reduction of 40% still leads to a net increase of just under 30%. Simply put, in order to hold CO2 emissions at 2004 levels, absent any reductions by developing nations like China and India, all OECD emissions would have to cease.[9] The lack of participation by all significant sources of GHGs not only means it is unlikely that net reductions will occur; it also means that the cost of meaningful reductions is increased dramatically. Nordhous (2007) for example, argues that for the “importance of near-universal participation to reduce greenhouse gases.”[10] His analysis shows that GHG emission reduction plans that include, for example, 50% of world-wide emissions impose additional costs of 250 percent. Thus, he find’s GHG abatement plans like Kyoto (which does not include significant emitters like the United States, China, and India) to be “seriously flawed” and “likely to be ineffective.” [11] Even if the United States had participated, he argues that Kyoto would make “but a small contribution to slowing global warming, and it would continue to be highly inefficient.”[12]The data on emissions and economic analysis of reduction programs make it clear that

GHG emissions are a global issue. Actions by localities, sectors, states, regions or even nations are unlikely to effectively reduce net global emissions unless these reductions are to a large extent mirrored by all significant emitting nations.

ADI 2010 38Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AT: Disease

Empirically denied: The Black Plague, Smallpox, and the Spanish Flu were all supposed to cause extinction, but humans are still around - make them prove a unique brink

Double Bind: Either A. Humans will adapt to diseases - no extinctionGaldwell 95 (Staff writer for New Yorker (Malcolm, The New Republic, 7-17)

McNeill's point, however, is that while man's efforts to "remodel" his environment are sometimes a source of new disease, they are seldom a source of serious epidemic disease. Quite the opposite. As humans and new microorganisms interact, they begin to accommodate each other. Human populations slowly build up resistance to circulating infections. What were once virulent infections, such as syphilis, become attenuated. Over time, diseases of adults, such as measles and chicken pox, become limited to children, whose immune systems are still naive. McNeill remarks that it was during the mid-fifteenth century that the population of Europe began to expand steadily, even though "it was during these decades that the oceanic discoveries took place, and European sailors had the opportunity to import new infections into their homelands from the ports of all the earth." Precisely because they had been exposed to these micro-organisms, the Europeans were hardened to their effects. This, says McNeill, is the paradox of infection: "The more diseased a community, the less destructive its epidemics become." Who, after all, suffered the most from the discovery of the New World? Not the conquerors, the ones who were despoiling a virgin environment. It was the conquered, the American Indians, the peoples living on a secluded and pristine continent, who were all but wiped out by the sudden arrival of smallpox. This does not mean, of course, that we should not worry about the effects of man's continuing assault on nature. But it does mean that there is nothing inherently terrifying about the fact that the West is now being exposed to new microbes from equatorial Africa. We are ultimately safer in a world where new viruses and bacteria are in constant circulation, and where human populations can encounter and build defenses against them. Unlocking the viruses of the rainforest is part of the way we tame nature, not the way nature tames us.

Or B. Lethal diseases will burnoutLederberg ’99 Joshua, Prof. Genetics @ Stanford, (Epidemic: The World of Infectious Disease, p. 13)

The toll of the fourteenth-century plague, the "Black Death," was closer to one third. If the bugs' potential to develop adaptations that could kill us off were the whole story, we would not be here. However, with very rare exceptions, our microbial adversaries have a shared interest in our survival. Almost any pathogen comes to a dead end when we die; it first has to communicate itself to another host in order to survive. So historically, the really severe host- pathogen interactions have resulted in a wipeout of both host and pathogen. We humans are still here because, so far, the pathogens that have attacked us have willy-nilly had an interest in our survival. This is a very delicate balance, and it is easily disturbed, often in the wake of large-scale ecological upsets.

ADI 2010 39Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AT: Russia War

No Russia or China nuclear war – memory of World War IIGarcia, September 1, 2008Manuel, Jr., retired physicist who spent 15 years working on US underground nuclear tests. “Dancing With Chaos: Will a Russo-American

Nuclear War Happen (Soon)?”The Soviet Union lost nearly 14 percent of its population (every 7th person) in the war, and this mortality amounted to almost one third of the entire WW2 dead. China was three times as populous as the Soviet Union, so its loss of nearly 4 percent of its people (every 26th person) amounted to over one quarter of the entire WW2 dead. Germany lost over a tenth of its population (every 10th person), which amounted to 10 percent of the WW2 dead; and Japan’s loss of just under 4 percent of its people (every 26th person) amounted to nearly 4 percent of the WW2 dead. Notice that the United States’ WW2 dead amounts to a fifty-fifth (1/55) of the Soviet total, <continued> state planners and popular historical memories in both Russia and China viscerally appreciate the importance of this point, but that it may be dimly perceived in US popular imagination, and even dismissed by US policy-makers. This is probably the type of caution introduced by European allies when the US engages them in multilateral diplomacy and planning, and which is so annoying to US unilateralists. So, the US may have a more casual attitude about bellicose posturing and nuclear war threatening bravado, while the Russians and Chinese are likely to be very circumspect and deliberate about threatening nuclear war; if they do, pay attention!

No US-Russia Nuclear war – risk to empire, Europeans will interveneGarcia, September 1, 2008Manuel, Jr., retired physicist who spent 15 years working on US underground nuclear tests. “Dancing With Chaos: Will a Russo-American Nuclear War Happen (Soon)?”

We can expect the Europeans to try soothing the neo-con fevered Bush Administration, quietly behind closed embassy doors, from working itself into a rabid lather for nuclear war with Russia, initially in the Caucasus. This will have some influence, because the failure of Europe to join in a diplomatic demonization campaign against Russia, like the earlier campaigns against Iraq, would make it more difficult for the US to proceed to war. Also, the US is mindful that were it to be seriously weakened by a unilateral nuclear war with Russia, an unscathed Europe would easily step into control of its empire. After all, this is what Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman did to Winston Churchill’s British empire. Also, Europe would worry that a nuclear war in the Caucasus might spread, war usually does when one side becomes desperate. If Russia were being “bombed back to the stone age” it would most certainly bomb the US bases in the Central Asian republics along its southern border. These would be legitimate military targets, and would no doubt be actively involved in the US war against Russia (why else are they there?). This would draw the Central Asian republics into the war and probably topple their ruling classes, which Russia would see as their just deserts. A similar catastrophe might happen to Poland and other Eastern European states hosting US missile systems. For Europe, the thought of the disruption of their oil supplies from Russia and Central Asia, along with the possibility of sustaining casualties from nuclear bombardment, should be enough to propel them into vigorous and sustained diplomatic action to restrain US belligerency. They will probably say all manner of nasty things about Russia, to mollify their infantile US emperor, and do as little as possible to disrupt their existing commercial arrangements with Russia. Analogous to the situation of the US public, if Europe and American “allies” were to suffer directly and severely from the war, they might unite in revolt and then use their military forces against the US, or Russia, or both as they guessed would offer the best relief. What is that level of “direct and severe suffering” that would trigger a European military response? Good question.<continued>Once the chaotic dimension of reality is realized, it becomes easy to envision any number of disastrous developments for each of the initial combatants, and even the initial bystanders. From any perspective, it is easier to imagine a negative cost-benefit ratio to this war than a positive outcome. For this reason, I think it less likely to occur. However, one must not underestimate the stupidity of imperialists, if war does break out then I think the Russians will have a clearer view of how to proceed, and this will mean painful losses for the US, its allies and enablers.

ADI 2010 40Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AT: Indo-Pak

MAD makes full-scale indo-pak conflict impossibleGanguly 2001 (Šumit, professor of Asian studies and government at the University of Texas at Austin, "Beyond the Nuclear Dimension: Forging Stability in South Asia" http://www.armscontrol.org/print/958)Today a somewhat tenuous nuclear peace exists on the subcontinent. Despite the fragility of this peace, however, it is unlikely that full-scale war between India and Pakistan will erupt and bring on the possibility of a nuclear confrontation. Both sides, though acutely ill-disposed toward one another, clearly recognize the consequences of their nuclear revolution. This recognition was amply demonstrated during the Kargil war of 1999, when units of the Pakistani Northern Light Infantry, in concert with Afghan and Kashmiri irregular forces, breached the Line of Control. The bold Pakistani incursion across the Line of Control initially caught the Indian forces unprepared, but once the infiltration was discovered, India responded with considerable vigor, repulsed the intruders, and restored the status quo ante by early July. In their military operations, the Indians were forced to use airpower to dislodge the Pakistanis from well-entrenched mountain redoubts, but they carefully refrained from crossing the Line of Control at any point during the air strikes. India also specifically chose not to expand the scope of the conflict by horizontally escalating along other parts of the international border with Pakistan, despite the fact that such a move would have relieved pressure on its troops in Kargil. The Indian restraint during the Kargil war was striking. Within the first week of its previous war with Pakistan over Kashmir in 1965, India had sent its forces to strike along other salients of the international border to relieve the military pressure in Kashmir. And India was and is hardly without grievances against Pakistan. The decade-long indigenous insurgency in Kashmir has been more violent and longer lived because of the active support of the militants by Pakistan. Furthermore, by infiltrating in Kargil, Pakistan had violated the goodwill that had just a few months earlier been established by the leaders of the two countries in inaugurating bus service between Lahore and Amritsar. So the temptation in some quarters of India must have been strong to put an end to Pakistan’s needling once and for all. But no steps were taken toward this end. India’s avoidance of either form of escalation stemmed not from moral qualms but from the clear-eyed recognition on the part of Indian decision-makers that their adversary possessed nuclear weapons. Expanding the scope of the conflict beyond the points of Pakistani egress could have provoked a wider and possibly uncontrolled conflict, and this was a denouement that no Indian decision-maker was or is willing to countenance. Clearly, although stable deterrence has not yet arrived in South Asia, these two new nuclear adversaries have come to a sober understanding of their circumstances that has blocked any imminent danger of nuclear escalation.

No escalation – limited arsenalsNewstrack India, 2009 (Price of an Indo-Pak war, http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/62680)

Let us turn to unprecedented casualty in case of a nuclear conflict: Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), the New York based global think tank, in its report, “The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan” has calculated the human costs of an Indo-Pak nuclear conflict. As per NRDC estimates, both countries have a total of 50 to 75 nuclear weapons. Depicting a nuclear war Scenario (10 bombs on 10 South Asian cities), it says that attack on 10 major cities – 5 each in India and Pakistan – would result in a combined death toll of 2,862,581, with 1,506,859 severely injured and 3,382,978 slightly injured. On Indian side, death toll is estimated at 1,690,702, while 892,459 and 2,021,106 would be severely and slightly injured respectively. On Pakistan side, a total of 1,171,879 people would die, while, 614,400 and 1,361,872 are to be severely and slightly injured. In another scenario (24 Ground Bursts), NRDC calculated the consequences of 24 nuclear explosions detonated on the ground – unlike the Hiroshima airburst – resulting in significant amounts of lethal radioactive fallout, which is far more severe nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. The report was first appeared in the January 14, 2002, issue of Newsweek (A Face-Off with Nuclear Stakes). Contrary to ground burst, exploding a nuclear bomb above the ground does not produce fallout. For example, can we imagine the consequences of ground burst if the “Little Boy” detonated by the US above Hiroshima at an altitude of 1,900 feet could kill 70,000 people in the immediate effect with some 200,000 died up to 1950? NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 roentgen equivalents in man or REM (a large amount of radiation) or more in the first two days of the attack. In addition, about 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 REM causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death. In all, as many as 30 million people of both countries would be eliminated by nuclear war. Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. However, even after such a devastating annihilation of population, about 99 percent of the population in India and 93 percent of the population in Pakistan would survive the second scenario and their respective military forces would still be intact to continue the conflict. In short, there is nothing to gain from a war, just plenty to lose. Albeit loss of human life would be immense it would not be large enough to result in extinction of Indo-Pak populations or even prevent continuation of a military conflict. Thus, the consequences, though horrific, are not strong enough to rule out Indo-Pak conflict in future. Had size of the Indo-Pak nuclear arsenals equal to those of the US and Russia, a complete annihilation of entire population of the Indian sub-continent would have been possible.

ADI 2010 41Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AT: Middle East

Currently USIA is pursuing cultural diplomacy – solves advantageHughes, 05 (John, a former editor of the Monitor, served as associate director of USIA, and assistant secretary of State for public affairs in the Reagan administration, “'Cultural diplomacy' is key to winning hearts and minds”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p09s02-cojh.html, 7/28/10, atl)

Over the years, the United States government has targeted a string of foreign individuals destined for greatness and brought them to America to be steeped in the culture and ways of Americans, and be exposed to the strengths and weaknesses of the American political system. They came on an international visitor program and though they may not have necessarily agreed with the policies of any particular administration, they generally left with warm memories of individual Americans and respect for American institutions. The list includes people such as the late Anwar Sadat, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and later Prime Minister Tony Blair, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. It is tempting to speculate whether Saddam Hussein, had he visited the US on this program, might have taken a different tack in his relationship with the US. Most of these visits were orchestrated by the United States Information Agency (USIA) as part of its public diplomacy mission - engaging in dialogue with the publics of other nations, and spreading understanding of US principles and values. With the demise of the cold war, public diplomacy ceased to be a priority and funding for it declined sharply. US cultural centers, libraries, and information offices abroad were closed. Finally, in 1999, USIA was abolished, its remnants located in the State Department. Today the budget for educational and cultural programs is about 4 percent of the overall State Department budget and about three-tenths of 1 percent of the Pentagon's annual budget. The private sector continues with some of the former programs. Journalistic organizations, for example, bring key editors to the US to study American media organizations in all their strengths and weaknesses. Similarly, teachers and doctors and writers are hosted by various professional groups, but resources for such programs are generally leaner than even those available through government programs. Since 9/11 and the thrusting of the US into a new war, this time against terrorism, the value of a public diplomacy program in addition to military operations has become evident. Influencing public opinion in lands where Al Qaeda and its satellite groups are seeking dominance is an imperative. It is also a long-term project. In Iraq, for instance, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has suggested American involvement may require "a generational commitment." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has warned that of even greater concern than today's terrorists, may be the mind-set of a coming generation throughout the Islamic world which has long been subjected to the angry teachings in the madrassahs, or Islamist schools, of the region. President Bush has installed Karen Hughes, his closest media strategist, as undersecretary for public diplomacy at the State Department. She and Secretary Rice have the president's ear. On their desks last month was deposited the intriguing report of an advisory committee on cultural diplomacy made up of distinguished American citizens. They argue that alongside radio and TV broadcasting to foreign countries, and all the other media programs designed to explain and further political policies, cultural diplomacy "reveals the soul of a nation." American art, dance, film, jazz, and literature continue to inspire people the world over despite our political differences. Cultural diplomacy, say the advisory committee members, "demonstrates our values, and our interest in values, and combats the popular notion that Americans are shallow, violent, and godless." The group has specific recommendations. Predictably, they want more funding for the training of foreign service officers responsible for public and cultural diplomacy. But there are other ideas such as a major project to translate into foreign languages thousands of the best American books in many fields for placing in libraries, universities, and study centers in other countries. The committee wants visa issues streamlined for international students, many of whom have been avoiding American universities since 9/11. They want access to the US improved for international exchange visitors. They want more Arab and Muslim artists, performers, and writers invited to the US, with their US counterparts encouraged to go to the Islamic world. They want world affairs councils in American cities to seek more public-private partnerships for international visitors. They want a government unit dedicated to acquiring selected private sector US film and television properties for showing overseas. The committee echoes the report of the 9/11 commission: "If the US does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us." That should be a warning for Ms. Hughes and Dr. Rice to press with great validity at the White House.

ADI 2010 42Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

ADI 2010 43Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

***HEGEMONY***

ADI 2010 44Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Security breaches badCavusoglu, Mishra, and Raghunathan 4 (Huseyin, Birendra, and Srinivasan, “The Effect of Internet Security Breach Announcements on Market Value: Capital Market Reactions for Breached Firms and Internet Security Developers,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce / Fall 2004, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69–104.)

The true cost of a security breach is manifold. Security lapses can lead to the loss of consumer confidence and trust, over and above the lost business and exposure to third-party liability. In a recent survey by Media Metrix, only 12.1 percent of U.S. companies with a Web presence cited direct financial loss as a concern in security breaches, but more than 40 percent cited consumer trust and confidence [58]. Although it may be impossible to directly quantify the costs associated with the breaching of consumer trust and confidence, an indirect estimate is possible on the basis of the capital market valuations of firms. The present research has the following specific objectives: 1. To quantify the costs associated with IT security breaches using market valuation data. 2. To explain the factors that affect the cross-sectional variations related to breach costs. 3. To document the information-transfer effect of security breaches on security developers’ market valuations. The research in this paper is related to two previous studies of IT failures and capital markets. Ettredge and Richardson investigated the stock market reaction to the February 2000 DOS attacks and found that Internet firms suffered market reactions more severely than did traditional firms [30]. Theirs was the first study to measure the effects of security breaches on capital markets. Bharadwaj and Keil, who studied the impact of announcements of IT failures, including DOS attacks on capital markets, found a significant drop in the market value of firms that experienced such failures [10]. The present research, like the work of the aforementioned authors, employs the event-study method, but as far as is known, it is the first large-scale examination of the effect of security breaches on capital markets. It differs from these two earlier works in the following respects. First, unlike Ettredge and Richardson, it does not restrict the analysis to DOS attacks, but considers security breaches of all types. This makes it possible to investigate the differential effects of DOS as compared with other types of attack. Although the February 2000 incident is a landmark in the IT security domain because of the wide scope and publicity of the attack, the paper analyzes the impact of security breaches in 1996–2001 and does not isolate the February 2000 incident. Next, whereas Bharadwaj and Keil study security breaches among several other types of IT failure (they also consider DOS attacks only), the present paper focuses exclusively on security breaches. For the purposes of the study, a security breach is defined as a malicious attempt to interfere with a company’s business and its information. Thus, the study does not consider accidental events and glitches that may affect the firm. In what is, perhaps, its most important departure from the aforementioned two studies, the present analysis is not limited to one segment of the market but also looks at certain repercussions of an attack beyond the breached companies. The effects of security breaches on breached firms are analyzed and so are the information-transfer effects produced by the breaches on security technology firms. The present paper is the first study in the information systems (IS) literature to investigate information-transfer effects.1 The research found that announcements of Internet security breaches were negatively associated with the market value of the announcing firms. The breached firms, on average, lost 2.1 percent of their market value within two days of the announcement. This translated into a $1.65 billion average loss in market capitalization per breach based on the mean market value of the firms in the data set. The research also found that 1. Breach cost is higher for “pure play,” or Internet-only, firms than for conventional firms. 2. Breach cost increased during the study period. 3. Security breaches are costlier for smaller firms than larger firms. 4. Breach cost is not significantly different across breach types. The effects of security breaches were not restricted to the breached firms, however. The market value of security technology firms was positively associated with the disclosure of a security breach. The security firms in the sample realized, on average, an abnormal return of 1.36 percent within two days after the announcement. This produced, on average, a total gain for security firms of $1.06 billion in a two-day period. Theory and Hypotheses Development In order to derive hypotheses, the study identified the different types of costs associated with security breaches and their relationship to firm value under the efficient market hypothesis. Cost of Security Breaches The costs of security breaches can be broadly classified as transitory (or shortterm) costs, incurred only during the period in which the breach occurs, and permanent (or long-term) costs, incurred over several periods.

ADI 2010 45Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Security breaches collapse businesses and kill consumer confidenceCavusoglu, Mishra, and Raghunathan 4 (Huseyin, Birendra, and Srinivasan, “The Effect of Internet Security Breach Announcements on Market Value: Capital Market Reactions for Breached Firms and Internet Security Developers,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce / Fall 2004, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69–104.)

Whereas most tangible costs are immediate or shortterm, the intangible costs can have a long-term effect on the firm’s expected future cash flows. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the impact of a security breach on the breached firm’s value can be significant. For example, immediately following the February 2000 DOS attack, Yahoo, eBay, and Buy.com lost 15 percent, 24 percent, and 44 percent, respectively, of their market value [4]. The relationship between IT security and market valuations of firms doing business on the Internet can be traced to the trust of customers who do business with the firm through the Internet. Customer trust assumes more significance in e-business because of concerns related to data privacy. A customer may be unwilling to transact business with sites perceived to be insecure. A security breach can irrevocably damage the trust and confidence necessary to build a long-term relationship with the customer. In the Internet era, characterized by much competition and little loyalty, dissatisfied customers can switch to competitors that are just a click away. Thus, perceptions of lax security can have a profound financial impact on a firm. Security problems may signal to the market that the firm is not concerned about customer privacy or that its internal security practices are poor, and this may lead investors to question the firm’s long-term performance [32]. As described in the model given above, investors revise their expectations based on new information in announcements. Investor expectations are reflected in the value of the firm. If investors view a security breach negatively, believing that the transitory and long-term costs resulting from it will substantially reduce expected future cash flows [31], then one may expect a negative abnormal stock market return near the day of the announcement. H1: A firm’s announcement of an Internet security breach is negatively associated with its abnormal stock return. Determinants of Cross-Sectional Variance Earlier researchers, such as Mikhail, Walther, and Willis [52], used this variable to control for similar effects. Relationship Between Internet Security Breaches and Market Value of Internet Security Firms (Information Transfer) Announcements of security breaches convey information to investors about Internet security developers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a link between security breaches and the market value of Internet security firms. Following the news of the February 2000 DOS attacks, five different Internet security stocks climbed more than 20 percent, and one firm, WatchGuard Technologies, gained 46 percent. When Microsoft was hacked almost a year later, the stock prices of security firms also increased [55]. A series of attacks against Web firms in the last few years proves that this is not a temporary issue. As firms invest more in security, demand for security products increases. An estimate by IDC predicts that the worldwide market for IT security products will reach $21 billion in 2005, from $6.7 billion in 2001.

All breaches are devastagingCavusoglu, Mishra, and Raghunathan 4 (Huseyin, Birendra, and Srinivasan, “The Effect of Internet Security Breach Announcements on Market Value: Capital Market Reactions for Breached Firms and Internet Security Developers,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce / Fall 2004, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69–104.)

The parameter estimate was negative but not significant (t = –0.74; p = 0.4597). This implies that markets do not distinguish between different types of security breaches. In other words, market participants apply a similar negative premium to all attacks regardless of type. H3, which relates firm size to abnormal return, was strongly supported by the data. The parameter estimate for the firm size was positive and highly significant (t = 3.60; p = 0.0003), as expected. The result confirmed that smaller firms lose more than larger firms in case of a security breach. The estimate of time coefficient was negative and significant (t = –1.68; p = 0.0488), indicating that investors reacted more harshly to the recent attacks. Effect of Security Breach Announcements on Internet Security Firms The study assumed that the abnormal returns were uncorrelated in the crosssection in order to analyze the effect of security breaches on announcing firms.

Conservative estimates of security breaches are wrong. They don’t account for intangiblesCavusoglu, Mishra, and Raghunathan 4 (Huseyin, Birendra, and Srinivasan, “The Effect of Internet Security Breach Announcements on Market Value: Capital Market Reactions for Breached Firms and Internet Security Developers,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce / Fall 2004, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69–104.)

ADI 2010 46Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

The attack type was still insignificant. Therefore, the results of the cross-sectional analysis were not confounded by stock betas. Thus, the results were robust against every sensitivity and robustness check that was conducted. Implications, Limitations, and Conclusions Implications According to the CSI-FBI Computer Crime and Security Survey 2002, which polled 503 respondents from organizations throughout the United States, 80 percent reported financial losses, but only 44 percent (223) were able to quantify them. The total reported loss was $455,848,000, and the average estimated loss was $2,044,161 per organization across all types of breaches. The highest reported loss was for theft of proprietary information, reported by 41 organizations, with an average of $4,166,512 per organization. The sabotage of data networks cost an average of $351,953, and DOS attacks resulted in a $244,940 loss per organization. The reported losses included the firms’ estimates of direct and tangible costs associated with security breaches only. The results of the present study show that the announcement of an Internet security breach is negatively associated with the market value of the announcing firm. In the study, breached firms lost an average of 2.1 percent of their market value within the two days surrounding the events, which is roughly a $1.65 billion average loss in market capitalization per incident across breach types. This figure is orders of magnitude above the average loss estimate reported in the CSI-FBI survey. The huge difference in the estimates of firm losses because of a security breach may be explained by the fact that firms in the CSI-FBI survey estimated only direct costs, such as lost productivity or sales, and expenditure on restoring the breached system, whereas the loss estimated in the present event study may also include investors’ expectations about the impact on future cash flows, which requires considerations of intangible costs, such as the loss of consumer confidence. Investors may also anticipate that the firm will be breached again in the future. The estimates based on the event study may be noisy because of the uncertainties. Even if the estimates are discounted, however, there is an order of magnitude of difference between the firms’ reported estimates in the CSI-FBI survey and the market value loss in the study. One possible implication of this finding is that the intangible costs of security breaches may be much larger than the tangible costs, and therefore, firms that ignore the intangible costs grossly underestimate the loss from security breaches. Because investments in IT security are directly dependent on the extent of potential loss from breaches, firms are likely to underinvest in IT security if they make investment decisions based only on tangible costs. The study offers proponents of IT security a muchneeded economic justification to get firms to invest in security. The finding that the average (negative) cumulative abnormal return associated with announcements decreases with the size of the firm suggests that investors penalize smaller firms more than larger firms when a security breach occurs.

ADI 2010 47Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

ADI 2010 48Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

U – Tech Leadership High Now

AT IL--US tech base strong nowZakaria, 2008.(Fareed, Newsweek International, Foreign Affairs May June 2008, )

In trying to understand how the United States will fare in the new world, the first thing to do is simply look around: the future is already here.Over the last 20 years, globalization has been gaining breadth and depth. More countries are making goods, communications technology has been leveling the playing field, capital has been free to move across the world--and the United States has benefited massively from these trends. Its economy has received hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, and its companies have entered new countries and industries with great success. Despite two decades of a very expensive dollar, U.S. exports have held ground, and the World Economic Forum currently ranks the United States as the world's most competitive economy. GDP growth, the bottom line, has averaged lust over three percent in the United States for 25 years, significantly higher than in Europe or Japan. Productivity growth, the elixir of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, a full percentage point higher than the European average. This superior growth trajectory might be petering out, and perhaps U.S. growth will be more

typical for an advanced industrialized country for the next few years. But the general point--that the United States is a highly dynamic economy at the cutting edge, despite its enormous size--holds.Consider the industries of the future. Nanotechnology(applied science dealing with the control of matter at the atomic or molecular scale) is likely to lead to fundamental breakthroughs over the next 50 years, and the United States dominates the field.It has more dedicated "nanocenters" than the next three nations (Germany, Britain, and China) combined and has issued more patents for nanotechnology than the rest of the world combined, highlighting its unusual strength in turning abstract theory into practical products. Biotechnology(a broad category that describes the use of biological systems to

create medical, agricultural, and industrial products)is also dominated by the United States. Biotech revenues in the United States approached $50 billion in 2005,five times as large as the amount in Europe and representing 76 percent of global

biotech revenues.

ADI 2010 49Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

No Solve ncy

H-1B workers can’t get the security clearance necessary to work in the defense sector Tessler 8 [Joelle, AP Business Writer, March 4, “Aerospace and defense sector braces for potential brain drain as Cold War workers retire,” http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-03-10/business/17166084_1_defense-companies-retire-aerospace]ADS

The industry confronts another challenge too. Unlike technology companies, defense   companies generally have to hire American citizens since they need employees who can obtain security clearance. This eliminates foreign graduates of American universities and foreign employees in the U.S. on   H-1B   visas . "The talent is going to have to be homegrown," said AIA Chief Executive Marion Blakey. Similarly, defense contractors cannot outsource to countries with more technical workers, such as India or China. Against this backdrop, defense   companies are reaching out to American students in the earliest grades. Lockheed Martin is sending employees into elementary schools to tutor students in math and science and is recruiting high school students to shadow Lockheed workers on the job. The company's engineers coach robotics teams, conduct rocket propulsion experiments for students and participate in mentoring programs.

ADI 2010 50Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Heg Unsustainable

Hegemony is not sustainable – current trends show decline in all facets of US power.Haas 8 (Richard, CFR pres., May/June, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.html)

In this world, the United States is and will long remain the largest single aggregation of power. It spends more than $500 billion annually on its military -- and more than $700 billion if the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are included -- and boasts land, air, and naval forces that are the world's most capable. Its economy, with a GDP of some $14 trillion, is the world's largest. The United States is also a major source of culture (through films and television), information, and innovation. But the reality of American strength should not mask the relative decline of the United States' position in the world -- and with this relative decline in power an absolute decline in influence and independence. The U.S. share of global imports is already down to 15 percent. Although U.S. GDP accounts for over 25 percent of the world's total, this percentage is sure to decline over time given the actual and projected differential between the United States' growth rate and those of the Asian giants and many other countries, a large number of which are growing at more than two or three times the rate of the United States. GDP growth is hardly the only indication of a move away from U.S. economic dominance. The rise of sovereign wealth funds -- in countries such as China, Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates -- is another. These government-controlled pools of wealth, mostly the result of oil and gas exports, now total some $3 trillion. They are growing at a projected rate of $1 trillion a year and are an increasingly important source of liquidity for U.S. firms. High energy prices, fueled mostly by the surge in Chinese and Indian demand, are here to stay for some time, meaning that the size and significance of these funds will continue to grow. Alternative stock exchanges are springing up and drawing away companies from the U.S. exchanges and even launching initial public offerings (IPOs). London, in particular, is competing with New York as the world's financial center and has already surpassed it in terms of the number of IPOs it hosts. The dollar has weakened against the euro and the British pound, and it is likely to decline in value relative to Asian currencies as well. A majority of the world's foreign exchange holdings are now in currencies other than the dollar, and a move to denominate oil in euros or a basket of currencies is possible, a step that would only leave the U.S. economy more vulnerable to inflation as well as currency crises. U.S. primacy is also being challenged in other realms, such as military effectiveness and diplomacy. Measures of military spending are not the same as measures of military capacity. September 11 showed how a small investment by terrorists could cause extraordinary levels of human and physical damage. Many of the most costly pieces of modern weaponry are not particularly useful in modern conflicts in which traditional battlefields are replaced by urban combat zones. In such environments, large numbers of lightly armed soldiers can prove to be more than a match for smaller numbers of highly trained and better-armed U.S. troops. Power and influence are less and less linked in an era of nonpolarity. U.S. calls for others to reform will tend to fall on deaf ears, U.S. assistance programs will buy less, and U.S.-led sanctions will accomplish less. After all, China proved to be the country best able to influence North Korea's nuclear program. Washington's ability to pressure Tehran has been strengthened by the participation of several western European countries -- and weakened by the reluctance of China and Russia to sanction Iran. Both Beijing and Moscow have diluted international efforts to pressure the government in Sudan to end its war in Darfur. Pakistan, meanwhile, has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to resist U.S. entreaties, as have Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. The trend also extends to the worlds of culture and information. Bollywood produces more films every year than Hollywood. Alternatives to U.S.-produced and disseminated television are multiplying. Web sites and blogs from other countries provide further competition for U.S.-produced news and commentary. The proliferation of information is as much a cause of nonpolarity as is the proliferation of weaponry.

ADI 2010 51Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Heg Unsustainable – AT: Power Vacuum

The idea that the world will suddenly collapse without American hegemony is delusional—US hegemony can only go down, and attempting to sustain it only breeds backlash.Khanna 8 (Parag, expert on geopolitics and global governance, Director of the Global Governance Initiative and Senior Research Fellow in the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony". http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/waving_goodbye_hegemony_6604, January 27)

The self-deluding universalism of the American imperium -- that the world inherently needs a single leader and that American liberal ideology must be accepted as the basis of global order -- has paradoxically resulted in America quickly becoming an ever-lonelier superpower. Just as there is a geopolitical marketplace, there is a marketplace of models of success for the second world to emulate, not least the Chinese model of economic growth without political liberalization (itself an affront to Western modernization theory). As the historian Arnold Toynbee observed half a century ago, Western imperialism united the globe, but it did not assure that the West would dominate forever -- materially or morally. Despite the "mirage of immortality" that afflicts global empires, the only reliable rule of history is its cycles of imperial rise and decline, and as Toynbee also pithily noted, the only direction to go from the apogee of power is down.

EU, china, and US will balance each other in the event of declined US supremacyKhanna 8 (Parag, expert on geopolitics and global governance, Director of the Global Governance Initiative and Senior Research Fellow in the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony". http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/waving_goodbye_hegemony_6604, January 27)

Would the world not be more stable if America could be reaccepted as its organizing principle and leader? It's very much too late to be asking, because the answer is unfolding before our eyes. Neither China nor the E.U. will replace the U.S. as the world's sole leader; rather all three will constantly struggle to gain influence on their own and balance one another. Europe will promote its supranational integration model as a path to resolving Mideast disputes and organizing Africa, while China will push a Beijing consensus based on respect for sovereignty and mutual economic benefit. America must make itself irresistible to stay in the game.

Vacuum after US falls will be filled by multipolarity Haass 8 (Richard N, 4/16, President of Council on Foreign Relations, Financial Times. http://www.cfr.org/publication/16026/what_follows_american_dominion.html)

All of this raises a critical question: if unipolarity is gone, what will take its place? Some predict a return to the bipolarity that characterised international relations during the cold war. This is unlikely. China’s military strength does not approximate that of the US; more important, its focus will remain on economic growth, a choice that leads it to seek economic integration and avoid conflict. Russia may be more inclined towards re-creating a bipolar world, but it too has a stake in cooperation and, in any event, lacks the capacity to challenge the US. Still others predict the emergence of a modern multipolar world, one in which China, Europe, India, Japan and

Russia join the US as dominant influences. This view ignores how the world has changed. There are literally dozens of meaningful power centres, including regional powers, international organisations, companies, media outlets, religious movements, terrorist organisations, drug cartels and non-governmental organisations. Today’s world is increasingly one of distributed, rather than concentrated, power. The successor to unipolarity is neither bipolarity or multipolarity. It is non-polarity. Those who welcome America’s comeuppance and unipolarity’s replacement by non-polarity should hold their applause. Forging collective responses to global problems and making institutions work will be more

difficult. Threats will multiply. Relationships will be more difficult to build and sustain. The US will no longer have the luxury of a “You’re either with us or against us” foreign policy. But neither will anyone else. Only diplomacy that is more focused, creative and collective will prevent a non-polar world from becoming more disorderly and—dangerous.

ADI 2010 52Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AT: China War Inevitable

China isn’t prioritizing military competition – war isn’t inevitableFravel ‘8, assistant professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M. Taylor, “China’s Search for Military Power”, Volume 31, Number 3, Summer, Washington Quarterly, Project Muse)

Such spirals of tension, however, are far from inevitable. Although China’s absolute levels of defense spending have increased over the past decade, several points bear noting. First, China’s defense spending as a proportion of overall government spending has remained relatively constant at roughly 8 percent over the past 15 years.40 China is not favoring defense spending over other government priorities such as education and welfare. Second, China faces real limits on what it can spend for maritime denial and regional force projection capabilities that would most likely intensify the security dilemma. Even when using the highest estimate from the Pentagon, China’s total defense spending in 2007 ($139 billion) was slightly less than just the budget for the U.S. Navy ($147 billion).41 Third, the U.S. presence in maritime East Asia remains strong. The United States now bases 29 nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) around the Pacific, just more than one-half of all SSNs in the fleet and six times more than those in the PLA Navy.42 As a reflection of U.S. strength, the USS Kitty Hawk carrier strike group transited through the Taiwan Strait in [End Page 137] November 2007 after a dispute with China arose over a cancelled port call in Hong Kong.43

ADI 2010 53Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AT: Aerospace (1/)

Aerospace is booming across the boardZacks Equity Research 10 (July 28, 2010, “Aerospace and Defense Review - July 2010”, http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/37745/ADIDAOL/Aerospace+and+Defense+Review+-+July+2010+-+Industry+Outlook,7/29/10, atl)

The growth of the Aerospace and Defense industry depends largely on the spending outlook of defense departments, with the U.S. defense budget as the primary driver . The U.S is world’s largest aerospace and defense market, home to the world’s largest military budget, which for fiscal 2011 stands at $706 billion. In the last few years, elevated U.S. defense outlays reflected stepped up military operations related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the overall War on Terror. Such defense spending is the major source of revenue for the top nine global aerospace companies, of which six are based in the U.S. The commercial aerospace market, which plummeted during the economic recession, is expected to revive in the coming years , fueled by the gradual recovery of the global economy. OPPORTUNITIES Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT - Analyst Report) is the biggest recipient of U.S. defense contracts followed by The Boeing Company (BA - Analyst Report) and Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC - Analyst Report). With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan expected to wind down in the coming years, core defense spending is also expected to follow that trend. In response to this situation, the big operators will most likely target mergers and acquisitions (M&A) to bolster their operating prospects . At the macro level, a gradual shift in defense spending patterns can be discerned. In response to the asymmetric terrorist threats, the emphasis appears to have shifted to high-tech intelligence equipment, replacing demand for conventional big guns and heavy armor. Major industry players have, in response, resorted to bolt-on acquisitions to plug holes in their product offerings. Boeing has been particularly active on this front, having acquired Argon ST, a premier developer of intelligence equipment. Boeing also acquired Narus, a provider of real-time network traffic and analytics software used to protect against cyber attacks and persistent threats aimed at large Internet Protocol networks. These defense operators are also entering into strategic alliances and partnerships with competitors to improve their prospects to land major contracts. Recently, Boeing and Northrop Grumman announced a strategic partnership to pursue the competitive development and sustainment contract for future work on the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The long-delayed $35 billion contract from the U.S Air Force for aerial tankers remains a major hope for the defense industry. Boeing and Airbus are two major competitors for the contract and a decision from the department is expected later this year. Outside of defense, the return of demand in commercial airlines remains a major positive for the industry, with Boeing increasing production of 737 twice to meet the expected higher demand around 2012. Boeing has secured a big order from Air China for jetliners. The International Air Transport Association recently forecast that the global industry would make a profit of $2.5 billion this year, after a huge loss of $9.4 billion in 2009, a marked improvement from its predictions late last year of more losses this year. The earnings reports posted by the U.S Airliners for the second quarter reflect the strongest results in the last three years, the main operators Delta, United and US Airways combined to post profits of $1 billion, after incurring huge losses during the recession. The ongoing Farnborough air show is helping the aviation industry as the manufacturers have started to receive new orders from customers. New orders had almost dried up during the recession.

ADI 2010 54Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AT: Aerospace (2/)

Aerospace employment on the rise nowPatrick 10 (Jennifer, writer for Chron Jobs, July 27, 2010, “Aerospace Industry Employees Get a Lift from the TWC”, http://blogs.chron.com/houstonshiring/2010/07/aerospace_industry_employees_g.html, 7/29/10, atl)

It's no secret that the aerospace industry is suffering because of budget cuts. In fact, with the end of the space shuttle in sight, approximately 400 of the 2,921 United Space Alliance employees in Houston are expected to be laid off next week alone, said Kari Fluegel, senior manager of communications for United Space Alliance. Project cut-backs impact many other companies in and around Houston as well, which will leave many more people without a job before the end of the year. To help, The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) has awarded a Skills Development Fund grant in the amount of $607,185 to an aerospace business consortium consisting of 11 companies including the United Space Alliance LLC and: Barrios Technology Lt Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. Cimarron Software Services Inc. Futron Corp. GeoControl Systems Inc. Hamilton Sunstrand Lockheed Martin Corp. MRI Technologies Oceaneering International Inc. Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering Group Through this grant, which is being coordinated by San Jacinto College, 512 positions will be created or upgraded . According to Jon Willard, project coordinator for the TWC Skills Development Fund Aerospace Consortium, training will be provided at San Jacinto College facilities for individuals selected at the participating companies for specific job titles. "Our goal is to get people ready before the lay-offs occur by providing specific training they need in order to secure another position," said Jon. Everyone from administrative assistants to aerospace engineers can take part in the classes, which started May 24, 2010, and will continue throughout the year. Classes, from leadership training to technical writing, are free and have been taken so far by those as young as 20 years old to those in their 60s. "Generally speaking, there is an overwhelming feeling of uncertainty among those in the classes so far," said Jon. "No one is sure what's going to happen from day-to-day but people are very grateful for the opportunity to train at San Jacinto and we've gotten a lot of positive feedback about the classes," he said. Yet, the process is untidy and just because a person is attending a class today doesn't mean they will be guaranteed a job tomorrow. "But if the training helps them become more marketable and get a job down the road, whether through this initiative or not, it's worth it," said Jon. I'll be taking a closer look at each company involved in the consortium in the weeks to come.

The US Aerospace industry is steadily increasingU.S. Aerospace, Inc. 10 (Investor Relations Services 30 Jul 2010, “U.S. Aerospace, Inc. Obtains $500,000.00 Additional Funding and Extends Remaining Debt One Full Year” http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/press-release/usae_u-s-aerospace-inc-obtains-500-000-00-additional-funding-and-extends-remaining-debt-one-full-year-1078208.html, 7/29/10, atl)

U.S. Aerospace, Inc. (OTCBB: USAE | PowerRating), a U.S. aerospace and defense contractor, today announced that the Company's senior lenders have extended all of their debt one full year to July 31, 2011 and, together with Hutton International SPE, LLC, invested an additional $500,000.00 via notes convertible into common stock at $0.13 per share, the closing trading price on July 27, 2010 . "We appreciate our lenders' strong support for our new management team's vision, and are pleased to have completed our financial restructuring efforts and obtained additional funding," said Company director Kenneth J. Koock. "Putting our financial house in order will further enable U.S. Aerospace, Inc. to implement our strategic growth and expansion plans to capture our fair share of the $360 billion backlog in the U.S. aerospace and defense industry." About U.S. Aerospace, Inc. U.S. Aerospace, Inc. is a publicly-traded aerospace and defense contractor based in Southern California. The Company is an emerging world-class supplier on projects for the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force, Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT - News), L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LLL - News), the Middle River Aircraft Systems subsidiary of General Electric Company (NYSE: GE - News), and other aerospace companies, commercial aircraft manufacturers and prime defense contractors. The Company supplies aircraft assemblies, structural components and highly-engineered, precision-machined details for commercial and military aircraft. It is also a leading manufacturer and remanufacturer of specialized aircraft machining tools, including vertical boring mills and large Vertical Turning Centers used to manufacture the largest jet engines, airplane landing gear, and other precision components. The Company has offices and production facilities in Santa Fe Springs and Rancho Cucamonga, California.

ADI 2010 55Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AT: Aerospace (3/)

Aerospace industry is going to increase over the years with US as the hegemonBharat Book Bureau 10 (Jan 18, 2010, “Aerospace industry has emerged as the high potential market worldwide” http://www.articlesbase.com/business-opportunities-articles/aerospace-industry-has-emerged-as-the-high-potential-market-worldwide-1742310.html, 7/29/10, atl)

Aerospace Industry Forecast to 2013 The global aerospace industry has witnessed impressive growth over the past few years, with major contribution from the civil aviation segment. The US and European countries have been the prominent markets acting as catalyst for the overall market growth. Despite tough phase of economic recession, the aerospace industry has shown uptrend in line with strong market developments in the US. According to RNCOS new research report “Aerospace Industry Forecast to 2013”, the aerospace industry has emerged as the high potential market worldwide despite the negative impact of financial crisis. Significant increase in military budget and growth in air traffic have given the necessary impetus to the industry in tough times. ( http://www.bharatbook.com/detail.asp?id=87087&rt=Aerospace-Industry-Forecast-to-2013.html ) The US represents the biggest aerospace market, with total estimated sales of US$ 214 Billion for 2009, followed by EU, Canada and Japan. However, developing economies such as China, India, Mexico and Brazil are expected to emerge as big marketplace for aerospace products in future. In fact, with 36% of the backlog of large commercial aircraft, Asia Pacific is quickly becoming the largest market for new orders.  

ADI 2010 56Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

***BRIC DA***

ADI 2010 57Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

BRIC – 1NC (1/)

All BRIC countries are experiencing substantial economic growth Xinhuanet 2010 (07-28, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-07/28/c_13418659.htm) AJR

China ranks No. 1 among 27 emerging economies due to its huge consumer market and rapid economic growth, according to the Emerging Markets Opportunity Index released by US accounting firm Grant Thornton. The index takes account of key factors such as the size of the economy, wealth, involvement in world trade, growth potential and levels of human development. China scores 454 points, double the India's score (222 points) in second place and almost triple that of Russia (163 points) in third place. "China leads the way thanks to the country's huge consumer market, an increasingly open economy and extremely rapid trade growth, which offer a myriad of business opportunities for potential investors," said Xia Zhidong, partner and vice-chairman of Grant Thornton China. According to figures from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, China attracts the most foreign investment among the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries. Last year, the inward foreign direct investment (FDI) flow to China was $95 billion, followed by Russia at $39 billion and with India and Brazil posting $35 billion and $26 billion respectively. "In the future, more opportunities will lie in improved infrastructure, enhanced human capital, investments in R&D and the increasing middle-class base," Xia said. However, a lack of skilled labor, increasing labor costs and the low per capita gross domestic product (GDP) pose major challenges to foreign investment in China. According to Grant Thornton China, 23 percent of Chinese enterprises said they faced a shortage of skilled labor, higher than the global average of 21 percent. In the top five places of the index, BRIC countries take four positions. India, although a long way behind, boasts a huge consumer market and a booming services industry, which accounts for around 55 percent of GDP, compared to 40 percent in the Chinese mainland. Russia, in third place, has a much smaller consumer base than either China or India, but it boasts a per capita GDP which is more than double that of China, and more than five times as high as India. In addition, its high-level per capita consumption is close to the levels of the major cities of Europe's advanced economies.

Taking the cap off steals foreign workers from BRIC NationsKrishnaswami 10 (Sridhar writer for India Abroad, March 08, 2007 “US must give 'infinite' H-1B visas: Bill Gates”, http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/mar/08gates.htm, 7/29/10, atl)

Slamming American immigration policies, Microsoft Corp chairman Bill Gates told the US Congress on Wednesday that the United States should allow an 'infinite' number of high-skilled foreign workers into the US to fill vacant engineering, computer-programming and other jobs. There is a "critical shortage' of high-tech workers in America and there is only one way to solve that crisis today: open our doors to highly talented scientists and engineers who want to live, work and pay taxes here," the world's richest man said. America currently issues 65,000 H-1B visas each year. The visas are quickly taken, mostly by Indian and Chinese tech workers. The H-1B visa limit earlier was 195,000. He said that the US was shutting the door on the best and the brightest at a time when the country needed them the most. Gates, one of the most vocal in the US industry to constantly plead for an increase in skilled worker visas, told the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labour and Pensions that the US must also come to terms with the issue of permanent residency over and above what it intended to do with the H1B visas. The Senate panel headed by Senator Edward Kennedy was focused on 'Strengthening American Competitiveness for the 21st century' with Gates as the principal witness. The Microsoft chairperson slammed the visa policy that has now come to heavily restrict foreign-born US college graduates from working in the US and limit citizenship or permanent residency opportunities for scientists and engineers. "It makes no sense to tell well-trained, highly skilled individuals -- many of whom are educated at our top universities -- that they are not welcome here. We have to welcome the great minds in this world, not shut them out of our country," Gates said. "Unfortunately, America's immigration policies are driving away the world's best and brightest precisely when we need them most." He also made the point that if the Federal government did not make it easier for foreign scientists and engineers to obtain permanent US residency, the talent would flow to India and China. Gates was especially critical of the manner in which the US has gone about the H1B visas that has come down from a high of over 200,000 in the 1990s to about 65,000 in present times and efforts to step up the numbers have failed. "Scientists like Albert Einstein were born abroad but did great work here because we welcomed them," Gates said. "The contributions of such powerful intellects have been vital to many of the great breakthroughs made right here in America." He pointed out that the allotments of 65,000 H1B visas in Fiscal 2007 ran out some four months before the year began and for Fiscal 2008 the allotments will be exhausted before graduation ceremonies. "... for the first time ever, we will not be able to seek H1Bs for this year's graduating students. Students can't apply until they get a degree and then they (visas) are already gone," Gates said. The IT czar also called for simplification of procedures to obtain permanent residency or the so-called Green Card. "We should expedite the path (for foreign workers) into our workforce and into permanent resident status." These employees are vital to US competitiveness and we should encourage them to become permanent US residents so they drive innovation and growth alongside America's native-born talent," he said.

ADI 2010 58Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

BRIC – 1NC (2/)

Turns Case – China is key to the global economy PRNewswire 7-28 (July 28, 2010, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sp-equity-research-signs-agreement-with-top-down-emerging-markets-research-firm-trusted-sources-99466459.html) AJR

China and the other BRIC countries are becoming increasingly important in the global economy. Research into macro economic trends in these regions was highlighted by S&P Equity Research wealth management clients as being of particular value to them, not just as a window into these markets, but also to provide an understanding of their impact on other economies around the world. The agreement with Trusted Sources sees S&P Equity Research as the main distributor of EM Judgment, a dedicated product for wealth managers, which each month provides subscribers with a top-down macro strategy piece on the BRICs, two thematic chartbooks providing a succinct overview of important themes, and a concise opinion piece known as the TS View. Yannick Matthieu, Vice President of Standard & Poor's Equity Research, said: "Until recently, a strong understanding of the BRIC economies and other major emerging markets had been the preserve of emerging markets specialists. No private manager or adviser today, however, can afford not to have access to good judgment on the impact of China. But beyond that, India, Russia, Brazil and oil and gas-producing nations, in which the accumulation of vast external surpluses and reserves is the norm, are also of growing importance.

ADI 2010 59Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

BRIC – U – Econ Increasing

Emerging markets like Brazil and China are growing while the United States show signs of decreased growth Shah June 11 (Dhavah, Market Oracle, Jun 11, 2010, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20220.html) AJR

To re-cap, the Brazilian economy is showing strong growth and adding to the theme of strong growth in emerging markets; a recovery led by emerging markets. But at the same time it also points to the risks for emerging markets, including potential for overheating. Similarly in China, the new data out this week seems to point in positive directions, but there's more to the surface numbers (if you believe them that is). There are forces in motion in the Chinese economy that will result in an eventual rebalancing of export lead growth to domestic consumption lead growth, and this could happen with or without the yuan if wage increases continue. Meanwhile in the US, there are weak signs of potential continuation of consumer deleveraging and wealth rebuilding in the consumer credit and savings rate numbers. However it probably wont last, and as with the risk to China's rebalancing; old habits die hard. Finally, monetary policy stimulus exit is commencing in more places and picking up, but is distinctly de-synchronised, but then so is the economic recovery. Already we've seen it confirmed, emerging markets are growing strong, developed economies are scarcely growing at all. But through all the recovery and stimulus exits, and so-on, it shouldn't be forgotten that with such a disruptive turn of events, there is the opportunity for structural change for a more balanced and sustainably growing global economy.

BRIC countries are economies are growing Levitov July 30 (Maria, Bloomberg, Jul 30, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-30/russia-leaves-benchmark-interest-rates-unchanged-as-economy-gathers-pace.html) AJR

Of the other so-called BRIC countries, Brazil’s central bank on April 28 became the first in Latin America to increase borrowing costs in more than a year, raising the Selic rate to 9.5 percent from 8.75 percent. India raised its benchmark rates this month and both China and India have increased reserve requirements for banks to avoid stoking unsustainable lending. Russia suffered a deeper recession than Brazil last year. That compares with China’s growth of about 9 percent and India’s 7.2 percent. Russia must gradually withdraw its anti-crisis measures to prevent “bubbles” from forming in the economy, Putin said at a meeting in the Moscow region last month.

ADI 2010 60Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

***CHINA DA***

ADI 2010 61Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

China – 1NC (1/)

Chinese rural economy is inevitably collapsing - this is causing China to have to look into an increasingly technological economyBBC News 09 (28 January 2009, “Crisis 'has hit China's economy'”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/davos/7856636.stm, 7/29/10, atl)

The global financial crisis has had "a rather big impact" on China's economy, the country's Premier Wen Jiabao said in a major World Economic Forum speech. Speaking in Davos in Switzerland, he said the crisis had placed the world economy in the most difficult situation since the Great Depression. In China, he said, there was rising unemployment in rural areas and "downward pressure on economic growth". But he added that China's economy was in good shape "on the whole". Mr Wen said that among the reasons behind the current global downturn were "inappropriate macro economic policies in some economies, characterised by [a] low savings rate and high consumption". He also pointed to a "failure of financial supervision and regulation to keep up with innovation which allowed financial derivatives to spread". 'Downward pressure' China's economy grew by 9% in 2008, but only by 6.8% in the final quarter of the year, as overseas demand for China's exports shrank. "The Chinese economy is now under mounting downward pressure," said Premier Wen Jiabao. "We are targeting a growth rate of about 8% in 2009. It will be a tall order, but I hold the conviction that through hard work, we can reach the goal." As the demand for China's exports shrinks, he said that as part of relaunching the economy, the country had to focus now on expanding domestic consumer demand. There would also be a sustained package of measures aimed at increasing economic growth, as well as a series of policy measures in the financial sector to boost economic growth. New technology - In addition, there would be industrial restructuring - with the phasing out of backward production practices - and particular attention would be paid to the key industries of cars, iron and steel. An "extensive use of new technology would increase competitiveness", as would an upgrading of science and technology, he said. "Will China's economy continue to grow fast and steady? Some people may have doubts about it, yet I can give you a definite answer," he said. "Yes, it will, we are full of confidence." He said China would "take prompt, forceful and effective measures" to ensure the health of its economy.

Taking the cap off steals foreign workers from ChinaKrishnaswami 10 (Sridhar writer for India Abroad, March 08, 2007 “US must give 'infinite' H-1B visas: Bill Gates”, http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/mar/08gates.htm, 7/29/10, atl)

Slamming American immigration policies, Microsoft Corp chairman Bill Gates told the US Congress on Wednesday that the United States should allow an 'infinite' number of high-skilled foreign workers into the US to fill vacant engineering, computer-programming and other jobs. There is a "critical shortage' of high-tech workers in America and there is only one way to solve that crisis today: open our doors to highly talented scientists and engineers who want to live, work and pay taxes here," the world's richest man said. America currently issues 65,000 H-1B visas each year. The visas are quickly taken, mostly by Indian and Chinese tech workers. The H-1B visa limit earlier was 195,000. He said that the US was shutting the door on the best and the brightest at a time when the country needed them the most. Gates, one of the most vocal in the US industry to constantly plead for an increase in skilled worker visas, told the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labour and Pensions that the US must also come to terms with the issue of permanent residency over and above what it intended to do with the H1B visas. The Senate panel headed by Senator Edward Kennedy was focused on 'Strengthening American Competitiveness for the 21st century' with Gates as the principal witness. The Microsoft chairperson slammed the visa policy that has now come to heavily restrict foreign-born US college graduates from working in the US and limit citizenship or permanent residency opportunities for scientists and engineers. "It makes no sense to tell well-trained, highly skilled individuals -- many of whom are educated at our top universities -- that they are not welcome here. We have to welcome the great minds in this world, not shut them out of our country," Gates said. "Unfortunately, America's immigration policies are driving away the world's best and brightest precisely when we need them most." He also made the point that if the Federal government did not make it easier for foreign scientists and engineers to obtain permanent US residency, the talent would flow to India and China. Gates was especially critical of the manner in which the US has gone about the H1B visas that has come down from a high of over 200,000 in the 1990s to about 65,000 in present times and efforts to step up the numbers have failed. "Scientists like Albert Einstein were born abroad but did great work here because we welcomed them," Gates said. "The contributions of such powerful intellects have been vital to many of the great breakthroughs made right here in America." He pointed out that the allotments of 65,000 H1B visas in Fiscal 2007 ran out some four months before the year began and for Fiscal 2008 the allotments will be exhausted before graduation ceremonies. "... for the first time ever, we will not be able to seek H1Bs for this year's graduating students. Students can't apply until they get a degree and then they (visas) are already gone," Gates said. The IT czar also called for simplification of procedures to obtain permanent residency or the so-called Green Card. "We should expedite the path (for foreign workers) into our workforce and into permanent resident status." These employees are vital to US competitiveness and we should encourage them to become permanent US residents so they drive innovation and growth alongside America's native-born talent," he said.

ADI 2010 62Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

China – 1NC (2/)

Collapse of the CCP control triggers a nuclear civil war and regional conflictsYee and Storey 2002(Herbert Yee, Professor of Politics and International Relations at the Hong Kong Baptist University, and Ian Storey, Lecturer in Defence Studies at Deakin University, 2002 (The China Threat: Perceptions, Myths and Reality, RoutledgeCurzon, pg 5 bham))

The fourth factor contributing to the perception of a China threat is the fear of political and economic collapse in the PRC, resulting in territorial fragmentation, civil war and waves of refugees pouring into neighbouring countries. Naturally, any or all of these scenarios would have a profoundly negative impact on regional stability. Today the Chinese leadership faces a raft of internal problems, including the increasing political demands of its citizens, a growing population, a shortage of natural resources and a deterioration in the natural environment caused by rapid industrialisation and pollution. These problems are putting a strain on the central government's ability to govern effectively. Political disintegration or a Chinese civil war might result in millions of Chinese refugees seeking asylum in neighbouring countries. Such an unprecedented exodus of refugees from a collapsed PRC would no doubt put a severe strain on the limited resources of China's neighbours. A fragmented China could also result in another nightmare scenario - nuclear weapons falling into the hands of irresponsible local provincial leaders or warlords.'2 From this perspective, a disintegrating China would also pose a threat to its neighbours and the world.

ADI 2010 63Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

China – U – China Transitioning to Tech-Based Econ (1/)

China is rapidly shifting its focus to a technological hegemon and is decreasing it’s reliance on foreign assistanceVan Wyk 10 (Barry, writer for The Beijing Axis, Instead Knowledge.edu, “Upstart: China’s emergence in technology and innovation”, http://knowledge.insead.edu/economy-china-technology-and-innovation-100527.cfm, 7/29/10, atl)

Foreign firms currently still retain a strong presence in China’s high-tech exports and patents. While domestic patent applications to the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office expanded nearly sixfold between 1995 and 2006, patents granted to Chinese nationals have been mainly non-invention patents (in the form of utility models or appearance-based designs). Yet to address this state of affairs, China has set out its ambitious vision to become a global technology leader in its medium to long-term science and technology (S&T) strategic plan 2006-2020 (MLP). In essence, the MLP aims to reduce China’s reliance on foreign technology to less than 30 per cent by 2020; to increase GERD (gross domestic expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP) to 2 per cent by 2010 and to 2.5 per cent by 2020; to have S&T and innovation contribute 60 per cent to GDP growth, and for China to be among the top five worldwide contributors to domestic patents and international citations in scientific papers. Significant progress has already been achieved with the MLP, and it is not hard to identify signs of China’s rapidly improving innovative abilities. GERD increased to 1.54 per cent in 2008 from 0.57 per cent in 1995. Occurring at a time when its GDP was growing exceptionally fast, China’s GERD now ranks behind only the US and Japan. The number of triadic patents (granted in all three of the major patent offices in the US, Japan and Europe) granted to China remains relatively small, reaching 433 in 2005 (compared to 652 for Sweden and 3,158 for Korea), yet Chinese patent applications are increasing rapidly. Chinese patent applications to the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO), for example, increased by 44 per cent in 2005 and by a further 57 per cent in 2006.   From a total of about 20,000 in 1998, China’s output of scientific papers has increased fourfold to about 112,000 as of 2008, moving China to second place in the global rankings, behind only the US. In the period 2004 to 2008, China produced about 400,000 papers, with the major focus areas being material science, chemistry, physics, mathematics and engineering, but new fields like biological and medical science also gaining prominence. China’s emergence since 1978 has impacted the world to an extent that seems almost impossible to grasp in its entirety. Chinese companies are now becoming very successful at replicating their low-cost manufacturing prowess on a global scale, but at good quality and with constantly improving technology. There is no way of telling how far China will go as a global leader in technology and innovation - China’s global emergence in technology is just beginning.

China’s economy is improving – tech innovation is keyVan Wyk 10 (Barry, writer for The Beijing Axis, Instead Knowledge.edu, “Upstart: China’s emergence in technology and innovation”, http://knowledge.insead.edu/economy-china-technology-and-innovation-100527.cfm, 7/29/10, atl)

It can easily appear as if China can make anything. Yet it makes goods not only at low cost, but now also of high quality, and this constitutes a particularly Chinese brand of innovation that enables China increasingly to shake up global markets. After coming of age in China’s domestic markets, Chinese firms are now replicating their domestic success in global markets by competing on price and quality. The success of the likes of Huawei and Lenovo are indicative of an emerging trend of Chinese technology and innovation, yet China’s emergence is only just beginning. The export processing zones established in China in the 1980s initiated a complete transformation of China’s coastal regions. The export processing trade, supported by a strong manufacturing base established in the 1950s and complemented by technology imported since the 1980s, progressively became a catalyst for China’s economy. Following in the footsteps of other Asian catch-up countries, China’s exports rapidly started moving up the value chain away from low-tech products. Between 1992 and 2005, China’s medium- to high-technology exports grew 22 per cent annually, while high-technology exports grew by 32 per cent. By 2008, 43 per cent of China’s exports were directly related to machinery, mechanical appliances and electrical equipment, and China now dominates the global markets for these and other types of machinery.

ADI 2010 64Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

China – U – China Transitioning to Tech-Based Econ (2/)

Chinese transition to technologically focused economy has been the most rapid in the worldSegal 06 (Adam, Ira A. Lipman Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism and National Security Studies, January/February 2006, “Trends in China's Transition toward a Knowledge Economy”, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9924 trends_in_chinas_transition_toward_a_knowledge_economy.html, 7/29/10, atl)

During the past decade, China has arguably placed more importance on reforming and modernizing its information and communication technology (ICT) sector than any other developing country in the world. Under former Premier Zhu Rongji, the Chinese leadership was strongly committed to making ICT central to its national goals—from transforming Chinese society at home to pursuing its ambitions as a world economic and political power. In one of his final speeches, delivered at the first session of the 10th National People’s Congress in 2003, Zhu implored his successors to “energetically promote information technology (IT) applications and use IT to propel and accelerate industrialization” so that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can continue to build a “well-off society.” 1 The current leadership under President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao continues to devote massive material and political resources to what it terms xinxihua “informatization” (the application of modern ICT tools to other economic sectors) as a key strategic element for advancing the twin goals to which the CCP is committed: the measured transition from a communist to a market economy and, more reluctantly, the continued shift of the CCP from a revolutionary to a ruling party…

China is currently investing billions of dollars into technological innovationAgence France-Presse 10 (“China leads Asia's push toward green technology”, http://www.mnn.com/eco-biz/money-green-jobs/stories/china-leads-asias-push-toward-green-technology, 7/29/10, atl)

The UN praised efforts by China and South Korea for their 'significant initiatives' to promote green technology. China is leading a push by Asia-Pacific nations into green technology, which could be their ticket to sustained growth and reduced reliance on Western markets, the United Nations said Thursday.It said environmentally friendly industries could provide export-dependent regional economies with new sources of growth to help make up for weakened demand in crisis-hit United States and Europe. "The impact of the crisis has revealed the vulnerability of the region to external shocks," the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific said in its annual economic and social survey of the region. "Asian and Pacific countries therefore need to find new sources of domestic and regional demand ... to help sustain their dynamism and allow for a gradual unwinding of global imbalances." The UN praised efforts by China and South Korea for their "significant initiatives" to promote green technology as well as shift domestic consumption and production patterns to a more "environmentally sustainable path." Government-backed investment in "energy and material-saving innovations" could see "greener" industries and businesses become drivers of growth as well as provide more affordable products for the poor, the report said. But it was essential developed countries share their green expertise with poorer nations who cannot afford the technology, Aynul Hasan, head of macroeconomic policy and development, told a news conference. "That technology should be shared," Hasan told reporters. "This is where regional cooperation as well as the support of developed countries will be very, very important." China invested 34.6 billion dollars in clean energy in 2009, up more than 50 percent on the previous year — making it the world's biggest investor in energy-efficient technology, it said. South Korea plans to inject 84 billion dollars in environmentally friendly industries over the next five years, the report said. "China is playing an important role ... in terms of promoting green technology dealing with the environmental issues," said Hasan. While China was expected to continue leading the Asian recovery from the financial crisis, much depended on Japan, the world's number two economy, where domestic demand and business investment remained weak, the UN said. Another major threat to the recovery was growing inflationary pressures and asset price bubbles as "excessive liquidity from developed economies finds its way to emerging economies in Asia," Hasan warned. "It's a major challenge for these countries to control inflation without hurting the growth momentum," he said. The UN also called on regional leaders to strengthen their social safety nets and give more people access to basic financial services to generate jobs, fuel domestic spending and ensure sustained economic growth. "Robust evidence ... shows that poor households with access to financial services can improve their economic well-being," the report said.

ADI 2010 65Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

China – U – Economy Unsustainable (1/)

China’s current economic state is unsustainableLau 07 (Josephine, Yanping Li, reporters for Bloomberg, - March 16, 2007, “China's Growth Is Unstable, Unsustainable, Wen Says (Update1)”, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=economy&sid=aGttADj_7i7Y, 7/29/10, atl)

March 16 (Bloomberg) -- China's economic expansion, the source of about a 10th of global growth last year, is unstable and environmentally unsustainable, Premier Wen Jiabao said. ``China's investment growth is too high, lending growth too fast, liquidity excessive and trade and international payments very imbalanced,'' Wen said at a press conference in Beijing today. Energy efficiency and environmental protection issues haven't been ``properly resolved,'' he said. Wen's comments underscore government concern that too many factories are being built in China, worsening pollution and leaving the world's fastest-growing major economy vulnerable to a slowdown in demand. A record $177.5 billion trade surplus has flooded the economy with cash, making it harder for the government to cool investment by reining in bank lending. Data this week showed accelerating inflation, money supply and industrial production growth, while the February trade surplus was close to a monthly record. Central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan said today he's watching inflation closely and Trade Minister Bo Xilai said he's ``very concerned'' about the surplus, suggesting the government may raise interest rates or further tighten lending. ``The odds of an interest rate hike are growing,'' Ben Simpfendorfer, an economist at Royal Bank of Scotland Plc in Hong Kong, said. ``The Chinese government wants to reduce liquidity in the economy and to discourage a reacceleration in credit growth.'' Investment Agency The benchmark Shanghai and Shenzhen 300 Index fell 1.6 percent to close at 2604.23 after Wen's comments, having earlier gained as much as 0.8 percent. The index has increased 153 percent in the past year. Wen said the formation of a new investment agency to help manage China's $1.07 trillion of foreign-exchange reserves won't cause a slump in U.S. securities. China's purchases of U.S. dollar assets are ``mutually beneficial,'' he said. The planned agency, announced by Finance Minister Jin Renqing on March 9, has prompted speculation that China's sales of dollar assets would push down prices. China is the world's second-biggest holder of U.S. Treasuries after Japan, with $353.6 billion in January. The foreign-exchange reserves rose by more than $200 billion last year to become the world's largest, driven by the ballooning trade surplus. The surge has prompted criticism from U.S. and European lawmakers and manufacturers, who accuse China of keeping the yuan artificially weak to spur exports. Surging Exports The yuan rose 0.02 percent to 7.7386 to the dollar as of 5:05 p.m., according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The currency has gained about 7 percent since China ended a decade-old peg to the U.S. dollar in 2005. China's economy grew 10.7 percent last year, the fastest pace since 1995, driven by surging exports and investment. The economy expanded by at least 10 percent for the past four years. ``China has maintained relatively steady and fast growth over the past few years, but this is not a time for complacency,'' Wen told reporters at the National People's Congress meeting. ``The biggest problem in China's economy is that the growth is unstable, imbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable.'' China's spending on factories, real estate and other fixed assets grew 23.4 percent in the first two months from a year earlier, the statistics bureau said today, slowing from a 24.5 percent pace in 2006 as government curbs took effect. China's `Key Risk' The People's Bank of China has raised interest rates twice since April and has ordered banks to set aside more money as reserves five times in the past nine months to help cool lending. The benchmark one-year lending rate is 6.12 percent after being last raised by 0.27 percentage point in August. ``The key risk in the Chinese economy remains a re- acceleration, not a significant slowing,'' said Glenn Maguire, chief Asia economist at Societe Generale SA in Hong Kong. ``The central bank will tighten soon.'' Money supply grew 17.8 percent in February, the most in six months. Inflation accelerated to 2.7 percent from 2.2 percent in January. Industrial production jumped 18.5 percent in January and February combined, the most in eight months. Leaders at this year's meeting of China's legislature have repeatedly highlighted the need to tackle the environmental costs of a coal-powered economic boom, lagging rural incomes, and an excessive reliance on investment and exports for growth. Balancing Growth ``China's growth is imbalanced between urban and rural areas, different regions and eastern and western regions,'' said Wen. Growth is uncoordinated between agriculture, industry and services, he said. ``Those are all pressing issues that need to be addressed as soon as possible, or they will threaten China's economic growth,'' Wen said. The government must boost domestic demand, open markets and promote technological innovation, he said. Investment accounted for 52 percent of China's gross domestic product in 2005, the most recent figure available. That compared with 33 percent in India, the world's second fastest- growing major economy, in 2005-06.

ADI 2010 66Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

China – U – Economy Unsustainable (2/)

China’s current economic state is going to inevitably collapseYue 07 (Pan, deputy director of China's State Environmental Protection Administration, “China: economic powerhouse, environmentally unsustainable - part one”, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6143&page=1, 7/29/10, atl)China’s development has had a tumultuous history. Now is the time for a fair and sustainable model of growth. What do we mean by the phrase “green China”? We mean a China that is sustainable, democratic, fair, harmonious and socialist. This conclusion has been reached after many years of struggle. Each word is the distillation of the blood, sweat and tears of several generations. We want to build a green China because green is the colour of life, of sustainability. For something to be called “green” it has to be sustainable - and currently China has yet to achieve sustainability. The model of economic development that we are currently pursuing is unsustainable. Our energy consumption per unit of GDP is seven times that of Japan, six times that of America, and even 2.8 times that of India. China’s labour productivity is less than 10 per cent of the world total, and yet our emissions are over 10 times higher than the global average. China’s current supplies of energy and natural resources are unsustainable. Soil erosion and water loss mean that in the last 50 years, the area of habitable land has halved. We currently have 45 main sources of minerals, but in 15 years only six will remain. Within five years, 60 per cent of our oil will be imported. China’s environment is unsustainable. One-third of China's land mass is affected by acid rain. Over 300 million rural residents have no access to clean drinking water. One-third of urban residents breathe heavily polluted air. Thanks to the traditional model of economic development - which is energy intensive, heavily polluting and relies on high levels of consumption - China has become the world's largest consumer of water, largest emitter of waste water and one of the three areas in the world worst affected by acid rain. Our current society is unsustainable. In 2003 China crossed a “safe boundary” on the Gini coefficient - a measure of inequality of distribution of income - which means that China was classified as having “very unequal wealth distribution”. The World Bank has said that no other country has seen such a large income disparity emerge in just 15 years. For so long we criticised capitalism for being unsustainable, unfair and unequal, but if our socialism cannot solve problems of social inequality, then how can we claim our system is superior?

ADI 2010 67Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

China – U – Economy Unsustainable (3/)

China’s rural economy is going to inevitably collapse - multiple reasonsShane et al 04 (Mathew e-, Fred Gale, senior economists with the Global Agricultural Markets USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS). October 2004, “China: A Study of Dynamic Growth”, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/WRS//2000s/2004/WRS-10-13-2004_Special_Report.pdf, 7/29/10, atl)A third major structural imbalance is the degree to which development has been concentrated in a few major coastal areas, with less growth occurring in the rural , central, and western regions. Living standards in some coastal cities are approaching those of middle income countries, while other cities lag far behind (fig. 6). In 2003, urban per capita income was more than three times the rural average, up from twice the rural average during the 1980s (fig. 7). In 2000, China embarked on a “develop the west” campaign to push both public and private investment into the country’s poorest western provinces. In 2004, the party and central government leadership issued a “No. 1 Document” that made increasing rural incomes a top policy priority. Major policy initiatives in 2004 included a phase-out of agricultural taxes and direct subsidies of $1.2 billion to grain producers in 13 of China’s 31 provinces. The boom of recent years has been partially supported by substantial fiscal deficits . On average, during the decade of the 1990s, China had a fiscal deficit in excess of 2 percent of GDP. This compares with a current U.S. fiscal deficit of around 4 percent of GDP. Between 2000 and 2002, China’s fiscal deficit widened to an average of more than 3.5 percent per year. In 2003, the deficit narrowed, but new spending programs and tax cuts could expand it. It is possible to sustain a fiscal deficit in the 2 percent of GDP range for a developing country with excess capacity and low external debt. However, sustained fiscal deficit in the range of 2 percent of GDP, the higher range of the early 2000s, would be excessive. The central government’s fiscal deficit does not include deficits incurred by local governments. Many rural townships and villages are heavily in debt or bankrupt. The extent of local government deficits is unknown, but press reports often include references to difficulties paying teachers and local government employees. Recent government directives aimed at helping farmers (reducing local taxes and fees and paying out subsidies and other benefits to farmers) may put additional financial stress on local government finances. More troubling are potential liabilities, including nonperforming loans held by state banks and unfunded pension liabilities. Fiscal deficits could eventually lead to inflation if the government prints money to pay pensioners or bail out banks, state-owned enterprises, and local governments. The relatively rapid expansion of China’s labor force has left China’s economy with an unusual combination of extremely rapid growth and chronic unemployment problems. The official urban unemployment rate is in the range of 4 to 5 percent, but large numbers of laid-off workers are not counted in the statistics because they remain on their employers’ books although they draw little or no salary. Actual unemployment is much higher, with a recent estimate of urban unemployment for 2002 of 14 percent.23 More seriously, it is widely recognized that much of China’s rural labor force is underemployed, engaged only in seasonal agricultural work with paltry earnings. China has about 2.5 agricultural laborers for every hectare of arable land. China’s Ministry of Agriculture estimates that rural China has 150 million surplus workers.24 Many of China’s labor-intensive factories and construction sites are staffed with migrants from rural areas whose only alternative is to subsist on land-holdings that average about 1 acre per person. However, despite the huge rural-urban migration flows, rural areas still have surplus labor because China’s household registration system prevents most rural people from legally moving to cities. At the same time, urban unemployment problems have been exacerbated by industry restructuring that has closed down or downsized loss-making state-owned enterprises. Many laid-off workers have been forced into early retirement on minimal pensions or into low-paying jobs as street vendors or taxi drivers. China now faces the difficult challenge of simultaneously reducing unemployment problems and raising incomes. Employment must grow by 1 percent annually just to keep up with growth in the labor force. Nonagricultural job growth will have to be even faster to absorb unemployed and underemployed rural workers. At the same time, Chinese companies are under pressure to raise worker productivity in order to cut costs and compete both domestically and internationally. The need to increase worker productivity induces employers to minimize hiring, which conflicts with the goal of employment growth.

ADI 2010 68Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

China – AT: H-1B Workers Return Home

Chinese H-1B visa recipients stay in the USCommander et al 03 (Simon e- London Business School, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and IZA Bonn, Mari Kangasniemi L. University of Sussex, Alan Winters University of Sussex, CEPR and Centre for Economic Performance, June 2003, “The Brain Drain: Curse or Boon?”, 7/29/10, atl)

The growth of the H1-B visa category has a great deal to do with the overall growth of the ICT sector and the software industry, in particular. A recent estimate has put the new immigrant share of ICT workers at around a sixth 19. But it would be misleading to view this as simply the long run movement of skilled labour away from developing countries. Indeed, it is precisely in this period that ICT - including software - sectors have grown in India and China. Particularly in the former case, this has been associated with the advent of tightly networked communities of firms and individuals that have spanned continents enabled by advances in communications technology. Saxenian (2001) has argued that these new networks of highly mobile professionals, and linked firms, operating over a range of spatial locations violate a more simplistic view of knowledge and asset transfer. However, such networks – though enabled by advances in communications – may still be associated with divisions of labour that may not necessarily work to the advantage of the developing country or firm. Turning now to the education channel, over the 1990s there has been strong growth in the numbers of students from developing countries pursuing education in developed countries. The proportion of students who were foreign in the OECD countries rose by 4.6 percent between 1995 and 1998 (OECD 2001b), with as much as half of these being from developing countries 20. For example, by 1998/99 just over 10 percent of all international students enrolled in US higher education were from China and a further 8 percent were from India. At a doctoral level, between 80-90 percent of these students were enrolled in science and engineering faculties 21. Clearly a significant share of such students have tended to stay on, but quite what proportion do return home is unclear . Guochu and Wenjun (2001) hazard the view that roughly a third of Chinese students return home on completion of their studies but for those Chinese who have studied in the USA the rate of return has been lower at under 15 percent. One survey found that only 19 percent of the 160,000 Chinese students who studied in the USA between 1978- 1998 had returned home 22. Other examples of return migration exist. Following a large outflow of students from Taiwan to the USA in the 1960/70s, returnees increased dramatically in the 1980s and have indeed played a central role in subsequently developing that country’s ICT sector. This is partly reflected in a National Science Foundation study of doctoral students work intentions covering the period 1988/96. Of those surveyed, between 80-85 percent of Indian and Chinese doctoral students intended to try and stay in the USA.. This figure falls to under 50 percent for Taiwanese students (see Table 5.3). The share of Chinese and Indian doctoral students with firm plans to stay was around 50 percent and for the Taiwanese under 30 percent. Clearly, there are several factors at work here. One is the ability to secure employment in the USA; another is the average income level in the developing country as well as the ability to absorb returnees 23.

Chinese students do not return homeAcademic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias 08 (“Brain drain”, http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/125444, 7/29/10, atl)

Since China began market economic reforms in the late 70s, many Chinese began migrating to countries Western Europe, North America and Oceania. [ [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/08/content_501680.htm For China, brain drain key to brain gain ] ] It is estimated that 30 percent of the 100 000 Chinese students who study abroad annually return to China. The fact is there are many more job opportunities, higher standard of living and education opportunities for Chinese living abroad [ [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6356101.stm BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China suffers severe brain drain ] ] . The Chinese government is trying to lure back its foreign educated professionals by tweaking its salaries, housing and job incentives. As China continues to expand and accelerate market reforms, it faces massive shortage of professionals in management, engineering, medicine, science, research and also having to compete with western countries for experts.

ADI 2010 69Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

China – Taiwan Impact

Threats to the CCP will cause a lashout against Taiwan to boost domestic supportMartin 2007(Peter B Martin, “America's Nuclear Military Dilemma with China”, American Thinker, August 20, http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/americas_nuclear_military_dile.html)

A year from now China will be on its benevolent best conduct, two years from now that could all change. There is little to fear from China until the Olympics are over; what follows may be a different story altogether. Just as Ancient Greeks would recess their wars during the Olympic Games, China will keep the peace leading up to and during the games. But nationalism has not been entirely sidelined, as it is an essential device to preserve communist rule. China's leadership has an inherent fear of losing power; this perpetual dread is what drives their political and strategic decisions. And Taiwan is the principal catalyst to preserving the Beijing government. Should the political system feel threatened, nationalism would come into play and Taiwan would be the scapegoat.

War between the US and PRC over Taiwan would escalate to global nuclear conflictStraits Times 2000(“No one gains in war over Taiwan”, June 25, Pg 40)

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.

ADI 2010 70Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

China – Dollar Dump Impact

Conflict with the US will cause China to sell off their dollar reserves, triggering a worldwide rush to liquidate dollars and convert to other reserve currencies, collapsing the US economyCorpus 2006(Victor N Corpus is a retired brigadier general of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP); former chief of the Intelligence Service, AFP, “America’s Acupuncture Points, Part 1: Striking the US where it hurts”, Asia Times, October 19, 2006, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HJ19Ad01.html)

4 Attack on the US dollar One of the pillars propping up US superpower status and worldwide economic dominance is the dollar being accepted as the predominant reserve currency. Central banks of various countries have to stock up dollar reserves because they can only buy their oil requirements and other major commodities in US dollars. This US economic strength, however, is a double-edged sword and can turn out to be America's economic Achilles' heel. A run of the US dollar, for instance, which would cause a dollar free-fall, can bring the entire US economy toppling down. What is frightening for the US is the fact that China, Russia and Iran possess the power to cause a run on the US dollar and force its collapse. China is now the biggest holder of foreign exchange reserves in the world, accumulating $941 billion as of June 30 and expected to exceed a trillion dollars by the end of 2006 - a first in world history. A decision by China to shift a major portion of its reserve to the euro or the yen or gold could trigger other central banks to follow suit. Nobody would want to be left behind holding a bagfull of dollars rapidly turning worthless. The herd psychology would be very difficult to control in this case because national economic survival would be at stake. This global herd psychology motivated by the survival instinct will be strongly reinforced by the latent anger of many countries in the Middle East, Eurasia, Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America that silently abhor the pugnacious arrogance displayed by the lone Superpower in the exercise of its unilateral and militaristic foreign policies. They will just be too happy to dump the dollar and watch the lone Superpower squirm and collapse. The danger of the dollar collapsing is reinforced by the mounting US current account deficit, which sky-rocketed to $900 billion at an annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2005. This figure is 7% of US gross domestic product (GDP), the largest in US history. The current account deficit reflects the imbalance of US imports to its exports. The large imbalance shows that the US economy is losing its competitiveness, with US jobs and incomes suffering as a result. These record deficits in external trade and current accounts mean that the US has to borrow from foreign lenders (mostly Japan and China) $900 billion annually or nearly $2.5 billion every single day to finance the gap between payments and receipts from the rest of the world. In financial year 2005, $352 billion was spent on interest payment of national debt alone - a national debt that has ballooned to $8.5 trillion as of August 24. The International Monetary Fund has warned: "The US is on course to increase its net external liabilities to around 40% of its GDP within the next few years - an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country." The picture of the US federal budget deficit is equally grim. Dennis Cauchon, writing for USA Today said: The federal government keeps two sets of books. The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005. The set the government doesn't talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government's accountants following standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominous financial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If social security and medicare were included - as the board that sets accounting rules is considering - the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion. Congress has written its own accounting rules - which would be illegal for a corporation to use because they ignore important costs such as the growing expense of retirement benefits for civil servants and military personnel. Last year, the audited statement produced by the accountants said the government ran a deficit equal to $6,700 for every American household. The number given to the public put the deficit at $2,800 per household ... The audited financial statement - prepared by the Treasury Department - reveals a federal government in far worse financial shape than official budget reports indicate, a USA Today analysis found. The government has run a deficit of $2.9 trillion since 1997, according to the audited number. The official deficit since then is just $729 billion. The difference is equal to an entire year's worth of federal spending. The huge US current account and trade deficits, the mounting external debt and the ever-increasing federal budget deficits are clear signs of an economy on the edge. They have dragged the dollar to the brink of the precipice. Such a state of economic affairs cannot be sustained for long, and the stability of the dollar is put in grave danger. One push and the dollar will plunge into free-fall. And that push can come from China, Russia or Iran, whom superpower America has been pushing and bullying all along.

ADI 2010 71Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AFF – Non-Unique – Brain Drain Now

China is currently suffering a major ‘best and brightest’ brain drainWatts 07 (Jonathan, Guardian's Asia environment correspondent, “China fears brain drain as its overseas students stay put”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/02/internationaleducationnews.highereducation%20China%20fears%20brain%20drain%20as%20its%20overseas%20students%20stay%20put, 7/29/10, atl)

China suffers the worst brain drain in the world, according to a new study that found seven out of every 10 students who enrol in an overseas university never return to live in their homeland. Despite the booming economy and government incentives to return, an increasing number of the country's brightest minds are relocating to wealthier nations, where they can usually benefit from higher living standards, brighter career opportunities and the freedom to have as many children as they wish. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences revealed 1.06 million Chinese had gone to study overseas since 1978, but only 275,000 had returned. The rest had taken postgraduate courses, found work, got married or changed citizenship. Unlike illegal migrants from the countryside - many of whom are poorly schooled - the students are usually welcomed with open arms by western institutions, which gain high scholarship fees and academic excellence. Britain has gone further than most to attract this pool of intellectual talent. Chinese students have been the biggest group of foreign nationals at UK schools and universities for several years. Last year their numbers increased 20% to 60,000. The report claims the lack of first-class scientists and research pioneers represents the biggest obstacle to China's ability to innovate. "This shows that Chinese students overseas, especially those with extraordinary abilities, are a real hit in the global tug-of-war for talent," Yang Xiaojing, one of the authors of the report, was quoted as saying in the China Daily. "Against the backdrop of economic globalisation, an excessive brain drain will inevitably threaten the human resources, security and eventually the national economic and social security of any country." To reverse the trend, Beijing is offering bigger incentives for returnees. Under new regulations issued in March, senior scientists, engineers and corporate managers are exempted from the household registration system (which determines various state privileges in China), allowed higher salaries and promised places for their children at top universities. But despite these enticements, the problem may get worse. In 2005, 118,500 students left China to study overseas. By 2010, the forecast is 200,000. Bai Xue, who is enrolled on a communication studies course in the University of Minnesota, says more than 80% of her Chinese classmates are trying to remain in the US. Her plan is just for a short extension, but she is keeping her options open. "There are a few of us who are thinking of returning, but nothing is fixed. If we get married or have babies or get used to the life here, maybe we will change our minds." Xia Qing will start postgraduate study in California this September, but he is already planning to stay in America for a few years after his course finishes. "I am slightly hesitant because China is developing very fast and by 2030, its GDP will probably surpass the USA. But I am concerned that I might not get a good job if I return. America may suit me more because they judge you according to your ability, whereas in China your background and connections are more important." A survey this year found that in Shanghai 30% of high school pupils and 50% of middle-school students wanted to change their nationality.

ADI 2010 72Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AFF – No Impact – US Solves

US escalation dominance means any war won’t be nuclearRoss 2001 (Professor of political science at Boston College, associate at the John King Fairbank Center for east Asian Research, Harvard University, “The Stability of Deterrence in the Taiwan strait,” National Interest, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Stability+of+Deterrence+in+the+Taiwan+Strait.-a079354158)

At the highest level, too, China's limited strategic nuclear capability provides little comfort to Chinese planners. U.S. escalation dominance puts the onus of initiating a nuclear war on China, which would subject it to devastating U.S. nuclear retaliation. But Chinese military leaders have little confidence that China can even launch a nuclear first strike against the United States. China's military literature dwells on the vulnerability of the PLA's few long-range missiles, reflecting concern that the long and overt preparation time prior to launch would elicit a preemptive U.S. attack. China thus lacks confidence that it can use the threat of a nuclear attack to deter U.S. intervention. [7] Also, because U.S. deterrence of China relies on conventional weapons rather than on nuclear forces, the PLA's strategic analysts argue that it is far more credible than U.S. Cold War deterrence of the Soviet Union. [8] There can never be total confidence that deterrence will work. Yet U.S. deterrence of any actual Chinese use of force against Taiwan--outside of a Taiwan declaration of independence--is highly stable. Overwhelming U.S. superiority means that the strategic, economic and political costs to China of U.S. military intervention would be astronomical. U.S. conventional superiority and its strong political commitment to Taiwan mean that the credibility of the U.S. threat to intervene is very high. In an insecure world, the U.S. deterrent posture in the Taiwan Strait is an unusually secure one.

ADI 2010 73Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

AFF – No Impact – No Taiwan War

Taiwan is increasing economic ties with China – means no risk of warWashington Post, 2/21/2009 (Ariana Eunjung Cha, “Taiwan, China Negotiating a Landmark Free-Trade Agreement,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003388.html)

Taiwan and China are negotiating a wide-ranging free-trade agreement that represents an important step toward the possibility of unification of the longtime adversaries. The Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement would allow the free flow of goods, services and capital across the Taiwan Strait at a time when the economies of the mainland and the democratic self-ruled island are increasingly interdependent. While Taiwanese groups have tried to play down the political implications of the economic pact, those on the mainland are already talking about the eventual union of the two. Li Fei, deputy director of the Taiwan Studies Center at Xiamen University on the mainland, said the agreement would be a significant milestone in gradually warming relations between the antagonists. "It's a start toward full cross-strait economic integration and a necessary condition for marching forward toward final unification," Li said.

ADI 2010 74Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

***TOPIC DA LINKS***

ADI 2010 75Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Terrorism DA Link

An increase of H1B workers is a national security measure- Fannie Mae proves Cutler 9 (Michael, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, Accuracy in Media, February 3, 2009, http://www.aim.org/guest-column/h1b-visa-holder-attempted-fannie-mae-sabotage-wheres-the-outrage/) AJR

A citizen of India, Rajendrasinh B. Makwana attempted to sabotage the computer database at Fannie Mae. He was, according to news reports, employed as a so-called temporary foreign worker who had been authorized to work in the United States temporarily under the provisions of the H1B visa that had been issued to him. Here’s how this appalling situation can be summed up: This is the real threat to society, not the sinking of Fannie Mae. But the strange case of Makwana does bring up a number of issues. The main one is the use of H1B visa workers – and holders of other alien-worker documentation – in sensitive areas. Why was Makwana working at Fannie Mae in the first place? Are you telling me no American citizen could have done his job? This is not a new concern. It has long been believed that in most cases H1B visas in technology have been exploited by companies such as Fannie Mae only because programmers coming from India work cheaper. But there is no way of knowing much about any of these folks, and that immediately becomes a homeland-security issue. The issue of this Fannie Mae employee actually illuminates an even broader issue that can be summed up with a simple question: “What constitutes critical infrastructure?” An individual who is intent on attacking our nation would find that the United States offers so many tempting targets, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

ADI 2010 76Frap/Russell H-1B Cap Neg

Politics – Bipartisan

Democrats and Republicans support increasing the caps of H1B visasMark 7, [Roy InternetNews Reporter April 11 2007 http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3671211/Bills-Would-Expand-H1-B-Visa-Quotas.htm]

Bills to expand H1-B visas are stacking up like cordwood in Congress. A favorite among the technology industry, H1-B visas allow U.S. companies to sponsor foreign born U.S. graduates in science, engineering and math for up to six years of U.S. employment. In the wake of last week's announcement that the 2008 allotment of 85,000 H1-B visas was expended after only one day, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) reintroduced Tuesday his Securing Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership (SKIL) bill. The legislation would exempt from the H1-B visa quotas U.S. educated foreign workers with advanced degrees in math, science, technology and engineering fields. The bill would also create a market-based H-1B cap, expanding or decreasing depending on demand. Last month, U.S. Reps. Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) introduced the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 (STRIVE), which would expand the current H1-B cap of 65,000 to 115,000. Under the bill, the cap would jump to 180,000 in any year after the 115,000 limit is reached.