· Web viewWelcome to the Novice Negative Evidence Set. In here, you’ll find all the research you need to construct winning negative arguments for the Visas and Refugees Affirmatives

National Association for Urban Debate LeaguesCourtesy of the Washington Urban Debate League

Visas & Refugees Negative Packet

ContentsIntroduction:..............................................................................................................2Being Negative:.........................................................................................................31NC Argument Overview:..........................................................................................4Topic Introduction: Employment Based Visas Affirmative........................................5Topic Introduction: Refugees TPS Affirmative..........................................................8Introduction: Off Case: Topicality..............................................................................9Introduction: Off Case: Environment Disadvantage................................................10Introduction: Off Case: Wage Disadvantage............................................................12The First Negative Constructive (1NC) Off Case.....................................................14

Topicality: Admission versus Entry: 1NC.............................................................14Topicality Substantial: 1NC..................................................................................15Environment Disadvantage 1NC..........................................................................16Wages Disadvantage 1NC....................................................................................19

On Case: Arguments................................................................................................24Employment Based Visas Negative......................................................................24

Inherency:..........................................................................................................24Economy Advantage:.........................................................................................27Science Diplomacy Advantage:..........................................................................37Answer to 2AC Social Security Argument.........................................................39Espionage Disadvantage 1NC:..........................................................................40India Brain Drain Disadvantage 1NC................................................................42

Refugee TPS Negative..........................................................................................46Inherency:..........................................................................................................47Refugee Ethic Advantage..................................................................................48Soft Power Advantage:......................................................................................50Solvency.............................................................................................................54Terrorism Disadvantage....................................................................................56Wage Deflation Disad – Link..............................................................................59Wage Deflation Disad – Answer to: TPS Repeal Hurts Economy......................60Topicality 1NC: Refugees are not “Immigrants”...............................................61

Topicality Admission versus Entry........................................................................62Environment Disadvantage 2NC/1NR..................................................................63

2NC/1NR Uniqueness Debate...........................................................................632NC/1NR Link Debate.......................................................................................662NC/1NR Impact Debate...................................................................................75

1


Answers to 2AC Arguments...............................................................................78Wages Disadvantage 2NC/1NR............................................................................80

2NC/1NR Uniqueness Extensions:....................................................................802NC/1NR Link Debate.......................................................................................842NC/1NR Impact Extensions.............................................................................91

2


Introduction:

Welcome to the Novice Negative Evidence Set. In here, you’ll find all the research you need to construct winning negative arguments for the Visas and Refugees Affirmatives and beyond on this year’s topic, Immigration. Remember, the goal of the negative is to show why the affirmative’s plan is a bad idea. We’ve organized this evidence into a few different types of arguments:

“On Case” Arguments: Direct responses to something the affirmative team has said. There are separate sections to respond to the two affirmative cases, economics and refugees, so make sure you have the right answers.

Topicality: Topicality is an argument that states that the affirmative team is off topic, and should lose the debate. It is centered on debating the technicalities and definitions of what is and isn’t part of the topic.

Disadvantages: Disadvantages are reasons why the affirmative is a bad idea that aren’t direct responses to something that they said (The affirmative team isn’t going to bring up the problems with their plan on their own). These should be used against both affirmative cases.

How to use this file: The file is organized by argument type, and which speech evidence should be used.

1. Read the summaries of each argument available in the packet. 2. Check out the glossary to make sure you understand all of the words and terms. 3. Read and highlight the evidence, making sure you understand the argument being

made and pulling out the key parts of each piece of evidence. When you are ready to debate:

1. Assemble a first negative constructive (1NC) from the 1NC options. 2. Expand on those initial arguments in the second negative constructive (2NC) and

the first negative rebuttal (1NR). 3. Make a closing statement in the second negative rebuttal (2NR), explaining why

the negative team’s arguments are more important than those made by the affirmative team.

3


Being Negative:

The goal of the negative is simple: Prove that the plan presented by the affirmative team is a bad idea. The more you focus on the plan and why it is a bad idea, the more often you’ll win debates. Speech Time (Minutes)1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC) 82nd Negative Speaker Questions 1st Affirmative Speaker

3

1st Negative Constructive (1NC) 81st Affirmative Speaker Questions 1st Negative Speaker

3

2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC) 8 1st Negative Speaker Questions 2nd Affirmative Speaker

3

2nd Negative Constructive (2NC) 8 2nd Affirmative Speaker Questions 2nd Negative Speaker

3

1st Negative Rebuttal (1NR) 5 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 52nd Negative Rebuttal (Closing Statement) (2NR) 5 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (Closing Statement) (2AR)

5

Speaking Roles on the Negative:

1st Negative Speaker: Your job is to introduce a range of negative arguments in the 1NC, and to definitively win at least one of those arguments in the 1NR.

2nd Negative Speaker: Your job is to expand upon one or two arguments made in the 1NC, then to choose the best argument made by the negative team and show why the negative should win the debate in the 2NR. You are in charge of choosing negative strategy, since you’ll have to explain it in the 2NR

Phases of a Debate: 1. 1NC: Outline a few different reasons why the affirmative is a bad idea, without

going into too much detail on any one of them.2. 2NC/1NR: Think of these as a single speech, given by different people. Each

debater should choose one or two (different) arguments from the 1NC and go into greater detail, explaining and adding evidence when needed.

3. 2NR: The second negative speaker should give a closing argument all about the strongest negative position (after hearing the affirmative speak in the 1AR). Tell the judge why the negative team should win.

4


1NC Argument Overview:The first section of this file will help you assemble the 1st Negative Constructive, or the 1NC. Remember, these are outlines of different arguments you can make—you don’t have to include every little detail until later in the debate.

Use these outlines to construct an 8 minute speech that responds to the affirmative case that you are debating (economic or refugees).

Topicality: The Affirmative Team isn’t within the bounds of the resolution.

Environment Disadvantage: The plan will cause environmental harms that are worse than the benefits of the plan.

Wage Disadvantage: The plan will bring more immigrants into this country. They will compete with the current labor force and lower wages.

On Case Responses: EB Visa Economics Affirmative: The arguments made by the affirmative on economic benefits of immigration are wrong

On Case Responses: TPS Refugees Affirmative: The arguments made by the affirmative about the benefits of the refugees case are wrong.

5


Topic Introduction: Employment Based Visas Affirmative

The United States lets foreign citizens enter this country legally for four reasons: family re-unification, refugee and asylum, diversity, and for economic reasons. This affirmative will consider the 4th category, economic based admissions. “Visas” are just stamps on your passport, giving you legal status in this country, which depends on which program you apply for.

There are a variety of economic based visas, but we’ll focus on two of the biggest ones. Name H-1B Visa EB (Employment

Based) VisasDuration 6 years, can be

renewedPermanent Status

Who can get them? “Skilled” Workers with advanced degrees or other skills

“Skilled” Workers with advanced degrees or other skills

Pros Flexible, common, easier to get

Permanent status, full rights, path to naturalization

Cons Tied to employer Harder to get, means you have to commit to being in the US for a while

H-1B visas are most commonly used by the technology sector and Silicon Valley, bringing in programmers and other tech specialists to the U.S. for a limited duration. They are tied to their company and can’t change jobs or employers without losing their visa.

EB Visas, or Employment Based Visas, come in 5 categories, or preferences. EB-1: People with Extraordinary Abilities: International Award winners,

researchers, scientists, etc. EB-2: Professionals Holding Advanced Degrees: People with a Bachelor’s Degree

or more, and 5 years of work experience in a field. EB-3: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: People with a

Bachelor’s Degree, Professional Certification, and at least 2 years work experience.

EB-4: Specialty Immigrants: Broadcasters, Religious Officials, Embassy Employees, Iraqi/Afghan Translators, Employees of international organizations (like the UN), etc.

EB-5: Immigrant Investors: Immigrants who invest $500,000 + in the US, and create at least 10 jobs.

The number of EB visas is capped around 145,000 each year. This affirmative wants to remove the cap, allowing a potentially unlimited number of immigrants into the U.S. who qualify for EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 visas.

6


The affirmative will argue that the economy is doing well now, but can’t grow any faster without more workers, specifically those with advanced degrees. The retirement of the Baby Boomer Generation, or those born between 1946-1964 (54-72 year olds), will take millions of high skilled workers out of the economy, and we don’t have enough younger replacements. It argues that immigrants help the economy in three ways:

1. Manufacturing: Modern manufacturing requires highly skilled workers to use, build, and repair machines on assembly lines. Skilled immigrants can fill these jobs and prevent the manufacturing sector from failing, or leaving the U.S.

2. Innovation: New companies, especially in technology, are started by immigrants, such as Google. We need more new, innovative products to continue to be financially successful.

3. Competitiveness: Many smart people from all over the world come to the United States for college and graduate education on student visas. We should keep them here and encourage them to start businesses/work in our companies instead of taking their new knowledge and skills and going home to compete against us.

Additionally, immigration brings with it scientific and commercial relationships. The affirmative argues that these professional contacts can be used to work on global issues and solve problems. This process, called “Science Diplomacy” can work under the radar with countries where we have other disagreements, such as with Russia, and can solve global challenges that countries don’t have the political or financial will to address such as climate change and diseases.

7


Strategic Overview:This affirmative is pretty straight forward. The plan removes caps on the number of visas that the State Department issues to individuals who meet the criteria laid out in the Immigration and Naturalization Act for EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3s.

Inherency Debate: There are a number of programs that exist already to bring workers into the United States, such as the existing EB visas, and the temporary H-1B visa. Why do we need the affirmative if we already have options to bring in high skilled talent? If the economy is strong now, there is even less reason to risk bringing in an influx of new workers.

Advantage One: The Economy:Link Debate: The affirmative will say that there are three reasons why the United States needs more skilled immigrants through EB Visas, manufacturing, competitiveness, and innovation. Question whether these are at risk in the status quo—if they aren’t at risk, then there is no reason to do the plan. Second, consider if immigration is the key ingredient to each of these factors. Do we really need more workers, or is financing, technology, education, or some other factor more important.

Impact Debate: There are two impacts to this advantage, diversionary war and hegemony. Diversionary War theory is contentious, and may not be true. Even if it is true, Trump may not engage in one, particularly if the economy is strong without the plan. Hegemony, or the dominance of the United States over the international arena, is not always a good thing. It provokes challenges by risking powers like Russia, China, Iran, and others, is very expensive, encourages terrorism, and is likely not sustainable. President Trump has also re-made our global image in the short time he has been President.

Advantage Two:Solvency/Uniqueness Debate: Does Science Diplomacy work? Is it happening already? How has President Trump impacted science diplomacy?

Link Debate: Science Diplomacy is about circulating knowledge. Is the plan an effective method for doing that?

Impact Debate: Science Diplomacy sounds like a positive thing, but is it sufficient to solve global challenges without other actions? Could collaboration be bad, letting other nations steal our scientific secrets?

This is a big affirmative that takes a big, bold action and hopes to achieve lots of big, important things. It’s likely more important to do the plan, even if the negative wins that there might be some downsides, so compare your impacts, do a cost-benefit analysis, and you’ll likely win.

8


Topic Introduction: Refugees TPS AffirmativeThe Refugees affirmative proposes broadening the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program to allow refugees who would qualify for TPS to apply for permanent residence status in the United State. TPS is a program designed to admit refugees into the United States from the countries with the largest humanitarian crises. The TPS program helps people from countries that have been ravaged by war, famine, or natural disasters resettle into the United States on a temporary basis. By its very nature, the TPS program is intended to provide only temporary relief to refugees, but in reality, the program often extends for several years for many third-world countries who have difficulty rebuilding after tragedy strikes. Currently, the citizens from ten nation states can apply from protection under the TPS program: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicuragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration has begun the process of cancelling TPS for El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicuragua, and is reportedly considering rolling back the Haiti TPS program despite those countries still being relatively unsafe nations. Citizens from Syria, Somalia, and Yemen are also struggling with the impacts of the Muslim Ban, as the various iterations are challenged in court. Due to the Trump administration’s actions, the affirmative proposes a solution that will allow long-time recipients of TPS to remain in the United States. Many of the recipients of TPS programs from Honduras, Nicuragua, and El Salvador have resided within the United States for decades, having families, careers, and building roots in their new communities. The affirmative plan would allow them to stay and work permanently in the United States. Additionally, the plan would allow all future recipients of TPS to apply for permanent residency once they have lived in the United States for long periods of time. A pathway to permanent residency for TPS recipients makes sense because many recipients live in the United States for long periods of time and set down roots within the country. Forcing long-time TPS recipients to leave the country removes people from communities that they have grown to love and consider their homes.

Strategic OverviewThe affirmative claims two advantages: ethics and soft power. The ethics advantage argues that it is immoral for the Trump administration to send current TPS recipients home to countries that are still unstable. The reality of revoking TPS for Hondurans and El Salvadorians is that sending many of them home is the same as sending them to their deaths in a world where those countries are ruled by drug cartels and gangs. The soft power advantage claims that the United States can improve its heavily tarnished humanitarian reputation by helping refugees. If other countries view us as more credible and a benevolent actor on the world stage, then we are more likely to maintain long-standing alliances that are critical to ensuring global peace.The negative side of the refugee debate seeks to attack the underlying logic of both advantages. As to the ethics advantage, the negative raises several important ethical questions such as whether we should focus on helping those at home or those abroad first, and whether offering assistance within the United States is more effective than sending foreign aid. The negative can attack the soft power advantage by claiming that President Trump is his own worst enemy in international diplomacy, and that he may accidentally self-sabotage any good will earned from helping refugees.

9


10


Introduction: Off Case: Topicality

Every fall, debate coaches from all over the country vote on what students will debate about for the following school year. First, the subject area is chosen and then the committee works on creating a resolution, the specific wording of the topic for debate. The topics vary, rotating between foreign and domestic, science, economics, law, social issues, and politics. This year, the resolution is:

The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States.

When you write an affirmative case, it needs to fall under this umbrella, where the U.S. federal government must increase funding or regulation of education in the US. Sometimes, however, an affirmative case isn’t actually on topic. Topicality is an argument about definitions to determine if the affirmative is on topic or not. Each of the major concepts in the resolution is debatable. If an affirmative case stretches the definitions in the topic too far, it is considered “untopical.”

Staying within the topic is considered important for two main reasons, education and fairness. If you have a case that falls outside, or stretches the bounds of the topic, the debaters won’t be prepared to engage and clash and the round won’t be very educational for those involved. Additionally, if the negative team comes prepared to debate about the topic, and the other team is outside the topic, it won’t be fair for the team that showed up ready to argue the topic.

There are three parts to a topicality argument. First, you must offer an “interpretation,” of what you think the topic is. This interpretation is a definition of how you think the topic should be defined.

Next, you need to establish a “violation.” This states what the other team is doing wrong, and should be as clear as possible.

Lastly, you need to explain how the violation you’ve identified is bad. These “standards” can take many forms. For example, if the affirmative expands the topic to new areas, that could expand the research burden for negative teams, and be unpredictable. That’s unfair to the negative team. Topicality debates are only limited by your imagination, research skills to find a definition, and ability to defend the consequences of your interpretation.

Topicality can also be a useful tool to help other arguments that you might make during a debate. For example, the resolution includes the word “substantially.” The negative team can run a Topicality argument saying that the affirmative isn’t substantial, and that the best way to measure substantial is by how much money is spent. The affirmative team could then simply answer that their plan is expensive, and that they were substantial enough to be topical. However, they’ve now admitted that their plan is very expensive.

On the affirmative, you should offer a counter-interpretation of what the topic should look like, consider if your case falls within the negatives’ definition, and/or argue that it isn’t important to be topical as long as the affirmative case is ‘close enough.’ If the affirmative hasn’t been disadvantaged in any way, why should topicality matter?

11


12


Introduction: Off Case: Environment Disadvantage

As human populations have grown, they have reshaped the environment around them. Agrarian communities of subsistence farmers have given way to cities, highways and modern industry. Technological progress has made population growth explode over the last century. The United States is no different. In 1950, the US population was about 157,000,000. In the last 65 years, our population has doubled to more than 315,000,000. Population growth in the United States, however, has slowed down dramatically. Indeed, as countries reach a certain wealth threshold, their birth rates plummet. “Replacement level” population growth is when a nation’s adults produce about 2.1 children per pair of adults, ie, two children to replace them when they die. The current birth rate in the United States is about 1.8, or slightly below replacement level.

Why then is our population still growing? Immigration from other nations.

The US population is still growing, between 0.7 and 1.0 percent every year due to an influx of people born in other nations. Furthermore, the birthrate of recent immigrants is higher than that of multi-generational Americans. While this growth keeps the US population from declining, it compensates for our low birth rate, keeping the population relatively even.In the United States, and other developed countries, this societal progress has also changed the impact of each individual person has on the environment. People have gone from walking and riding horses as the primary modes of transportation to airplanes and personal automobiles. Families have gone from living in a single room to (in most of the country), large, stand alone, multi-thousand square foot homes. Firelight has been replaced with electric lighting, books and hand carved toys with X-Boxes, Ipads, and other gadgets. People eat more, eat more processed foods, and eat more meat than they used to and are more and more used to creature comforts such as air condition and disposable goods. Each of these lifestyle choices has a significant impact on a person’s ecological footprint, or the impact their lives have on the environment around them.

People in other countries often live substantially different lifestyles than many people in the United States. In Europe, countries are much more conscious of energy usage, relying on green technology and public transit much more than Americans. In much of the developing world, many of the creature comforts described above are still only available to the wealthy elite. Cultural norms include conservation of resources, a legacy of scarcity instead of the instant gratification lifestyle of the American household today.

The thesis of this argument is that now, immigration is essentially maintaining the US population, but the plan will increase immigration into this country by a significant amount. The large influx of people into this nation, and their adoption of a more ecologically destructive lifestyle, will make our environmental problems much worse.

13


Strategic Overview:Uniqueness Debate: This disadvantage is based on long term trends, so while the affirmative might point to specific spikes in population growth or immigration through existing laws, looking at the long term trends is the important consideration. Being familiar with the terms and data behind the current population growth, the birth rate, and the immigration rate are necessary to win this argument.

Link Debate: In the 1NC, the negative should make a general assertion that immigration hurts the environment by increasing consumption of resources, etc. The trick to this disadvantage is in the 2NC/1NR. The file contains several different, specific links as to why the plan will harm the environment:

Energy: Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas are burned for energy, creating C02 emissions, which are a large factor in global warming. This happens for cars, airplanes, and electrical production. While renewable sources are emerging, the vast majority of US energy is coming from high polluting energy sources. More people living the American lifestyle (and driving an SUV) increases pollution.

Meat: Raising animals, especially red meat sources like cows and pigs, is environmentally taxing. They produce greenhouse emissions, create lots of waste, and require a lot of land. Americans eat 2-3 times more meat per person than any other nation on earth, a significant environmental impact.

Urban Sprawl/Housing: Americans expect to live in relative comfort and our cities are large, sprawling affairs. As they grow, the take up more and more land, requiring more and more electricity, food, and other environmentally taxing resources to sustain the population density.

Water: US water use is already a significant problem in many parts of the country. The Colorado river is ¼ of what it used to be, California and the Mid-west have recently suffered significant droughts, compensated by irreparably harming their underground water tables. More people means more strain on our water supply. Agriculture is the largest user of American water, so more hungry people to feed also makes the problem worse. -

Chain Migration: Chain Migration is a policy in the United States that if you are a permanent resident or citizen, you can sponsor other members of your family to come to the U.S. and also get permanent status. Then those people can sponsor their relatives, infinitely increasing the number of immigrants to the United States.

Impact Debate: The default impact of this disadvantage is global warming. Other impacts are available to add on in the 2NC/1NR. This is a big, structural challenge, so you will usually lose arguments about timeframe, with the benefits of the affirmative plan happening first, but global warming is a high probability-high magnitude impact that should help you long term.

14


Introduction: Off Case: Wage Disadvantage

In a capitalist system, people work for companies and receive “wages,” or payment for their labor. The amount of wages a worker will be paid is largely determined by how easily the company can find someone else to do the same amount and quality of work and how much money that person will want to be paid. Essentially, a worker’s salary is heavily dependent upon everyone else who can do the same sort of job, and their perceived value and scarcity.

The growth of wages used to be highly tied to the productivity of an economy. As the economy grew, the country’s Gross Domestic Product , or GNP (a macro-economic measure of the growth of an entire country’s economy) will increase, creating more jobs, trade, and increasing the wages of the people working in that economy. With the advance of technology, finance, and other macro-economic trends, the value of a worker is increasingly disconnected from their production. This has led economic growth to be dependent upon population growth. If workers aren’t getting any more productive, the economy is stagnant, or unable to grow unless there are more workers that can be added.

In the United States, the pool of available workers who can potentially be hired (new hires or to replace existing workers with the hopes of greater productivity) is calculated by the unemployment rate, which is extremely low right now. This means that even the least employable, qualified, or effective workers are still getting jobs, because companies are desperate for labor.

One of the biggest socio-economic trends of the late 2010s is “populism.” Populism is a socio-political movement of people who are frustrated with the way their lives are now and who pursue broad social change to benefit “the people.” This has manifested in the election of Donald Trump, who promised to confront the social, political, and economic elites in the US and re-make the social and economic system to make it “more fair” for the everyday person instead of for the richest Americans. One of the biggest causes of populist sentiment among citizens is the stagnation of wages. If people feel like they are standing still while the world around them gets richer, more expensive, and more sophisticated, people feel left out, frustrated, and will often join populist movements.

Affirmative cases on this year’s topic will increase the number of people in this country, increasing the unemployment rate and thus the number of people a company can potentially replace their workers with. This disadvantage is designed to point out the supply and demand problems with the labor market. The “supply” is the amount of something to be measured, in this case, the amount of labor that is completed. The “demand” is the number of people willing to pay for them to work, and how much money they are asking for in order to do the work. The employment rate is extremely high, meaning that without more people to hire, companies have to start paying more in order to attract the workers that they want. This relative labor shortage is increasing the wages that workers are getting paid in most industries.

This disadvantage argues that the plan increases the number of potential workers in this country, which will end the current growth in wages, if not lower them overall. This will increase the vigor, amount, and level of support for populist politics. Under Trump, that means racism, xenophobia (fear of foreigners), and discrimination against

15


immigrants, who are here to “steal our jobs” or otherwise make people feel like they might be replaced by their employer. It could also result in economic problems if wages don’t increase.

16


Strategic Overview:

This disadvantage links to every affirmative on the topic. It works best if you can establish that the affirmative plan will let a large number of immigrants into the country, (Topicality: Substantial might be helpful here) but the perception of increased immigration, even if it will be modest, can be a powerful populist motivator.

Uniqueness Debate: The negative team will argue that wages are finally increasing, potentially reducing the appeal of populism as people start getting raises and seeing more money in their pay checks. The affirmative team will argue that such wage growth is an illusion and the economy is still at risk.

Link Debate: The negative team will argue that increasing immigration will hurt wage growth, while the affirmative team will argue that immigration doesn’t hurt wages. The affirmative team is probably right that at least most forms of immigration are good for the economy in the long-term, but the negative team can potentially win short term wage decreases, enough to get the impacts. The negative also might be able to win perception links when it comes to populism, or certain segment of the population will have their wages hurt, encouraging them towards populism. Furthermore, dramatic increases in immigrants, such as removing the cap on EB visas, haven’t been studied to consider their effect on wages. Such a large influx makes it more likely that wages might be impacted.

Impact Debate: Trump has brought a populist message to the presidency now, but it could be far worse. This impact is about walking this line—we know some of the harms of populism, but it could be worse. Beyond the xenophobia and racism, increased support for populism could encourage Trump to introduce further populist measures, such as more tariffs, ensure he wins re-election in 2020, gets a republican congress in 2018, etc. There is also an economic collapse impact available. This is a larger impact, but is less likely to happen unless the affirmative brings in a very large number of people.

17


The First Negative Constructive (1NC) Off CaseTopicality: Admission versus Entry: 1NC

Interpretation: Adjustment of Status isn’t Immigration, and thus the negative shouldn’t have to answer it. Cicchini and Hassell 2012Daniel, Immigration Court “The Continuing Struggle To Define “Admission” and “Admitted” in the Immigration and Nationality Act” Immigration Law Advisor, June, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/07/vol6no6.pdfAdjustment of Status: Is It an Admission? Determining if and when an alien has been “admitted” is more complex, however, if an alien becomes an LPR through adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act. Indeed, in such a case, an adjudicator may have to determine whether applicable precedent defines an alien’s adjustment of status as an “admission” within the meaning of the Act, because the Board and the circuit courts appear to be split on the issue.Under section 245 of the Act, the Attorney General may adjust the status of any alien who has previously been inspected, admitted, or paroled. More specifically, adjustment of status is a process that permits aliens already present in the United States to become LPRs without having to depart and procure an immigrant visa from an American consulate, most often in the alien’s country of origin. USCIS, DHS, Adjustment of Status, (Mar. 30, 2011), http://www.uscis.gov/greencard (follow “Green Card Processes and Procedures” hyperlink; then follow “Adjustment of Status” hyperlink); Barr at 3. Because aliens who adjust status are already physically present inside the United States, this process does not involve physical entry into the country after inspection and authorization at a port of entry. Thus, under the plain language of section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Act, it is not an “admission.” As a consequence, an alien who has adjusted status to that of an LPR after entering the country without inspection has not been “admitted” within the meaning of section 101(a)(13)(A) and would therefore be subject to the grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a) of the Act.

Violation: The plan adjusts status, it doesn’t remove a restriction on entry.

Standards: This makes the topic much bigger, including a whole range of cases about illegal immigration.

Vote Negative for Fairness and Education:

1. Unpredictable: This makes the topic too big and unpredictable for the negative, making this round unfair, and reducing the educational value of the debate, since we won’t be able to respond effectively.

2. Hard to research: Negative teams will need a whole different strategy against affirmatives that adjust status versus those that bring new people into this country. This hurts our education, encouraging breadth over depth.

18

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/07/vol6no6.pdf


3. Skews the topic towards the affirmative: Makes affirmative ground too large, which makes the debates less fair and less educational

19


Topicality Substantial: 1NCInterpretation: Substantial involves hundreds of thousands of immigrantsGelatt and Meyers 2006Julia and Deborah, Migration Policy Institute, October 2006, Legal Immigration to the United States Increased Substantially in FY 2005, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/legal-immigration-united-states-increased-substantially-fy-2005Legal Immigration to United States Increased Substantially in FY 2005 New data released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) show that in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005: ƒ Lawful permanent immigration grew by 17 percent from FY 2004. ƒ The number of people who adjusted their status to lawful permanent residence increased 26 percent, explaining much of the overall growth. ƒ The level of newly arriving lawful permanent residents remained relatively steady. ƒ Refugee admissions rose slightly from FY 2004, but remained below pre-9/11 levels. ƒ The level of temporary visitors rebounded to near pre-9/11 levels. ƒ Naturalizations increased by almost 13 percent from FY 2004. Below is an overview of US immigration based on FY 2005 data released by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics in 2006. Permanent Immigration The number of people granted lawful permanent residence in the United States in FY 2005 climbed 17.2 percent from FY 2004 levels to 1,122,373. This included 384,071 people newly arriving to the United States, and 738,302 adjusting from another type of immigration status. This is the highest number of new lawful permanent residents (LPRs) in a single year since FY 1991 when 1.8 million people gained LPR status. The number of LPRs newly arriving to the United States increased just 3 percent over the 373,962 new arrivals in FY 2004, while the number of persons adjusting from another immigration status to permanent status increased 26 percent over the 583,921 status adjusters in FY 2004. The large increase in persons adjusting to LPR status is likely a result of efforts by USCIS to speed the processing of immigration applications in order to eliminate its backlog of applications that have been pending for more than six months.

Violation: The affirmative team’s plan is too small, it doesn’t engage hundreds of thousands of immigrants.

Standards: Topicality is a gateway issue—if the negative wins topicality, then we don’t have to consider the merits of the plan. Our interpretation is good for fairness and education because:

1. Unpredictable: There are so many tiny visa categories we can’t possibly prepare for them all

2. Education and Political Engagement: Focusing on substantial parts of the immigration debate teaches us about important issues of the day and gives us the knowledge to advocate for our beliefs

3. Limits are necessary: We can’t have a fair debate if we are forced to debate tiny adjustments to immigration policy no policy makers are arguing about.

20

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/legal-immigration-united-states-increased-substantially-fy-2005

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/legal-immigration-united-states-increased-substantially-fy-2005


Environment Disadvantage 1NC

Uniqueness: US population growth is low and stable nowChokshi 2016Niraj, December 22nd, New York Times, “Growth of US Population is at slowest place since 1937” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/us/usa-population-growth.html The United States population grew by 0.7 percent in the last year, its smallest annual expansion in 80 years, the Census Bureau said this week . The nation added about 2.2 million people from July 2015 to July 2016, bringing the total population to just over 323 million. In relative terms, that was the slowest rate of annual growth since 1937, though census methods have changed over that time. The sluggishness is nothing new: The American population entered a period of slow expansion in recent years, with growth averaging just over 0.7 percent in the 2010s, according to an analysis of census data. The rate averaged about 1 percent annually in the 2000s and 1.2 percent in the 1990s. In the 1950s, the middle of the baby boom, growth averaged 1.8 percent each year. With birthrates generally low and members of that outsize boomer generation entering their 60s and 70s, growth may continue to slow for years to come. “We are going to see, for probably another 10, 15 years, the number of deaths increasing and that’s going to slow down the net growth,” said Jeffrey S. Passel, a senior demographer at the Pew Research Center.

And Link: Increasing immigration causes over-population and over-consumption, straining the ecosystem. Kolankiewicz 2010Leon, March 1, 2010, Progressives for Immigration Reform, “From Big to Bigger, How Mass Immigration and Population Growth Have Exacerbated American’s Ecological Footprint.” http://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/publication/from-big-to-bigger- how-mass-immigration-and-population-growth-have-exacerbated-americas-ecological-footprint/Mass immigration is increasing America’s Ecological Footprint (EF), pushing our country deeper into ecological deficit. Approaching 310 million, U.S. population currently exceeds the carrying capacity of our land and resource base. Nevertheless, high immigration levels exacerbate these trends by pushing our population to ever more precarious heights, preventing U.S. population stabilization, forcing annual growth rates to more than three million net new residents, and driving our numbers to a projected 440 million by 2050. If these projections hold true, by 2050 America’s population will grow faster than it is today, and the United States will be on a trajectory toward a billion or more by 2100. EF analysis provides additional scientific evidence that indeed, “numbers count,” and that today’s America, to say nothing of tomorrow’s, is vastly overpopulated as well as over-consuming. The Ecological Footprint is a measure of aggregate human demands, or the human load, imposed on the biosphere, or “ecosphere.” When all is said and done, the human economy, all production and consumption of goods and services, depends entirely on the Earth’s natural capital — on arable soils, forests, croplands, pasturelands, fishing grounds, clean waters and air, the atmosphere, ozone layer, climate, fossil fuels, and minerals — to perform the ecological services and provide the materials and energy “sources” and waste “sinks” that sustain civilization.

21

http://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/publication/from-big-to-bigger-how-mass-immigration-and-population-growth-have-exacerbated-americas-ecological-footprint/



http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-214.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/us/usa-population-growth.html


22


Internal Link: Consumption driven global warming is the largest threat to humanity, and population growth will overwhelm existing efforts to fix the problem. CBD No DateCenter for Biological Diversity, Human Population Growth and Climate Change, https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/The largest single threat to the ecology and biodiversity of the planet in the decades to come will be global climate disruption due to the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People around the world are beginning to address the problem by reducing their carbon footprint through less consumption and better technology. But unsustainable human population growth can overwhelm those efforts, leading us to conclude that we not only need smaller footprints, but fewer feet. Portland, Oregon, for example, decreased its combined per-capita residential energy and car driving carbon footprint by 5 percent between 2000 and 2005. During this same period, however, its population grew by 8 percent. A 2009 study of the relationship between population growth and global warming determined that the “carbon legacy” of just one child can produce 20 times more greenhouse gas than a person will save by driving a high-mileage car, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, etc. Each child born in the United States will add about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent. The study concludes, “Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle.” One of the study’s authors, Paul Murtaugh, warned that: “In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime. Those are important issues and it's essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources. . . . Future growth amplifies the consequences of people's reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance." The size of the carbon legacy is closely tied to consumption patterns. Under current conditions, a child born in the United States will be responsible for almost seven times the carbon emissions of a child born in China and 168 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh.

23

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/


Impact: Global Warming causes extinction via starvation, disease, and intense weatherSnow and Hannam, 2014Deborah and Peter, March 31, 2014, The Sydney Morning Hearld, “Climate change could make humans extinct, warns health expert” https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.htmlThe Earth is warming so rapidly that unless humans can arrest the trend, we risk becoming ''extinct'' as a species, a leading Australian health academic has warned. Helen Berry, associate dean in the faculty of health at the University of Canberra, said while the Earth has been warmer and colder at different points in the planet's history, the rate of change has never been as fast as it is today. 'What is remarkable, and alarming, is the speed of the change since the 1970s, when we started burning a lot of fossil fuels in a massive way,'' she said. ''We can't possibly evolve to match this rate [of warming] and, unless we get control of it, it will mean our extinction eventually.'' Professor Berry is one of three leading academics who have contributed to the health chapter of a Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report due on Monday. She and co-authors Tony McMichael, of the Australian National University, and Colin Butler, of the University of Canberra, have outlined the health risks of rapid global warming in a companion piece for The Conversation , also published on Monday. The three warn that the adverse effects on population health and social stability have been ''missing from the discussion'' on climate change. ''Human-driven climate change poses a great threat, unprecedented in type and scale, to wellbeing, health and perhaps even to human survival,'' they write. They predict that the greatest challenges will come from undernutrition and impaired child development from reduced food yields; hospitalisations and deaths due to intense heatwaves, fires and other weather-related disasters; and the spread of infectious diseases. They warn the ''largest impacts'' will be on poorer and vulnerable populations, winding back recent hard-won gains of social development programs. Projecting to an average global warming of 4 degrees by 2100, they say ''people won't be able to cope, let alone work productively, in the hottest parts of the year''. They say that action on climate change would produce ''extremely large health benefits'', which would greatly outweigh the costs of curbing emission growth. A leaked draft of the IPCC report notes that a warming climate would lead to fewer cold weather-related deaths but the benefits would be ''greatly'' outweighed by the impacts of more frequent heat extremes. Under a high emissions scenario, some land regions will experience temperatures four to seven degrees higher than pre-industrial times, the report said. While some adaptive measures are possible, limits to humans' ability to regulate heat will affect health and potentially cut global productivity in the warmest months by 40 per cent by 2100

24

https://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-health-ipcc-reports-emerging-risks-emerging-consensus-24213

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.html

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.html


Wages Disadvantage 1NCUniqueness: Wage growth is high now because of a tight labor marketGillespie 2018Patrick, CNN Money, 2/2/18 “America gets a raise: Wage growth fastest since 2009,”http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/02/news/economy/january-jobs-report-2018/index.htmlThe U.S. economy added 200,000 jobs in January, and wages grew at the fastest pace in eight years. The unemployment rate stayed at 4.1%, the lowest since 2000, the Labor Department said Friday. Wages were up 2.9% compared with a year earlier, the best pace since June 2009. Wage growth has been the last major measure to make meaningful progress since the end of the Great Recession. The Federal Reserve would like wages to grow even faster -- 3% or more -- but Friday's report was a welcome sign for workers after years of stagnant pay. Economists say it's time to take note of how strong, or "tight," the U.S. job market is. Friday's numbers show 2018 "will be a year of rising wages and the tightest labor market in over a generation," said Joseph Brusuelas, chief U.S. economist at RSM, an accounting and consulting firm. Some economists anticipate that the Republican tax law will continue to boost wages, because some large corporations are giving their workers raises. One-time bonuses, which many other companies have given out, are not counted in the wage growth calculation. Several states also raised their minimum wage at the start of the year, which helped overall wages grow. And experts say wages had to rise at some point as the country kept adding jobs and unemployment stayed low. In a tight job market, there are more jobs available than there are workers to fill them. That forces employers to offer higher pay to attract and keep workers. "It's too early to call this a trend but the breakout [in wage growth] is very welcome news," says Robert Frick, chief economist at Navy Federal "It's a very big deal, let's hope it continues." Employers' words may finally be translating into action. For years, employers have increasingly said they can't find skilled workers -- or any workers -- to apply for job openings. Some economists say there's a wide gap between the skills employers are demanding and the ones workers have. But other experts contest that if employers were really desperate for workers , they would raise their wages to recruit or retain new employees. Regardless, America has nearly 6 million job openings, near a record high. "There is no question that employers are now having to be more aggressive to compete for workers," says Peter Harrison, CEO of Snagajob, a jobs platform focused on hourly work. Job gains in January came across the board. Construction companies hired 36,000 workers. Health care businesses added 21,000 new hires. Restaurants and bars gained 31,000 more bartenders, waiters and cooks. Manufacturing gained 15,000 jobs. "We are really firing on all cylinders," says Josh Wright, chief economist at iCIMS, a software firm focused on human resources. "It just shows how broad the growth and the positive feelings are across the economy."

25

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/02/news/economy/january-jobs-report-2018/index.html


Link: Increased immigration oversupplies labor---collapses wagesBorjas 2016George, Harvard University, “Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers,” Politico, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216Here’s the problem with the current immigration debate: Neither side is revealing the whole picture. Trump might cite my work, but he overlooks my findings that the influx of immigrants can potentially be a net good for the nation, increasing the total wealth of the population. Clinton ignores the hard truth that not everyone benefits when immigrants arrive. For many Americans, the influx of immigrants hurts their prospects significantly. This second message might be hard for many Americans to process, but anyone who tells you that immigration doesn’t have any negative effects doesn’t understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants. Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year. We don’t need to rely on complex statistical calculations to see the harm being done to some workers. Simply look at how employers have reacted. A decade ago, Crider Inc., a chicken processing plant in Georgia, was raided by immigration agents, and 75 percent of its workforce vanished over a single weekend. Shortly after, Crider placed an ad in the local newspaper announcing job openings at higher wages. Similarly, the flood of recent news reports on abuse of the H-1B visa program shows that firms will quickly dismiss their current tech workforce when they find cheaper immigrant workers. Immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer .

26

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216


Wage stagnation is at the root of populist and Trumpian upheavals Eliott 2017Larry, March 26th, The Guardian, Populusm is the result of global economic failure, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/26/populism-is-the-result-of-global-economic-failureThe answer seems pretty simple. Populism is the result of economic failure. The 10 years since the financial crisis have shown that the system of economic governance which has held sway for the past four decades is broken. Some call this approach neoliberalism. Perhaps a better description would be unpopulism. Unpopulism meant tilting the balance of power in the workplace in favour of management and treating people like wage slaves. Unpopulism was rigged to ensure that the fruits of growth went to the few not to the many. Unpopulism decreed that those responsible for the global financial crisis got away with it while those who were innocent bore the brunt of austerity. Anybody seeking to understand why Trump won the US presidential election should take a look at what has been happening to the division of the economic spoils. The share of national income that went to the bottom 90% of the population held steady at around 66% from 1950 to 1980. It then began a steep decline, falling to just over 50% when the financial crisis broke in 2007. Similarly, it is no longer the case that everybody benefits when the US economy is doing well. During the business cycle upswing between 1961 and 1969, the bottom 90% of Americans took 67% of the income gains. During the Reagan expansion two decades later they took 20%. During the Greenspan housing bubble of 2001 to 2007, they got just two cents in every extra dollar of national income generated while the richest 10% took the rest. Those responsible for global financial crisis got away with it while those who were innocent bore the brunt of austerity The US economist Thomas Palley* says that up until the late 1970s countries operated a virtuous circle growth model in which wages were the engine of demand growth. “Productivity growth drove wage growth which fueled demand growth. That promoted full employment, which provided the incentive to invest, which drove further productivity growth,” he says. Unpopulism was touted as the antidote to the supposedly failed policies of the postwar era. It promised higher growth rates, higher investment rates, higher productivity rates and a trickle down of income from rich to poor. It has delivered none of these things. James Montier and Philip Pilkington, of the global investment firm GMO, say that the system which arose in the 1970s was characterised by four significant economic policies: the abandonment of full employment and its replacement with inflation targeting; an increase in the globalisation of the flows of people, capital and trade; a focus on shareholder maximisation rather than reinvestment and growth; and the pursuit of flexible labour markets and the disruption of trade unions and workers’ organisations.To take just the last of these four pillars, the idea was that trade unions and minimum wages were impediments to an efficient labour market. Collective bargaining and statutory pay floors would result in workers being paid more than the market rate, with the result that unemployment would inevitably rise. Unpopulism decreed that the real value of the US minimum wage should be eroded. But unemployment is higher than it was when the minimum wage was worth more. Nor is there any correlation between trade union membership and unemployment. If anything, international comparisons suggest that those countries with higher trade union density have lower jobless rates.

27

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/26/populism-is-the-result-of-global-economic-failure

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/26/populism-is-the-result-of-global-economic-failure


The countries that have higher minimum wages do not have higher unemployment rates. “Labour market flexibility may sound appealing, but it is based on a theory that runs completely counter to all the evidence we have,” Montier and Pilkington note. “The alternative theory suggests that labour market flexibility is by no means desirable as it results in an economy with a bias to stagnate that can only maintain high rates of employment and economic growth through debt-fuelled bubbles that inevitably blow up, leading to the economy tipping back into stagnation.” This quest for ever-greater labour market flexibility has had some unexpected consequences. The bill in the UK for tax credits spiralled quickly once firms realised they could pay poverty wages and let the state pick up the bill. Access to a global pool of low-cost labour meant there was less of an incentive to invest in productivity-enhancing equipment.The abysmally low levels of productivity growth since the crisis have encouraged the belief that this is a recent phenomenon, but as Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s chief economist, noted last week, the trend started in most advanced countries in the 1970s. “Certainly, the productivity puzzle is not something which has emerged since the global financial crisis, though it seems to have amplified pre-existing trends,” Haldane said. Bolshie trade unions certainly can’t be blamed for Britain’s lost productivity decade. The orthodox view in the 1970s was that attempts to make the UK more efficient were being thwarted by shop stewards who modeled themselves on Fred Kite, the character played by Peter Sellers in I’m All Right Jack. Haldane puts the blame elsewhere: on poor management, which has left the UK with a big gap between frontier firms and a long tail of laggards. “Firms which export have systematically higher levels of productivity than domestically oriented firms, on average by around a third. The same is true, even more dramatically, for foreign-owned firms. Their average productivity is twice that of domestically oriented firms.” Populism is seen as irrational and reprehensible. It is neither. It seems entirely rational for the bottom 90% of the US population to question why they are getting only 2% of income gains. It hardly seems strange that workers in Britain should complain at the weakest decade for real wage growth since the Napoleonic wars. It has also become clear that ultra-low interest rates and quantitative easing are merely sticking-plaster solutions. Populism stems from a sense that the economic system is not working, which it clearly isn’t. In any other walk of life, a failed experiment results in change. Drugs that are supposed to provide miracle cures but are proved not to work are quickly abandoned. Businesses that insist on continuing to produce goods that consumers don’t like go bust. That’s how progress happens. The good news is that the casting around for new ideas has begun. Trump has advocated protectionism. Theresa May is consulting on an industrial strategy. Montier and Pilkington suggest a commitment to full employment, job guarantees, reindustrialisation and a stronger role for trade unions. The bad news is that time is running short. More and more people are noticing that the emperor has no clothes. Even if the polls are right this time and Marine Le Pen fails to win the French presidency, a full-scale political revolt is only another deep recession away. And that’s easy enough to envisage.

Growth of populism ensures rampant protectionismJuneja 2018

28

https://www.theguardian.com/world/marine-le-pen

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/marine-le-pen-emmanuel-macron-french-elections

https://www.theguardian.com/business/quantitative-easing

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-set-for-worst-pay-growth-decade-since-the-napoleonic-wars-warns-budget-analysis-a7619811.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-set-for-worst-pay-growth-decade-since-the-napoleonic-wars-warns-budget-analysis-a7619811.html

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2017/968.aspx

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2017/968.aspx

https://www.theguardian.com/money/taxcredits

https://www.theguardian.com/money/taxcredits


Prachi, Management Study Guide, What the current wave of protectionism and populism means, https://www.managementstudyguide.com/current-wave-of-protectionism-and-populism.htmHaving said that, one must also consider the fact that if the present wave of populism and protectionism continues and picks up speed, we would not be able to predict either the direction or the speed at which it would “collide” with the waves of globalization. Indeed, the fact that there is much resentment against the bankers and globalists after the Great Recession of 2008 means that unless such grievances and anger are addressed, populism will gain strength and protectionism would gain support which can undermine free trade and globalization.

29

https://www.managementstudyguide.com/current-wave-of-protectionism-and-populism.htm

https://www.managementstudyguide.com/current-wave-of-protectionism-and-populism.htm


Protectionism spreads globally, collapsing free trade, which causes diversionary wars and oppression, nuclear proliferation, and undermines efforts to solve warming and povertyGarten 2009Jeffrey, Yale University, “The Dangers of Turning Inward”, Wall Street Journal, 3-5 http://www.business.illinois.edu/aguilera/Teaching/WSJ09_Dangers_of_Turning_Inward.pdfThe point is, economic nationalism, with its implicit autarchic and save-yourself character, embodies exactly the wrong spirit and runs in precisely the wrong direction from the global system that will be necessary to create the future we all want. As happened in the 1930s, economic nationalism is also sure to poison geopolitics. Governments under economic pressure have far fewer resources to take care of their citizens and to deal with rising anger and social tensions. Whether or not they are democracies, their tenure can be threatened by popular resentment. The temptation for governments to whip up enthusiasm for something that distracts citizens from their economic woes -- a war or a jihad against unpopular minorities, for example -- is great. That's not all. As an economically enfeebled South Korea withdraws foreign aid from North Korea, could we see an even more irrational activity from Pyongyang? As the Pakistani economy goes into the tank, will the government be more likely to compromise with terrorists to alleviate at least one source of pressure? As Ukraine strains under the weight of an IMF bailout, is a civil war with Cold War overtones between Europe and Russia be in the cards? And beyond all that, how will economically embattled and inward-looking governments be able to deal with the critical issues that need global resolution such as control of nuclear weapons, or a treaty to manage climate change, or help to the hundreds of millions of people who are now falling back into poverty?

Independently, populism causes racismRoth 2016Kenneth, Nov. 6th 2016, Human Rights Watch, The Dangerous Rise of Populism, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/dangerous-rise-of-populismIn this cauldron of discontent, certain politicians are flourishing and even gaining power by portraying rights as protecting only the terrorist suspect or the asylum seeker at the expense of the safety, economic welfare, and cultural preferences of the presumed majority. They scapegoat refugees, immigrant communities, and minorities. Truth is a frequent casualty. Nativism, xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia are on the rise.

30

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/dangerous-rise-of-populism

http://www.business.illinois.edu/aguilera/Teaching/WSJ09_Dangers_of_Turning_Inward.pdf

http://www.business.illinois.edu/aguilera/Teaching/WSJ09_Dangers_of_Turning_Inward.pdf


On Case: ArgumentsEmployment Based Visas Negative

Inherency:There is no skills shortage, people are under-employed or have stopped trying to get work. Bell and Blanchflower 2018David, and David, University of Stirling, 4/16/18, Academics blame low wage growth on underemployment, https://phys.org/news/2018-04-academics-blame-wage-growth-underemployment.htmlEmployees looking for a hike in salary have lost their bargaining power because of a rise in underemployment, according to a new paper by University of Stirling economists.Professor David Bell and Professor David Blanchflower, of the Stirling Management School, looked at the reasons wage growth has remained static despite the return of the unemployment rate to pre-recession levels. In their paper, The Lack of Wage Growth and the Falling NAIRU, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research today, they attributed this to the rise in underemployment which rose in the Great Recession but has not returned to pre-recession levels. Underemployment refers to people who are highly skilled but working in low-paying or low-skill jobs, and part-time workers who would prefer to be full time. Professor of Economics David Bell said: "There remains a puzzle around the world over why wage growth is so benign given the unemployment rate has returned to pre-recession levels."It is our contention that a considerable part of the explanation is the rise in underemployment which rose in the Great Recession but has not returned to pre-recession levels even though the unemployment rate has."Involuntary part-time employment rose in every advanced country and remains elevated in many in 2018." The academics looked at people in both full-time and part-time work who wanted to either decrease or increase their hours at the going wage rate. "Prior to 2008, our underemployment rate was below the unemployment rate," the report states. "Over the period 2001-2017 we find little change in the number of hours of workers who want fewer hours, but a big rise in the numbers wanting more hours. Underemployment reduces wage pressure."The report shows that following the Great Recession, the UK Phillips Curve – a concept in economics which says the lower the rate of unemployment, the faster wages will grow – has flattened. They also found that the UK non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) - the specific unemployment rate at which the rate of inflation stabilises – has shifted down. They conclude that despite the current low level of unemployment of 4.3 percent in the UK, this does not necessarily indicate that the country is close to full-employment.Instead they argue there is a shortfall between the volume of work desired by workers and the actual volume of work available, and that the unemployment rate may have to go lower than 3 percent before there is an equivalent up-turn in wage growth.

31

https://phys.org/tags/underemployment/

https://phys.org/tags/unemployment+rate/

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-academics-blame-wage-growth-underemployment.html

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-academics-blame-wage-growth-underemployment.html


Plan is just a way to pay American workers less, there is no labor shortageWakabayashi and Schwarz 2017Daisuke and Nelson, New York Times, 2/5/17, Not Everyone in Tech Cheers Visa Program for Foreign Workers, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/business/h-1b-visa-tech-cheers-for-foreign-workers.htmlThe H-1B program’s critics say the system provides a way for American companies to turn over technology departments to outsourcing companies. These are gaming the system to snap up the visas so they can replace American workers with less expensive, temporary staff members. A research report by Goldman Sachs estimates that 900,000 to a million H-1B visa holders now reside in the United States, and that they account for up to 13 percent of American technology jobs. In 2014, 13 outsourcing firms accounted for one-third of all H-1B visas. They use a loophole in the current first-come, first-served lottery system to flood the applicant pool with their candidates. In many cases, those candidates are paid slightly more than the $60,000-a-year minimum salary required by the program for dependent companies seeking a waiver from having to recruit Americans first — but less than what American technology workers make. Audrey Hatten-Milholin, 54, was notified in July that she would be laid off from the University of California, San Francisco, at the end of February after 17 years in its technology department. Along with eight others, she filed a complaint in November with California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, charging that replacing her and others with “significantly younger, male” workers “who will then perform the work overseas” was discriminatory. “We are at a disadvantage as Americans,” Ms. Hatten-Milholin said. “They look at it like, where can we get it cheaper? And for U.C., it’s not here.” Proponents of the H-1B system argue that it is an important vehicle to attract top talent to America. After coming to the United States, these visa holders may apply their skills to start new companies or create new, innovative products — leading to more jobs in America. The debate over who wins and who loses as a result of the H-1B visa program echoes similar discussions of how free trade helps or hurts the economy. While the benefits are spread broadly throughout the economy, the costs are much more concentrated and easy to identify. In other words, it’s true that cheaper labor helps employers increase profits and grow, and having more skilled workers in the United States contributes to economic innovation. But at the same time, individual American employees do face more salary pressure from newcomers who will work for less. And in some cases, they risk losing their jobs entirely, especially older employees who earn higher salaries.After 11 years working in the I.T. department of Northeast Utilities, a Connecticut-based company now named Eversource Energy, Craig Diangelo was among 220 employees laid off in 2014. Before leaving the company, he was told he needed to train his replacement if he wanted to receive his severance. Mr. Diangelo, who is now 64 and was receiving $130,000 a year in salary and bonus, said he trained an employee from the Indian outsourcing firm Infosys who was an H-1B visa holder making $60,000 a year. There was also a team of workers in India making $6,000 a year that shadowed him on the computer. “The problem,” he said, “is that my job is still there. I went away. The American worker went away.” A representative of Infosys declined to comment. Al Lara, a spokesman for Eversource Energy, said in a statement: “We made changes to our I.T. department three years ago during a period of transition and change to support

32

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/large-companies-game-h-1b-visa-program-leaving-smaller-ones-in-the-cold.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/business/h-1b-visa-tech-cheers-for-foreign-workers.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/business/h-1b-visa-tech-cheers-for-foreign-workers.html


the merger of our two companies while under much regulatory scrutiny. We are proud of the new I.T. organization.” Mr. Lara was referring to a merger with NStar in 2012. In other instances, the jobs are filled only temporarily by H-1B workers — before the outsourcing firm moves the job permanently to a lower-cost country. “That’s the endgame,” said Sara Blackwell, a lawyer representing former employees of Walt Disney Company, Abbott Laboratories and other companies in discrimination claims pertaining to tech-job outsourcing. Some economists are skeptical about the claimed lack of qualified workers, especially an oft-cited 500,000 open positions in technology that cannot be filled. “I’m sure employers might not have as much choice as they would like, but if the shortage story were true, we’d see wages rising more rapidly than they are,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

The Federal Government has done a lot for STEM EducationCarmichael 2017Courtney, A State By State Policy Analysis of STEM Education for K-12 Public Schools, Seton Hall University, http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=3342&context=dissertationsAlthough they differ in classification, agencies argue education should focus on STEM to meet the economic needs of the country. The federal government, therefore, has been concerned with STEM workforce readiness resulting in over $4.3 billion spent by the federal government for 255 distinct education programs with the goal of producing more STEM workers. One-third of the money has been earmarked for K-12 programs, while the rest has been distributed between on the job training and university programs (Rothwell, 2013). Educating America’s children has been paramount to promote the growth model of increasing the number of those affected by STEM education to support a competitive global marketplace. Meaningful dialogue of what was considered STEM in the workforce and in education has been productive by our education policy experts.

33

http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3342&context=dissertations

http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3342&context=dissertations

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/how-trumps-immigration-rules-will-hurt-the-us-tech-sector/515202/


Economy Advantage:

The Economy is booming now—consumer and business confidence are highSanders 2018Sarah Huckabee, Press Secretary, White House, Optimism Abounds, The American Economy is Coming Back Strong, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/optimism-abounds-american-economy-coming-back-strong/Consumer and business confidence continues to soar as President Donald J. Trump’s tax reforms and policies are helping the U.S. economy take off after eight years of stagnation.“Americans rating the economy good to excellent has surged to the highest point since former President George W. Bush took office, according to a new survey. Pew Research Center said that 53 percent rate the economy high and the best in some 18 years. ‘Americans’ views of national economic conditions continue to improve, with the share saying the economy is in good or excellent condition now at its highest point in nearly two decades,’ said Pew.” “Affordable energy and unemployment have been the issues Americans worry least about for the past two years, given low gas prices and low unemployment rates. Unemployment also tied for last in 2001…. Levels of concern about most of the issues are similar to what they were a year ago, except for the economy and unemployment. Americans’ concerns about those issues continue to decline from their high points after the Great Recession. The percentage of Americans now worried about unemployment is down 36 percentage points from the high of 59% in 2010, including a seven-point decline in the past year. Worry about the economy has dropped 37 points from its high of 71% in 2011 and 2012, with about one-third of that decline coming in the past year.” “The National Association for Business Economics projected the economy will expand 2.9 percent in 2018, compared to a 2.5 percent projection in December. ‘NABE Outlook panelists are more optimistic about the U.S. economy in 2018 than they were three months ago, especially regarding prospects for the industrial sector of the economy,’ Kevin Swift, the group’s vice president, said in a statement…. Members of the panel cited the GOP tax reductions and the cut to the corporate tax rate as upside risks, NABE noted. ” “U.S. consumers’ confidence hit a fresh 14-year high this month, as lower-income households reported feeling more optimistic about the economy. The University of Michigan on Friday said the preliminary result of its consumer-sentiment index was 102.0 in March, up from 99.7 in February.

Uniqueness: The economy is strong and resilient Chandra and Golle 2018Sho and Vince, May 1st, Bloomberg News The US Economy has hit a milestone, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-01/as-u-s-expansion-hits-endurance-milestone-here-s-what-s-nextWith the calendar’s turn from April to May, the U.S. economic expansion has become the nation’s second-longest on record. That milestone was reached as the Federal Reserve prepared to begin a two-day meeting in Washington on Tuesday. After a slow-but-steady slog over the past eight years and 10 months, most parts of the economy still look resilient. The central bank has kept borrowing costs

34

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-01/as-u-s-expansion-hits-endurance-milestone-here-s-what-s-next

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-01/as-u-s-expansion-hits-endurance-milestone-here-s-what-s-next

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/optimism-abounds-american-economy-coming-back-strong/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/optimism-abounds-american-economy-coming-back-strong/


historically low since the U.S. crawled out of a recession in mid-2009. It’s expected to leave interest rates on hold this week and plans to raise them only gradually. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump is betting on juicing growth through $1.5 trillion in tax cuts and fresh government spending.

35


Link Defense: Foreign born workers don’t have an advantage in innovationHanson and Slaughter 2016Gordon, University of California San Diego, and Matthew, Dartmouth, May, High Skilled Immigration and the Rise of STEM Occupations in US Employment, http://gps.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/hanson/hanson_publication_immigration_stem-employment.pdfWhen it comes to innovation, there appears to be nothing specialabout foreign-born workers, other than their proclivity for studying STEM disciplines in university. The National Survey of College Graduates shows that foreign-born individuals are far more likely than the native-born to obtain a patent, and more likely still to obtain a patent that is commercialized (Hunt, 2011). It is also the case that foreign-born students are substantially more likely to major in engineering, math, and the physical sciences, all elds strongly associated with later patenting. Once one controls for the major eld of study, the foreign-native born dierential in patenting disappears. Consistent with Hunt's (2011) ndings, the descriptive results we present suggest that highly educated immigrant workers in the United States have a strong revealed comparative advantage in STEM. The literature has yet to explain the origin of these specialization patterns. It could be that the immigrants the U.S. attracts are better suited for careers in innovationdue to the relative quality of foreign secondary education in STEM, selection mechanisms implicit in U.S. immigration policy, or the relative magnitude of the U.S. earnings premium for successful inventorsand therefore choose to study the subjects that prepare them for later innovative activity. Alternatively, cultural or language barriers may complicate the path of the foreign-born to obtaining good U.S. jobs in non-STEM elds, such as advertising, insurance, or law, pushing them into STEM careers.

36

http://gps.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/hanson/hanson_publication_immigration_stem-employment.pdf

http://gps.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/hanson/hanson_publication_immigration_stem-employment.pdf


Link Defense: Competitiveness isn’t the right way to look at the economy, and doing so risks protectionism and trade warsKrugman 2017Paul, March 24th, Fool’s Gold, Krugman on Competitiveness, a Dangerous Obsession, http://foolsgold.international/what-is-competitiveness-2-paul-krugman/ “Competitiveness is a meaningless word when applied to national economies.” However, in his 1994 article for Foreign Affairs, Paul Krugman took this exact same argument head on. He not only challenged the idea that nations have to compete with one another like businesses, but went as far as to argue that “competitiveness is a meaningless word when applied to national economies”. I’ll give an introduction to the main arguments of his piece, and then propose some questions that are raised of its thesis by unfolding global events. Competition is about trade – which is of limited importance. When politicians talk about national economic competitiveness, (like UK Prime Minister David Cameron and his #globalrace), they often mean exports. Krugman accepts this premise and then sets about showing why we needn’t be too concerned about it. “In an economy with very little international trade, the growth in living standards… would be determined almost entirely by domestic factors, primarily the rate of productivity growth… ‘[C]ompetitiveness’ would turn out to be a funny way of saying ‘productivity’ and would have nothing to do with international competition.” Krugman focuses on the U.S., which has a large domestic economy relative to its external trade. For economies with sizeable domestic markets, export competitiveness plays a far smaller role in determining national prosperity than politicians would have us believe. Issues of domestic economic strategy, such as productivity, are more important. Furthermore, trade surpluses are not always a sign of health. Krugman gives the example of Mexico in the 1980s, a country forced to ensure large surpluses “to pay the interest on its foreign debt since international investors refused to lend it any more money”; Mexico then began to run large trade deficits after 1990 as foreign investors recovered confidence and poured in new funds. To find modern parallels one only has to look at the UK, where the current account has been deep in deficit for nearly all of the last 30 years without a commensurate stagnation in living standards. The case of Japan today also springs to mind, as their notorious ‘Lost Decades’ accompanied a huge surplus. Ultimately, competition of the #globalrace variety is generally not as important as it’s made out to be, particularly for larger economies. Countries don’t need to compete like companies do – they are more self-reliant and they benefit much more from the success of others. Despite relying on simplifications that don’t hold much water, the idea of the nation as a business is compelling. It evokes imagery not just from the business world, but also from sports, with the whole country pulling together as a team in order to assert itself in a fierce global environment. Krugman details numerous examples of how competitiveness jargon was used to sell unpopular policies. But even today governments around the world routinely justify tax breaks for the rich, financial deregulation, attacks on labour unions and public service cuts all in the name of gaining an advantage over other national economies. “A government wedded to the ideology of competitiveness is as unlikely to make good economic policy as a government committed to creationism is to make good science policy.” Krugman argues that not only is the obsession with national competitiveness fundamentally misguided, but it is also harmful. If the principle of absolute competitiveness is internalised too

37

http://www.apple.com/

http://www.pkarchive.org/global/pop.html

http://foolsgold.international/what-is-competitiveness-2-paul-krugman/


much, it can lead to trade wars and protectionism when political leaders feel that their countries are simply unable to compete on an even playing field.

38


Link Defense: Manufacturing is too far gone, the plan won’t fix itDonnelly 2017Ellie, Nov. 24th, The Independent, Trump was wrong, manufacturing is declining, not dead, https://www.independent.ie/business/world/trump-was-wrong-us-manufacturing-is-declining-but-not-dead-36348579.htmlDonald Trump emerged as US president riding a wave of anger at the destruction of America's manufacturing base. While it's true that the US manufacturing sector is declining in importance, it still managed to generate $2.2 trillion (€1.85 trillion) in nominal value in 2015. Put into context, that is larger than the entire gross domestic product (GDP) of Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea or Russia, according to global consulting firm McKinsey & Company. Even so, the erosion of manufacturing in the United States is happening, but has played out unevenly across sectors. Over the past 20 years, output growth in US manufacturing has been concentrated in only a few industries, including pharmaceuticals, electronics, and aerospace. Larger manufacturers have managed to thrive despite growing headwinds, but small and mid-size firms have been far harder hit by the changes in the market. Reports maintain that little can be done to stop the ongoing decline of US manufacturing at the hands of globalisation and technology. However, in their 'Making it in America: Revitalising US manufacturing', McKinsey argue that continued losses in the industry are by no means a foregone conclusion. By carrying out demand projections with an analysis of specific trends in the manufacturing industry, as well as taking into consideration the historical performance of the industry, McKinsey found that the US has the potential to boost its annual manufacturing value added by up to $530bn, or 20pc, over current trends by 2025. The three ways in which this will occur are through the increase in foreign demand, improved technologies, and value adding. While domestic demand in the US for heavy machinery, equipment, and building materials may be at a 50-year low in terms of public investment, the report cites the growing demand in emerging economies such as Africa, Brazil, and India as offering an "enormous prize" for manufacturing companies that can successfully navigate the differences in these economies.

39

https://www.independent.ie/business/world/trump-was-wrong-us-manufacturing-is-declining-but-not-dead-36348579.html

https://www.independent.ie/business/world/trump-was-wrong-us-manufacturing-is-declining-but-not-dead-36348579.html


Link Defense: Manufacturing is perceived as dirty and dangerous—perception prevents solvencyKim 2017Anne, August 2017, Progressive Policy Institute, Trade Vistas, A shortage of skilled workers threatens manufacturing’s rebound. https://tradevistas.csis.org/shortage-skilled-workers-threatens-rebound/While employers in a variety of sectors have complained of a “skills gap” in the current workforce – leading some to question its true extent – the manufacturing skills gap is unique. For one thing, continuing negative public perceptions of manufacturing job – as dirty, dangerous, and with low job security – are a major reason why the talent pool remains small. “The general public is very supportive of manufacturing – in the abstract,” says Gardner Carrick, Vice President of Strategic Initiatives at the Manufacturing Institute. “[People] understand the multiplier effect that comes with manufacturing and want the jobs in their backyard – just not for them or their families.” The Manufacturing Institute’s study, for example, reports that just 37 percent of parents would encourage their children to pursue careers in manufacturing, and 52 percent of teens say they have no interest in manufacturing jobs. Meanwhile, the average wage of manufacturing workers in 2013 was $77,506, and most manufacturing jobs now require some sort of post-secondary credential. Changing public perceptions to match the modern realities of U.S. manufacturing will be critical to addressing the worker shortage, Carrick says, especially among millennials. Also important: rebuilding a pipeline of potential recruits through high school and career technical programs.This interview has been edited for length and clarity. How are today’s manufacturing jobs different from the past? Carrick: Manufacturing jobs have certainly changed compared to what they were a generation or two ago and what the perception of them may still be.

40

http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/827DBC76533942679A15EF7067A704CD.ashx

http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/827DBC76533942679A15EF7067A704CD.ashx

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/01/09/is-the-skills-gap-real/

https://tradevistas.csis.org/shortage-skilled-workers-threatens-rebound/


Solvency Deficit: Plan turns power over the government bureaucrats instead of the businesses. Maurer 2017Roy, August 11th, Society for Human Resource Management, RAISE ACT Reduces Employer Role in Employment Based Immigration, https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/raise-act-employment-immigration-trump.aspxEmployers would have much less control over the selection of foreign workers who immigrate to the United States under a Senate bill that creates a "merit-based" points system for awarding employment-based green cards. President Donald Trump announced his support Aug. 2 for the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act, introduced by Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and David Perdue, R-Ga. The legislation makes major cuts to family-sponsored immigration, eliminates the diversity visa program and caps refugee admissions, but the proposed overhaul of the way employment-based visas are allocated would impact workforce planners the most. The United States took in over 1 million legal immigrants in 2015. The RAISE Act would reduce that number by about 50 percent within 10 years, according to Sen. Cotton's office. Prospects for the bill's passage are slim as Democrats and some Republicans are expected to oppose it, but a merit-based points framework is likely to be included in future immigration reform efforts from both political parties. Lynn Shotwell, executive director of the Council for Global Immigration (CFGI), an Alexandria, Va.-based advocacy group for employers that sponsor high-skilled foreign workers and an affiliate of the Society for Human Resource Management, said she recognizes that the U.S. employment-based immigration system needs to be reformed but believes that the RAISE Act is the wrong approach. "Congress and the [Trump] administration must recognize that employers are best able to determine their skills and workforce needs, not bureaucrats driving a points-based system," she said. "The current employment-based green card preference system is an effective framework for identifying and prioritizing the best-qualified talent for employers. What it does not do is provide employers with enough green cards to access and retain that talent."The RAISE Act does not increase the number of employer-sponsored green cards, which have been capped at 140,000 annually since the system was created in 1990. And it would continue to count dependent spouses and minor children against the 140,000 cap, leaving roughly half of available green cards for the selected workers. Per-country quotas for employment-based visas would no longer apply, which would theoretically favor high-skilled nationals from India and China who currently face long backlogs. Currently, no country can receive more than 7 percent of the green cards in any capped preference category. The most significant change for employers under the proposal would be removing them from a critical part of the process—companies currently select and sponsor these foreign workers for specific roles—and transferring to the government the responsibility of selecting the most-qualified applicants.

41

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/raise-act-employment-immigration-trump.aspx

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/raise-act-employment-immigration-trump.aspx


Diversionary Wars aren’t effectiveTierney 2017Dominic, June 15th, 2017, The Atlantic, The Risks of Foreign policy as Political Distraction, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/trump-diversionary-foreign-policy/530079/But diversionary uses of force are highly risky, and can just as easily exacerbate domestic problems. In 1982, the military regime in Argentina invaded the British Falkland Islands in a bid to overcome its deep unpopularity at home. U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig later wrote that there “was a widespread impression that the junta was creating a foreign distraction to give itself a respite from domestic economic problems, including severe inflation.” Crucially, the regime never intended to wage a war. Buenos Aires was certain that Britain wouldn’t fight for a few islands 8,000 miles away. But Margaret Thatcher was indeed ready for a fight; Argentina lost the war, and the junta was soon kicked out of office. The benefits of a diversionary foreign policy rarely last. A president may win a news cycle or two, but then people move on. In 1998, Clinton received a short-term political boost from the airstrikes, but the House of Representatives still went ahead and voted to issue Articles of Impeachment. The strikes in Afghanistan failed to kill Osama Bin Laden, and may have brought the Taliban and al Qaeda closer together. The real victor was Wag the Dog’s production house, Baltimore Pictures: In the wake of the U.S. attack, video rentals of the movie skyrocketed.In the end, diversion is a fool’s errand, offering fleeting political benefit and inviting very real risks. It’s no substitute for a foreign policy based on protecting national interests and values. Of course, the attraction of a risky wager depends on how weak a president is, domestically.

Diversionary War Theory is wrongOakes 2012Amy, Professor, William and Mary University, Diversionary War, Pg 12However, scholarship is divided about whether leaders initiate diversionary wars—that is, provoke crisis abroad to distract the public from problems at home. There is a lack of consensus regarding the strength, or even the existence of a relationship between domestic and international conflict. This has been prompted some to liken the study of the relationship between internal and external state conflict to the quest for the Holy Grail “Many have searched for it, the search has taken place over a long period of time, and in diverse research areas. Its location has been the subject of many theories, and its existence has been the source of continued debate.

42

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9808/24/wag.the.dog/index.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=Byp5AAAAMAAJ&q=

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/trump-diversionary-foreign-policy/530079/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/trump-diversionary-foreign-policy/530079/


US Tech Leadership is high and inevitable—China is aging and technology makes large populations a burden instead of a benefitRogoff 2018Kenneth, April 3rd, Boston Globe, Will China really supplant US Economic Dominance? https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/04/02/will-china-really-supplant-economic-dominance/TX59ykkgmpVuJBKGyMbvhK/story.htmlAS CHINA and the United States engage in their latest trade tussle, most economists take it as given that China will achieve global economic supremacy in the long run, no matter what happens now. After all, with four times as many people as the United States, and a determined program to catch up after centuries of technological stagnation, isn’t it inevitable that China will decisively take over the mantle of economic hegemon? I am not so sure. Many who see China’s huge labor force as a decisive advantage also worry that robots and artificial intelligence will eventually take away the majority of jobs, leaving most humans to while away their time engaged in leisure activities. And if robots and AI are the dominant drivers of production in the coming century, perhaps having too large a population to care for — especially one that needs to be controlled through limits on Internet and information access — will turn out to be more of a hindrance for China. The rapid aging of China’s population exacerbates the challenge.

US Economic Power is no longer global leaderLayne 2017Chris, August 8th, The American Conservative, Is the United States in Decline? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-united-states-in-decline/The Great Recession impaired the United States’ ability to provide leadership for the international economy. After all, an economic hegemon is supposed to solve global economic crises, not cause them. But America plunged the world into economic crisis when its financial system seized up with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. A hegemon is supposed to be the lender of last resort in the international economy, but the United States became the borrower of first resort—the world’s largest debtor. When the global economy falters, the economic hegemon must assume responsibility for kick-starting recovery by purchasing other nations’ goods. From 1945 to the Great Recession, America’s willingness to consume foreign goods constituted the primary firewall against global economic downturns. During the Great Recession, however, the U.S. economy proved too infirm to lead the global economy back to health. At the April 2009 G20 meeting in London, President Barack Obama conceded that, in key respects, the United States’ days as economic hegemon were numbered because America is too deeply in debt to continue as the world’s consumer of last resort. Instead, he said, the world would have to look to China (and other emerging market states plus Germany) to be the motors of global recovery.

43

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-united-states-in-decline/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/04/02/will-china-really-supplant-economic-dominance/TX59ykkgmpVuJBKGyMbvhK/story.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/04/02/will-china-really-supplant-economic-dominance/TX59ykkgmpVuJBKGyMbvhK/story.html


Shifts in international power don’t cause conflictMcKinney 2016Jared, London School of Economics, “Four Questions for the “Improbable War””, Asian Security, 12:1, 53-61, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14799855.2016.1140642Significant shifts in state power are often said to cause wars. Such wars can be initiated either by the rising power or the declining power. The first sort of war is supposed to happen when the rising state’s ambitions expand along with its power, bringing it into conflict with status quo states. Imperial Japan is an example: modernization led to power, power led to insecurity and ambition, insecurity and ambition led to conquest, conquest led to confrontation with all the powers of the region—China, Russia, Britain, and America. The second sort of war is supposed to happen when a hegemon sees its influence waning, threatened by the growth of a rising power. Fearful for its position and security, the hegemon seeks to “strangle the baby in the cradle.” Prominent examples of such preventive wars are said to include the growth of Athenian power in the fifth century BC, which led to the Peloponnesian War,17 and the growth of Russian power in the twentieth century AD, which led to Germany’s acceptance of war in 1914.18 The logic of power transitions, therefore, can give both the rising and the status quo power incentives for war, making such historical periods particularly perilous.19 Speaking purely logically, however, should a power shift actually increase the probability of conflict? Chan says no: These shifts should only affect the relative bargaining power of the relevant disputants. The side gaining power should now be able to demand more concessions, and the side suffering a decline should come under pressure to make more. This change should not in itself alter the probability that the two sides will be able to conclude an agreement … . It should only affect the terms of a prospective settlement. At best, those who imply or propose that power shifts influence the probability of conflict occurrence or recurrence have an incomplete story. There are missing links in their argument requiring theoretical explication and empirical confirmation… . If both sides recognize and agree on the power shifts that have occurred, why can’t they reach an accommodation reflecting these changes?20 The cause of war is hence not the shift in power , but the typical responses of leaders to such a shift: “denial, anxiety, arrogance, overconfidence, disappointment, and even panic.” 21 Conceived this way, a power shift is a necessary but insufficient cause for war . Shifting power creates an environment congenial to the flourishing of cognitive and emotional biases. If statesmen acted as perfectly rational actors, they would adjust the prevailing order as power moved: the status quo state would make concessions to the rising power commensurate to the rate of the latter’s growing power.22 The problem is that statesmen are not the rational actors of political science models.

44

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14799855.2016.1140642


Trump destroyed what was left of US international leadershipCohen 2017Eliot, Oct. 2017 Johns Hopkins University, The Atlantic, How Trump is ending the American Era, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/is-trump-ending-the-american-era/537888/Trump was right that he inherited a mess. In January 2017, American foreign policy was, if not in crisis, in big trouble. Strong forces were putting stress on the old global political order: the rise of China to a power with more than half the productive capacity of the United States (and defense spending to match); the partial recovery of a resentful Russia under a skilled and thuggish autocrat; the discrediting of Western elites by the financial crash of 2008, followed by roiling populist waves, of which Trump himself was part; a turbulent Middle East; economic dislocations worldwide. An American leadership that had partly discredited itself over the past generation compounded these problems. The Bush administration’s war against jihadist Islam had been undermined by reports of mistreatment and torture; its Afghan campaign had been inconclusive; its invasion of Iraq had been deeply compromised by what turned out to be a false premise and three years of initial mismanagement. The Obama administration’s policy of retrenchment (described by a White House official as “leading from behind”) made matters worse. The United States was generally passive as a war that caused some half a million deaths raged in Syria. The ripples of the conflict reached far into Europe, as some 5 million Syrians fled the country. A red line about the use of chemical weapons turned pale pink and vanished, as Iran and Russia expanded their presence and influence in Syria ever more brazenly. A debilitating freeze in defense spending, meanwhile, left two-thirds of U.S. Army maneuver brigades unready to fight and Air Force pilots unready to fly in combat. These circumstances would have caused severe headaches for a competent and sophisticated successor. Instead, the United States got a president who had unnervingly promised a wall on the southern border (paid for by Mexico), the dismantlement of long-standing trade deals with both competitors and partners, a closer relationship with Vladimir Putin, and a ban on Muslims coming into the United States. Some of these and Trump’s other wild pronouncements were quietly walked back or put on hold after his inauguration; one defense of Trump is that his deeds are less alarming than his words. But diplomacy is about words, and many of Trump’s words are profoundly toxic. Foreign leaders have begun to reshape alliances, bypassing and diminishing the United States. Trump seems incapable of restraining himself from insulting foreign leaders. His slogan “America First” harks back to the isolationists of 1940, and foreign leaders know it. He can read speeches written for him by others, as he did in Warsaw on July 6, but he cannot himself articulate a worldview that goes beyond a teenager’s bluster. He lays out his resentments, insecurities, and obsessions on Twitter for all to see, opening up a gold mine to foreign governments seeking to understand and manipulate the American president.

45

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/is-trump-ending-the-american-era/537888/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/is-trump-ending-the-american-era/537888/


Science Diplomacy Advantage:Science Diplomacy happening nowMoedas 2017Carlos, European Commission, 10/11/17 World Science Forum, Science Diplomacy to Strengthen Governance and Build Enduring Relationships https://worldscienceforum.org/programme/2017-11-10-science-diplomacy-to-strengthen-governance-and-build-enduring-relationships-38While international science cooperation has long served the interests of science, there is increasing interest and focus on the role of science to promote diplomatic interests. These may serve a country’s own direct interests which will depend on a country’s size, geopolitics and state of development – for example, in projecting a country’s reputation and influence, for promoting trade, for attracting scientific expertise and knowhow, and for technology access. Science diplomacy may also be necessary to promote common cross-border interests in areas such as environmental or resource management or in disaster or crisis management. Science diplomacy’s essential role in vital global agendas, as reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals, or in the management of the ungoverned spaces of the planet (such as the polar regions, deep oceans and space) further emphasises how central science diplomacy is to the theme of Science for Peace.

Science Diplomacy fails—can’t overcome inner-state issues, and gets lost amid bigger issuesAli 2010Saleem University of Vermont, Science Diplomacy in South Asia, http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000181Unfortunately, the context of science in South Asian relations has been overwhelmed by competitive defense technologies. While art and music groups are frequently allowed to cross borders between India and Pakistan for performances, scientists have a much more difficult time. In 2007, the U.S. National Science Foundation supported a series of collaborative workshops between Pakistani and Indian environmental scientists, but both countries were resistant to grant visas and the organizers were forced to arrange separate domestic meetings and one joint meeting in Kathmandu, Nepal, where neither side needed a visa. Moreover, the goal of collaborative fieldwork still eludes us. Even though environmental scientists have little interest in nuclear secrets, the perception of scientists as a security risk remains strong on both sides.

46

http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000181

https://worldscienceforum.org/programme/2017-11-10-science-diplomacy-to-strengthen-governance-and-build-enduring-relationships-38

https://worldscienceforum.org/programme/2017-11-10-science-diplomacy-to-strengthen-governance-and-build-enduring-relationships-38


Science Diplomacy is terrible—destroys credibility of scienceLempinen 2009Edward, AAAS, http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0629london.shtmlAnd during the two days in London, talks returned several times to concerns that the term "science diplomacy," however appealing, conceals a number of risks. If, in conventional diplomacy, "some economy with the truth" may occur, Beddington said pointedly, "this is a problem for science." Fedoroff, too, urged that the integrity of science not be compromised for diplomatic gain. But both advisers made clear that science diplomacy has much potential for constructive impact. "Science and scientific diplomacy at every level are enormously important in filling in the knowledge chasm dividing the rich and the poor," Fedoroff said. In fact, speakers said, science diplomacy has a number of meanings and can take place on a variety of channels. The conventions and protocols built into the scientific enterprise could help manage risks, speakers suggested. In a talk to the conference, Jun Yanagi, director of the International Science Cooperation Division in Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, laid out four dimensions of science diplomacy: using science and technology as tools of diplomacy; diplomacy used to advance science and technology projects; diplomacy based on science and research results; and science and technology as a source of "soft power," the concept developed by scholar Joseph Nye and others. Nordin differentiated between "high" politics, where the state and military are engaged on high-priority issues, and "low" politics, which features lower-level political figures and non-governmental parties working on less urgent issues. When new ideas and values are introduced into the sphere of low politics, he said, they can eventually take root and expand into the realm of high politics. "I call upon science societies in both the Western and Muslim world to explore the advantages of low politics science cooperation," he said. Norman P. Neureiter, senior adviser to the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy, acknowledged the need for semantic nuance. To some people the word "diplomacy" implies government involvement and the use of science for a government's political purposes, Neureiter said. The term "soft power" has the word "power" in it, and that may not be the best way to characterize engagement when relations between countries are strained. And while science "engagement" has an appeal, Neureiter learned from talking to military people that "engagement" connotes military action. Neureiter's solution: "For now, I am going to stick with 'science diplomacy'—the employment of science for building better relationships throughout the world."

47

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0629london.shtml


Answer to 2AC Social Security Argument

Economic Growth Solves Social SecurityJohnson and Smith 2016Richard and Karen, Feb. 5th, The Urban Institute, Can Economic Growth really fix Social Security? https://www.urban.org/2016-analysis/can-economic-growth-really-fix-social-securityRepublican candidate Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses this week. But during a debate last month, he offered a painless solution for Social Security: “Here's the fact. Four percent economic growth, we fully fund Social Security and Medicare. Our problem is not that Social Security is just too generous to seniors. It isn't. Our problem is that our politicians have not created the kind of policies that would bring economic growth.”Some left-leaning commentators have made the same argument. Strong economic growth would raise earnings, which would boost payroll tax revenue going to Social Security, eliminating the need to cut benefits or raise taxes. Is the solution really that easy? Unfortunately, it isn’t. Four percent growth year after year is unrealistic. It’s been more than 40 years since we last completed even 10 years of 4 percent average annual growth (in inflation-adjusted dollars). And back in the early 1970s, the labor force was growing more than 2 percent a year as the baby boomers were coming of age and many women were entering the workplace. It’s going to be a lot harder to achieve that growth over the coming decades when the labor force is projected to increase only 0.5 percent a year. But let’s say we could somehow turbocharge worker productivity enough to achieve average real economic growth of 3.4 percent a year indefinitely (and even higher rates in the short-term as we continue to recover from the Great Recession), instead of the 2.1 percent long-term rate that the Social Security trustees assume. This is optimistic, but it did happen between 1995 and 2005 (albeit when the labor force was growing more rapidly than today). Let’s assume that all of this additional growth results from higher productivity, instead of by expanding the labor force through more immigration or higher employment rates, and that it raises earnings uniformly for all workers. Crunching the numbers with DYNASIM, Urban Institute’s projection tool, we find that such economic growth would in fact significantly improve Social Security’s long-run balance sheet, pushing back by three decades the date when the system could no longer pay full benefits, from 2035 to 2064.

48

https://www.urban.org/node/65851

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2015/2015_Long-Range_Economic_Assumptions.pdf

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2015/V_B_econ.html#189335

http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/phony-crisis-excerpt.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/14/transcript-fox-business-undercard-republican-debate

https://www.urban.org/2016-analysis/can-economic-growth-really-fix-social-security

https://www.urban.org/2016-analysis/can-economic-growth-really-fix-social-security


Espionage Disadvantage 1NC:

Espionage is a threat to our national security and can penetrate the foundations of our economy, turning the caseDNI 2011Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a government agency. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-what-we-do/ncsc-threat-assessments-mission/ncsc-economic-espionageAmerica's adversaries throughout history have routinely taken their competitive efforts beyond the battlefield. They frequently avoid using standing armies, shirk traditional spy circles, and go after the heart of what drives American prosperity and fuels American might. Nazi spies during World War II tried to penetrate the secrets behind our aviation technology, just as Soviet spies in the Cold War targeted our nuclear and other military secrets. Today, foreign intelligence services, criminals, and private sector spies are focused on American industry and the private sector. These adversaries use traditional intelligence tradecraft against vulnerable American companies, and they increasingly view the cyber environment—where nearly all important business and technology information now resides—as a fast, efficient, and safe way to penetrate the foundations of our economy. Their efforts compromise intellectual property, trade secrets, and technological developments that are critical to national security. Espionage against the private sector increases the danger to long-term U.S. prosperity. Without corrective action that mobilizes the expertise of both the Federal Government and the private sector, the technologies cultivated by American minds and within American universities are at risk of becoming the plunder of competing nations at the expense of long-term U.S. security.

And high skilled immigration are the biggest threatsGentzel 2017 https://theconsequentialist.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/strategic-high-skill-immigration/Increased high skill immigration may increase risks from espionage With modern espionage, there is a lot of data which can be of value to states, so in addition to having small numbers of high fidelity spies, sending countries can try to encourage large numbers of their departing citizens to make plausibly deniable efforts and small leaks to benefit their home countries, especially with grad students. With such incomplete information, marginal leaks can sometimes have increasing rather than decreasing marginal value to spying states, so the success of espionage may actually increase with increased immigration. Though it can be hard to calculate the impact of espionage, it was estimated that espionage sped up the Soviet Nuclear program by 1 year. With other technologies that might not require so much infrastructure, espionage seems likely to speed up the development of strategically relevant technologies for trailing countries significantly more. Espionage is likely one of the greatest risks from high skill immigration, as it has been one of the best means for countries behind in an arms race to catch up directly, and may also lead to understanding that incentivizes tech racing.

49

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-015-0590-y

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Soviet_nuclear_program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs#Value_of_Fuchs.27s_data_to_the_Soviet_project

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/03/%E2%80%98spy-schools-how-cia-fbi-and-foreign-intelligence-secretly-exploit-america%E2%80%99s

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/03/%E2%80%98spy-schools-how-cia-fbi-and-foreign-intelligence-secretly-exploit-america%E2%80%99s

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-what-we-do/ncsc-threat-assessments-mission/ncsc-economic-espionage

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-what-we-do/ncsc-threat-assessments-mission/ncsc-economic-espionage


2NC/1NR Extensions

Foreign graduate students are keyWright 2018Morgan, 4/29/18, The Hill, Former State Department Anti-Terrorism Adviser, To Stop China’s technology theft, the US needs a ‘people warfare’ strategy’ http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/385379-to-stop-chinas-technology-theft-the-us-needs-a-people-warfare-strategyThe numbers alone should cause concern. Of the over one million foreign students attending a university, around 350,000 are Chinese according to the Institute of International Education. And what are they focused on? Two of the most highly-sought after technologies; artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics. This isn’t solely about economic power. Future battlefields, armies and weapons will depend on who has the superior technology. China has made it abundantly clear they want to have global domination in these domains within a decade. Michael Wessel is the chairman of the congressional U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission. In his April 11, 2018 written testimony, Wessel addressed the “foreign nations’ exploitation of U.S. academic institutions for the purpose of accessing and exfiltrating valuable science and technology research and development.” Our own government is complicit in facilitating acts of espionage by funding research into the very labs when a high percentage of the researchers are Chinese. Wessel documented two notable instances for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. “The Berkeley Artificial Intelligence Research (BAIR) Lab at the University of California at Berkeley is a leading AI facility working on advanced computer vision, machine learning, natural language processing and robotics. Roughly 20 percent of the PhD students at BAIR are PRC nationals.” “The University of Maryland’s Bing Nano Research Group works on materials science, focusing on energy storage, nano-manufacturing and biomaterials. Thirty of the 38 post-doctoral researchers and graduate students are from China. Every one of the visiting researchers and professors utilizing ‘J’ visas are from China.” Incredibly, this very lab receives support from 15 different federal agencies, including “NASA, DARPA, The Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the Department of Energy.” This is the very definition of a self-inflicted wound. Actually, it’s more like self-inflicted stupidity. On the one hand, the director of National Intelligence and The FBI director are sounding the alarm of China’s overt attempts to influence and commit espionage through the Confucius Institutes. On the other, our own government is funding the very brain drain we’re trying to stop. This isn’t confined to the academic space.

Cyber threat is hype, the threat is still in person theftYeh 2016Brian, April 22nd, Congressional Research Service https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43714.pdfWhile cyber-enabled methods of trade secret theft are getting increased attention from the federal government,97 it is important to realize that many actors (foreign intelligence services, corporate competitors, transnational criminal organizations) “still rely on physical means such as recruitment of

50

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43714.pdf

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43714.pdf

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY21/20180411/108175/HHRG-115-SY21-Wstate-WesselM-20180411.pdf

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY21/20180411/108175/HHRG-115-SY21-Wstate-WesselM-20180411.pdf

https://www.uscc.gov/Commission_Members/michael-r-wessel

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article199929429.html

http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/385379-to-stop-chinas-technology-theft-the-us-needs-a-people-warfare-strategy

http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/385379-to-stop-chinas-technology-theft-the-us-needs-a-people-warfare-strategy


insiders and placement of agents within companies for purposes of stealing critical data.”98 The motivation for trade secret theft varies, with some perpetrators “seek[ing] personal financial gain, while others hope to advance national interests or political and social causes.”99

51


India Brain Drain Disadvantage 1NC

US Immigration policies have lured talent from India, hurting their economic growthMukunthan and Nagaraj 2017Athreya and Eashwar, 7/15/17, The Quint, The Great Indian Brain Drain and Nothing to Come Back To https://www.thequint.com/voices/blogs/india-brain-drain-and-no-jobsOver the years, millions of young talented Indians from various disciplines have left our soil in search of better opportunities. This is what is termed as “Brain Drain” and policymakers have been grappling with this issue for a long time. It is well known that the consequences of brain drain are severe, especially for a developing economy like ours. It adversely affects the quality and quantity of human capital formation, which is the bedrock of modern economic development. A higher number of Indian students, professionals, doctors, and scientists are working abroad now than ever before. On the other hand, the money they are sending back to our country (as remittances) is declining. There is an urgent need to revisit the problem and find new and innovative solutions to reverse the trend quickly. Fall in Remittances One of the arguments used as a shield against the critique of brain drain is that it brings in money to our country, especially directly into the households, as remittances. The fact, however, is that in recent years the outward migration has increased and remittances have fallen. The US can be considered a reliable sample when gauging brain drain because over half of all emigrants from India settle down in the States. It is the number one destination for high-skilled emigrants from most developing countries in Asia, including China, South Korea and Vietnam.

52

https://www.thequint.com/voices/blogs/india-brain-drain-and-no-jobs


But Trump’s policies are causing skilled Indian workers to return home, reversing the problem now, without the planSataline 2017Suzanne, Sept. 22nd, 2017, Foreign Policy, Trump has Started a Brain Drain Back to India, https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/22/trump-has-started-a-brain-drain-back-to-india/In the president’s short time in office, his promises and policies — from the “Muslim ban” to a directive that may alter who gets a work visa — have convinced many foreign nationals that they are not welcome. For many of the 2.4 million Indian nationals living in the United States, including roughly 1 million who are scientists and engineers, the fears are existential; although roughly 45 percent are naturalized citizens, hundreds of thousands still depend on impermanent visas that must be periodically renewed. Changes in the U.S. skilled visa scheme could trigger large economic and intellectual losses, especially in states with many South Asian residents such as California and New Jersey. Some foreign nationals there wonder if Trump’s policies will trigger an Indian brain drain. Since Trump’s election, the number of Indian-born residents in the United States searching for jobs back in India has climbed more than tenfold , consulting firm Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu found. Six hundred people were searching in December, and the number spiked in March to 7,000. Four out of 10 U.S. colleges say they’ve seen a sharp drop in international applicants for the fall term, especially among applicants from India and China, the top sources for international students. Nearly 167,000 Indians studied at American colleges in the 2015-2016 school year. Some graduates from Indian colleges have considered setting out for Canada, which is wooing tech workers, or heading to Europe. Personal safety fears are driving decisions, as well. After a white U.S. Navy veteran shot two Indian engineers in Kansas in February, killing one, Indian newspapers ran news coverage of the story and editorials for days. The vet had angrily questioned the pair about their visa status. This year, the number of people applying for a high-skilled worker visa, the H-1B, dropped for the first time in four years — from 236,000 last year to 199,000, the government reported. Attorneys sensed that Trump’s travel ban and vows to tighten vetting procedures have unnerved petitioners.

53

https://www.wsj.com/articles/h-1b-visa-applications-drop-1492472611

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/world/asia/at-a-funeral-pyre-in-india-anger-over-a-shooting-in-kansas.html

https://thewire.in/124671/declining-numbers-show-indian-students-are-wary-of-heading-to-trumps-usa/

https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/Leading-Places-of-Origin

https://thewire.in/124671/declining-numbers-show-indian-students-are-wary-of-heading-to-trumps-usa/

http://www.livemint.com/Industry/syJFH0ErPmRiHiXUykq4DM/As-US-visa-troubles-deepen-more-Indians-look-to-come-back.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-h1b-tech/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/22/trump-has-started-a-brain-drain-back-to-india/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/22/trump-has-started-a-brain-drain-back-to-india/


And Indian economic growth reduces the risk of Indo-Pakistan Conflict Mamoon and Murshed 2010Dawood and Mansoob, University of Birmingham, Centre for the Study of Civil War, “The conflict mitigating effects of trade in the India-Pakistan case” Econonmics and Government, 11(145), http://www.springerlink.com/content/4736rl34w118q532/fulltext.pdfHowever, if India is able to export or import more, this would at least put a check on any rise in the severity of conflict and hostilities would adjust to some average level. Any decline in Indian trade will enhance hostilities. The current low levels of bilateral trade between Pakistan and India is conflict enhancing, so more trade with increased exports by both sides to each other should be encouraged. More access to Pakistani markets on the Indian side may not lead to conflict mitigation if Pakistan is not able toalso export more to India. A rise in education expenditure puts a check on hostilities, as seen in Graph 1e. Graph 1f is the standard representation of India-Pakistan conflict, and not only best fits historical trends but also explain the rationale behind recent India-Pakistan peace initiatives with decreasing hostilities when not only India but Pakistan also has had economic growth rates as high as 7% per annum. The forecasts suggest that conflict will rise, even if there is a significant increase in combined democracy scores, if growth rates plummet. Both Pakistan and India have seen many such years, when hostilities between both countries rose significantly when at least one of the countries is performing poorly, but were channeling more resources on the military as a proportion of their GDPs. The forecasts favour the economic version over the democratic version of the liberal peace. Thus one may look at current peace talks between both countries with optimism as both are performing well on the economic front and channeling fewer resources on the military as a proportion of national income, while at the same time having a divergent set of political institutions, though recently Pakistan has edged towards greater democracy with elections in February 2008.

Brain drain hurts foreign economiesRegets 2001Mark, National Science Foundation, Innovative People Mobility of Skilled Personnel in National Innovation Systems, OECD Pg 243A loss of productive capacity due to the, at least temporary, loss of highly skilled workers and students is the most discussed negative effect of high skilled migration on sending countries. This “brain drain” has been an issue not just for countries, but for any area whose educated natives migrate—in the United States, rural states often worry about the products of their state universities moving to other parts of the United States where their skills are in greater demand. In addition to the direct affects on availability of high skilled labor, another consequence of highly educated workers leaving a country may be a reduction in political support for funding higher education.

54

http://www.springerlink.com/content/4736rl34w118q532/fulltext.pdf


2NC/1NR Extensions:Brain Drain Back to Indian NowVillaruel and Mirasol 2017Jemimah and Jeremy, “Boosting Growth Through Reverse Brain Drain: India’s Know-how,” http://www.fsi.gov.ph/boosting-growth-through-reverse-brain-drain-indias-know-how/In migration discourse, brain drain is considered a ubiquitous phenomenon. Brain drain refers to the international transfer of resources in the form of human capital, i.e., the migration of relatively highly educated individuals mostly from developing to developed countries. This phenomenon is deemed challenging as it leads to talent deficit in the countries of origin. A common argument about brain drain is that many migrants from less developed countries are the very ones that these countries can least afford to lose: the highly educated and skilled. This contributes to the constraints on the future economic progress of the developing countries. As such, although it is the right of every person to migrate, international labor migration can be seen as a zero-sum game. Conversely, there are returning migrants with accumulated knowledge, expertise and skills, which are deemed potential contributions to the development and growth of the source country. This phenomenon is called “reverse brain drain.” Policymakers and business groups would do well to provide more opportunities to entice migrants to return and use their skills at home. States recognize the substantial contribution of migrants to the economy through remittances or direct investments. Migrants can also play a crucial role in opening opportunities for dialogues between host and home country, which can aid in crafting foreign policies. In this vein, India’s experience in reverse brain drain is instructive, especially for developing countries with a large diaspora like the Philippines. The tiger’s allure India is known to have the largest diaspora with around 30 million Indians scattered outside the country. Some of these migrants, especially the highly skilled, pursue higher education or conduct research in premier educational institutions and in sophisticated laboratories not available back home. Others are drawn by the prospect of a better standard of living and entrepreneurial opportunities. For these reasons, many Indian migrants were often viewed with suspicion or even resentment by fellow Indians, perceiving their migration as abandonment of motherland. But as history has shown, a significant paradigm shift in policies related to the Indian diaspora – from India’s first Prime Minister Jawajarlal Nehru, who declared that ethnic Indians who chose to live abroad should consider themselves as citizens of their host country, to that of former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, who facilitated drastic economic reforms that allowed the Indian diaspora to participate in the Indian economy. With India bullish on expanding its economy, recent developments suggest that it is now experiencing reverse brain drain. Indian professionals trained and based in the US are returning in increasing numbers to take advantage of the country’s upward economic trajectory and concomitant employment opportunities in the field of science, technology and innovation (STI). This group of returnees are established professionals with valuable work experience and entrepreneurial skills and is a resource that is welcomed by the Indian government. Most of them have access to global networks and venture capital.

55

http://www.fsi.gov.ph/boosting-growth-through-reverse-brain-drain-indias-know-how/

http://www.fsi.gov.ph/boosting-growth-through-reverse-brain-drain-indias-know-how/


That collapses the Indian economy – they’re uniquely vulnerable to loss of human capital Srinivasan 2011Rajesh, Gallup Regional Director “Who Wants to Leave India?; A certain percentage of Indian adults would like to leave the country permanently if they could. What would this migration mean for India's economyDr. Srinivasan: I don't think so. The government knows the number of Indian citizens leaving and the number coming back. What they don't know is what proportion of the larger citizenry would want to leave if they had the opportunity. And because there are limits to how many people actually leave, both based on demand -- conditions outside the country -- and supply -- migration control within the country -- the government hasn't had as much to be concerned about. Now, if borders were open and labor mobility was completely free, if people could go anywhere they wanted to, it would be a different story. Even if you're only talking about the 5% of adults who want to leave, losing them all would pose a significant challenge, particularly when you look at the educated group. And the government knows that while many have expressed a desire to leave, they can't. However, the downside of being complacent -- assuming it won't happen, so we don't have to do anything about it -- is that many of the people who want to leave but can't are essentially disengaged or unproductive, or they just haven't realized their true potential as employees or citizens, wherever they are.

Weakening Indian growth risks Indo-Pak nuclear war and collapse of the global economy Bouton 2010Marshall, Chicago Council on Global Affairs, “America’s Interests in India”, CNAS Working Paper, October, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_USInterestsinIndia_ Bouton.pdfIn South Asia, the most immediately compelling U.S. interest is preventing terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland originating in or facilitated by actors in South Asia, particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. To avert that possibility, the United States also has an interest in the stability and development of both countries. At the same time, the United States has a vital interest in preventing conflict between Pakistan and India, immediately because such a conflict would do great damage to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan (such as the diversion of Pakistani military attention away from the insurgency) and because it would pose the severe risk of nuclear escalation. Finally, the United States has an interest in peace and stability in South Asia as a whole. Instability and violence in nearly every one of India’s neighbors, not to mention in India itself, could, if unchecked, undermine economic and political progress, potentially destabilizing the entire region. At present, a South Asia dominated by a politically stable and economically dynamic India is a hugely important counterweight to the prevalent instability and conflict all around India’s periphery. Imagining the counterfactual scenario, a South Asian region, including India, that is failing economically and stumbling politically, is to imagine instability on a scale that would have global consequences, including damage to the global economy, huge dislocations of people and humanitarian crisis,

56

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_USInterestsinIndia_%20Bouton.pdf

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_USInterestsinIndia_%20Bouton.pdf


increasing extremism and terrorism, and much greater potential for unchecked interstate and civil conflict.

57


Refugee TPS Negative

Inherency:Some TPS recipients can already become permanent residents by applying for an “adjustment of status”Litwin 2017Litwin & Smith is an immigration law firm in California. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Provides a Path to Permanent Residency. November 13, 2017. https://www.litwinlaw.com/Articles/TPS-Provides-a-Path-to-Permanent-Residency.shtmlAn alien granted TPS receives two primary benefits during the period in which TPS is in effect:· They are not subject to removal and he is authorized to work in the United States and supplied with the relevant accompanying documentation; and· For purposes of adjustment of status and change of status, the alien receiving TPS is considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant. Courts in the 9th Circuit have interpreted this to mean that an alien receiving TPS can adjust their status to Lawful Permanent Residency. The Sixth Circuit has also reached this same conclusion regarding a TPS Adjustment of Status and that a TPS grant is an "admission." This is because TPS confers an actual status on and provides a slew of benefits to an alien who satisfies rigorous eligibility requirements, it is different than other forms of temporary reprieve we ordinarily would not consider sufficient for ''admission.''

Several different circumstances can allow current TPS recipients to remain in the countrySands 2018Geneva, ABC News What you need to know about Temporary Protected Status. 1/9/2018. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/temporary-protected-status/story?id=52233615.Can TPS holders remain lawfully in the U.S. once their status ends? It depends. TPS holders who initially entered the U.S lawfully can apply for a Green Card if they meet the other requirements. The steps to becoming a lawful permanent resident vary, but are normally taken by acquiring a visa through family or a job, according to USCIS. If a TPS holder entered unlawfully, where you live matters. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Sixth Circuits have ruled that if an individual has been granted TPS status, he or she may be eligible to have their status adjusted; that is, if they meet other requirements, they could apply for permanent immigration status. The Eleventh Circuit held, however, that TPS was not an admission for purposes of adjustment. Recipients living in the states of the Eleventh Circuit, therefore, are barred from adjusting if they entered without inspection, according to the American Immigration Council. According to the council, the vast majority of Salvadorans with temporary protected status arrived in the U.S. without legal authorization. Even if TPS is considered a qualification to adjust status, the beneficiary must be eligible to apply. Of the approximately 262,500 Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries, more than 42,700 have been granted lawful permanent resident status, according to USCIS. Are there other circumstances? There are special circumstances under which TPS beneficiaries may remain in the U.S., such as special visas for victims of human trafficking, battered spouses, children or parents and victims

58

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/temporary-protected-status/story?id=52233615

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/temporary-protected-status/story?id=52233615

https://www.litwinlaw.com/Articles/TPS-Provides-a-Path-to-Permanent-Residency.shtml


of other crimes, as well as qualifying special immigrant juveniles and asylum seekers.

59


Three different ways already exist for TPS recipients to apply for permanent residenceBatara 2011Carlos, Immigration Attorney, How TPS Beneficiaries Can Win Permanent Residence – Even After TPS Is Terminated. September 11, 2017. https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/win-permanent-residence-after-tps-expiresAlthough Temporary Protected Status was not intended to create a path to permanent residency, there are three primary paths to permanent residence for TPS beneficiaries. Path 1: Permanent Residence Through USCIS Adjustment of Status – Some TPS beneficiaries may qualify for permanent residence as an “immediate relative” if they are married to a U.S. citizen husband or wife, or have a U.S. citizen child over the age of 21. Generally, this possibility is reserved for those who entered the country with a legal entry. Some courts have taken issue with this limitation. Most recently, in Ramirez v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals, which governs cases from Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, held that approved TPS grantees have been “inspected and admitted” for purposes of applying for permanent resident status. A few years earlier, in Flores v. USCIS, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, with judicial authority over cases arising out of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, reached a similar conclusion. On the other hand, in Serrano v. U.S.Attorney General, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees matters originating in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, reached the opposite conclusion. Despite the ruling, TPS beneficiaries living in these states should not refrain from pursuing adjustment of status, if they meet all other statutory requirements. Laws change over time. Never discount strategies today that might sow the seeds of a victory tomorrow. Additionally, TPS beneficiaries living in states not under the jurisdiction of the Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits should not hesitate to apply for adjustment of status if they qualify under the interpretations of Ramirez v. Brown and Flores v. USCIS. Simply stated, given the large number of TPS beneficiaries with a U.S. citizen spouse and U.S. children, this approach offers the strongest possibility for obtaining legal status, even if TPS benefits are curtailed in the near future. Some TPS beneficiaries might not be eligible to seek green card status in the United States. They may need to apply for permanent residency via consular processing, wherein they must apply for a family unity I-601 inadmissibility waiver and return to their home countries for their permanent residence interviews. Although this is a less preferred option, the positive equities they have built in the U.S. might provide the basis for demonstrating the level of hardship to spouses and parents required for successful reentry into the United States.

60

https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/win-permanent-residence-after-tps-expires


Refugee Ethic Advantage

No Impact: We have no moral or ethical obligation to give former refugees a first-world lifestyle if their home countries have recoveredMehlman 2017Ira, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)).Temporary status for immigrants shouldn't mean permanent residency. 10/26/2017. http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/357305-temporary-status-for-immigrants-shouldnt-mean-permanent-residency.Between now and Jan. 18, the deadlines for extending or terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 90 percent of all foreign nationals who hold that status will elapse. In complete disregard for the fact that the "T" in TPS stands for temporary, some 300,000 citizens of Honduras, El Salvador, and Haiti, have been allowed to remain and work in the United States as a result of natural disasters that struck those countries — as long ago as 1998 in the case of Honduras. For a variety of reasons it is time to end TPS for these three nations. The United States has more than fulfilled its ethical obligation to assist these neighbors during their time of crisis. In all honesty, these countries were not exactly Gardens of Eden before they were struck by hurricanes and earthquakes. After billions in foreign aid and years of rebuilding, these countries are now functioning about as well as they did before the disasters hit and about as well as they are likely to function for the foreseeable future. The people who accepted our offer of TPS did so with the full understanding that the benefit was a temporary one and that, at some point, they would be required to leave. Lobbying by mass immigration advocates in this country and (shamefully) their own governments, which have come to rely on the remittances sent home by workers in this country, has managed to keep people here long after the immediate crises that triggered TPS.

No Link: TPS repeal is not that disruptive to refugees and their return will benefit their home countriesMehlman 2017Ira, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)).Temporary status for immigrants shouldn't mean permanent residency. 10/26/2017. http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/357305-temporary-status-for-immigrants-shouldnt-mean-permanent-residencyNo doubt having to return home will be inconvenient and disruptive to their lives, but that is more of an argument against giving in to pleas for repeated extensions of TPS than it is in favor of granting yet another one. Likewise, ending TPS will cause some short-term disruption to the home countries from the loss of the remittances. However, in the long run, these nations stand to gain far more from the reintegration of their own citizens who, with the benefit of the education and work experience they have gained in the United States, are positioned to help their countries build stronger economies that do not rely on sending their best people abroad.

61

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/357305-temporary-status-for-immigrants-shouldnt-mean-permanent-residency





62


No Link: “T” stands for “Temporary.” These refugees knew what they agreed to when they applied for the programMehlman 2017Ira, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)).Temporary status for immigrants shouldn't mean permanent residency. 10/26/2017. http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/357305-temporary-status-for-immigrants-shouldnt-mean-permanent-residencyPresident Trump was elected on a platform of cleaning up the myriad abuses in our immigration system. TPS is a prime example of a program that has abused the compassion of the American people. It is time for administration to restore the integrity of this humanitarian program by acknowledging that the T in TPS stands for temporary and requiring that those who have been here as our guests return home.

No Impact: No moral obligation exists to help refugees at allEnos, Inserra, and Meservey 2017Olivia, David, and Joshua, The Heritage Foundation, The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: A Roadmap for Reform. July 5, 2017. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-us-refugee-admissions-program-roadmap-reformFirst, there is no global right to migration. Managing who crosses its borders is central to a state’s sovereignty, and is a duty every country in the world jealously seeks to fulfill. This fact applies to USRAP. The United States operates the program not because it is obligated to resettle refugees, but because the U.S. is a humane country and USRAP serves its national interests.

63

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-us-refugee-admissions-program-roadmap-reform





Soft Power Advantage:

No Uniqueness: The United States has already abandoned its position as a global refugee leader by leaving the most important UN refugee pact in decades – the plan is too little too lateKerwin 2017Donald, Center for Migration Studies The Besieged US Refugee Protection System: Why Temporary Protected Status Matters. December 27, 2017. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-besieged-us-refugee-protection-system-why-temporary_us_5a3aa281e4b0d86c803c6e19On December 3rd, the US withdrew from negotiations on the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley argued that US participation in the development of a non-binding document – which it would be under no compunction to sign – would threaten the nation’s sovereignty. More troubling, the administration seemingly fails to grasp that countries need to collaborate in order to meet any of their migration-related interests, whether to address the conditions that give rise to large-scale migration, to promote orderly legal migration, to protect persons at risk, or to control their borders. The US decision on the compact undermines US sovereignty by making the nation weaker, not stronger, and by making it more difficult to achieve its immigration objectives. Ultimately, the compact will be adopted under the auspices of the UN General Assembly, which will make it a UN document and a constant reference point in the ongoing dialogue on international migration. Yet the US has decided not to influence its shape or content.

No Impact: Our military hard power is far more important than soft power, and we have a lot of itKagan 2017Robert, Brookings Institution. “Backing Into World War III.” 2-6-17 http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/06/backing-into-world-war-iii-russia-china-trump-obama/But military and strategic competition is different. The security situation undergirds everything else. It remains true today as it has since World War II that only the United States has the capacity and the unique geographical advantages to provide global security and relative stability. There is no stable balance of power in Europe or Asia without the United States. And while we can talk about “soft power” and “smart power,” they have been and always will be of limited value when confronting raw military power. Despite all of the loose talk of American decline, it is in the military realm where U.S. advantages remain clearest. Even in other great powers’ backyards, the United States retains the capacity, along with its powerful allies, to deter challenges to the security order. But without a U.S. willingness to maintain the balance in far-flung regions of the world, the system will buckle under the unrestrained military competition of regional powers. Part of that willingness entails defense spending commensurate with America’s continuing global role.

64

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/06/backing-into-world-war-iii-russia-china-trump-obama/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/06/backing-into-world-war-iii-russia-china-trump-obama/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-besieged-us-refugee-protection-system-why-temporary_us_5a3aa281e4b0d86c803c6e19

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-besieged-us-refugee-protection-system-why-temporary_us_5a3aa281e4b0d86c803c6e19


65


No Uniqueness: Trump is already abandoning our role as a global leader by disengaging from the worldStengel 2017Richard, Former U.S. undersecretary for Public Diplomacy "The End of the American Century." January 26, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/end-of-the-american-century/514526/Trump ’s administration is the death knell of the American Century. No, Trump’s vision does not spell the end of American power, but a retraction of American influence. It suspends American involvement as a global leader on global decision-making for a resolute policy of non-interference. At the State Department, when I traveled abroad for discussions with another nation’s government, I talked not only about agreements and exchanges and trade deals, but also about freedom of religion and expression, transparency, and rule of law. I sat in diplomatic “pull-asides” with President Obama and Secretary Kerry and foreign heads of state where they talked not only about America’s interests but universal values—free expression, religious liberty, rule of law. I sat next to Kerry as he demanded the release of political prisoners and journalists who were behind bars. These were uncomfortable discussions. I once had an African foreign minister say to me with a touch of annoyance: “You come and talk to me about transparency, but the Chinese come and build a super-highway.” And that was often the case. And no other nation, I promise you, ever talked to that foreign minister about transparency. That is America’s strength, not its weakness. The Chinese, and now the Trump administration, will resolutely practice non-interference in other nations’ affairs. America First is not a policy that any of our allies around the world want to hear. Our adversaries are delighted. Our power and influence with our friends and adversaries came in large part because we were the one nation that did not always put ourselves first. American presidents operate along the realistic and idealistic sides of the foreign-policy continuum. But ever since Woodrow Wilson, Americans have always seen themselves as being the moral beacon that Luce talked about all those years ago. As Obama has said many times, our ideals are our policy. Trump appears to see those ideals as, at best, irrelevant, and at worst, effete. Having traveled around the world on behalf of the State Department for the past three years, I can promise you that governments do not worry that America is too engaged—they worry when we disengage. And wherever we may disengage around the world, we are never replaced by a better actor. The president’s vision of putting up our national drawbridge and hunkering down mirrors the transformation of Great Britain to Little England after the end of World War II. The American Century was a term of pride for many and it represented the flowering not only of American power but American values. That seems to have ended beginning last Friday. The American Century, RIP.

66

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/end-of-the-american-century/514526/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/end-of-the-american-century/514526/


No Impact: Trump’s withdrawal from the UN Migration treaty talks makes it impossible for the US to lead the world on refugee issuesThe Guardian 2017Donald Trump pulls US out of UN global compact on migration. December 3, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/03/donald-trump-pulls-us-out-of-un-global-compact-on-migration.The US mission to the UN said in a statement on Saturday that the declaration “contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with US immigration and refugee policies and the Trump administration’s immigration principles”. The UN had always insisted that the compact was never intended to be legally binding on any country, but instead was an attempt to create a shared understanding that migration flows are likely to increase, and need to be regularised by recognising the reality of state interdependence, as much as national sovereignty. In a statement issued on Saturday, Haley said: “America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our longstanding moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe … But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone.” She said: “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York declaration is simply not compatible with US sovereignty.” The move, which is likely to put US-UN relations back in the deep freeze, came following pressure largely from the White House, as opposed to Haley herself.

No Impact: American power is always a question of hard power – no one really cares about soft powerPorter 2018Patrick, University of Birmingham Why America's Grand Strategy Has Not Changed: Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment. Spring 2018. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/isec_a_00311Why has U.S. grand strategy persisted since the end of the Cold War? Despite shocks such as the 2008 global financial crisis and the costs of the war in Iraq—circumstances that ought to have stimulated at least a revision—the United States remains committed to a grand strategy of “primacy.” It strives for military preponderance, dominance in key regions, the containment and reassurance of allies, nuclear counterproliferation, and the economic “Open Door.” The habitual ideas of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, or the “Blob,” make U.S. grand strategy hard to change. The United States' military and economic capabilities enable the U.S. government to pursue primacy, but the embedded assumptions of the Blob make primacy the seemingly natural choice. Thanks to the Blob's constraining power, alternative grand strategies based on restraint and retrenchment are hardly entertained, and debate is narrowed mostly into questions of execution and implementation. Two cases—the presidency of Bill Clinton and the first year of the presidency of Donald Trump—demonstrate this argument. In each case, candidates promising change were elected in fluid conditions that we would expect to stimulate a reevaluation of the United States' commitments. In each case, the Blob asserted itself successfully, at least on the grand strategic fundamentals. Change in grand strategy is possible, but it would require shocks large enough to shake the assumptions of the

67

https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/isec_a_00311

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/03/donald-trump-pulls-us-out-of-un-global-compact-on-migration

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/03/donald-trump-pulls-us-out-of-un-global-compact-on-migration


status quo and a president willing to be an agent of change and prepared to absorb the political costs of overhauling Washington's traditional design.

68


No Impact: Balance of ideals is key to soft power – Trump moving in the wrong directionHaass 2017Richard, Council on Foreign Relations “World Order 2.0: The Case for Sovereign Obligation.” January/February 2017. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-12-12/world-order-20The Trump administration has shown a clear preference for not involving the United States in the internal affairs of other countries. Such realism is often warranted, given Washington’s multiple priorities and limited leverage in such matters. But there is a danger in taking this approach too far, since prudent nonintervention can all too easily shade into active support for deeply problematic regimes. Careless relationships with “friendly tyrants,” as such rulers used to be called, have burned the United States often in the past, and so it is worrying to see Washington take what look like the first steps down such a path again with Egypt, the Philippines, and Turkey. Friends need to speak candidly to friends about the errors they may be making. Such communications should normally take place privately and without sanction. But they do need to occur, lest the United States tarnish its reputation, encourage even worse behavior, and set back efforts to promote more open societies and stability around the world. The president should also understand that what he says about U.S. institutions, including the media, the judiciary, and Congress, is listened to closely around the world and has the potential to reduce respect for the United States while encouraging leaders elsewhere to weaken the checks and balances on their rule.

No Link: G7 proves Trump doesn’t want to work with our allies at allPatrick 2018Stewart, Council on Foreign Relations, At G7 Summit, Trump Takes a Wrecking Ball to the West. June 11, 2018. https://www.cfr.org/blog/g7-summit-trump-takes-wrecking-ball-westWhether one considers Trump a nationalist patriot or a petulant ignoramus, his fit of pique proved one thing. He is destined to be one of America’s most consequential foreign policy presidents. Fewer than seventeen months into his administration, Trump has already shaken the foundations of international order. He has abdicated U.S. global leadership, which he believes has bled the United States dry, and he has sidelined multilateral institutions (from NATO to the WTO), which he perceives constrain U.S. freedom of action. The G7 summit suggests he is just getting started. He seems prepared to abandon the transatlantic relationship, and even the concept of “the West,” as pillars of U.S. global engagement.

No Link: Trump won’t use soft power even if he had some Walt 2017Stephen, Harvard University "The World Is Even Less Stable Than It Looks." 6/26/17 https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/26/the-world-is-even-less-stable-than-it-looks/Today, the United States isn’t disengaging from world affairs or adopting a new and well-thought out grand strategy, such as offshore balancing, but it is hardly acting as a clear or consistent defender of peace and the status quo. On the contrary, Washington is still trying to determine the future fate of Afghanistan, still hoping for

69

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/26/the-world-is-even-less-stable-than-it-looks/

https://www.cfr.org/blog/g7-summit-trump-takes-wrecking-ball-west

https://www.cfr.org/blog/g7-summit-trump-takes-wrecking-ball-west

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-12-12/world-order-20

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-12-12/world-order-20


regime change in several countries it doesn’t like, encouraging its proxies in the Middle East to escalate their local quarrels, and using increasing levels of military power to try to solve problems — such as terrorism and insurgency — whose roots are essentially political. The United States has pretty much abandoned its role as a potential mediator in lots of potential hotspots, and it would be naive to expect all of these conflicts will to simmer down on their own.

Solvency

Turn: The Aff is not efficient – It’s easier to resettle refugees in their home region than in the USLynch 2017Colum, Trump to Cut Number of Refugees in U.S. by More Than Half. September 26, 2017. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/26/trump-to-cut-number-of-refugees-in-u-s-by-more-than-half/President Donald Trump has decided to allow the resettlement of no more than 45,000 refugees in the United States next year, according to a former and a current U.S. official, ending months of contentious debate inside the administration. That will bring the number of refugees allowed into the United States to the lowest level since establishment of the resettlement program in 1980.The long-awaited decision comes less than a week after Trump told the United Nations General Assembly that the United States prefers to prevent refugees from leaving their region and resettling in the United States. It comes at a time when the ranks of the world’s refugees have swelled to more than 22 million, placing an enormous burden on countries from Bangladesh to Turkey. “For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region,” Trump told the gathering in remarks that were overshadowed by the president’s threat to destroy North Korea and his criticism of the Iran nuclear deal.

Turn: Refugee resettlement is very expensive and the money can be better spent.Enos, Inserra, and Meservey 2017Olivia, David, and Joshua, The Heritage Foundation, The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: A Roadmap for Reform. July 5, 2017. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-us-refugee-admissions-program-roadmap-reformSecond, resettlement is not the solution to mass displacement. Only the resolution of conflict will rectify the associated refugee crises. Resettlement is expensive. Resettling one refugee to the U.S. is about 12 times costlier than providing for that refugee in a camp closer to his home for five years. Resettlement was also designed as a last resort for only the neediest and most vulnerable refugees. Finally, in 2015 there were 21.3 million refugees worldwide, far beyond the international community’s willingness and ability to resettle responsibly.

70



http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/26/trump-to-cut-number-of-refugees-in-u-s-by-more-than-half/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/26/trump-to-cut-number-of-refugees-in-u-s-by-more-than-half/


The aff hurts more refugees than it helps – it costs a lot more to do the aff than it would to resettle refugees in their home regionsCamarota 2015Steven Center for Immigration Studies, The High Cost of Resettling Middle Eastern Refugees. November 5, 2015. https://cis.org/Report/High-Cost-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-RefugeesAmerica has a long tradition of being a refuge for those fleeing war and persecution, but the modern system of refugee resettlement comes with a very high cost. This analysis attempts to conservatively estimate the costs for refugees from the Middle East based on government data. One may argue that when it comes to refugees costs should not matter because refugees are admitted for humanitarian reasons. But this position makes little sense. Funds to resettle refugees in this country or to help them overseas are never unlimited and there are always competing demands for public monies. The federal budget deficit was more than $400 billion in 2015 and 47 million U.S. residents live in poverty, including one-fifth of the nation's children. Resources to deal with the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East are finite. Processing refugee applicants, assisting charities that serve refugees, helping state and local governments in refugee-receiving communities, and providing welfare and public education create estimated costs of $64,370 in the first five years after a refugee arrives from the Middle East. These costs are significant and must be incorporated into any discussion of how best to handle the Middle East refugee crisis. The UN spends $1,057 per refugee to help them in the region. Comparing the five-year cost of bringing one refugee to the United States to the cost of providing for someone in the region shows that for each refugee resettled here, 61 can be helped if they remain in a safe neighboring country such as Turkey, Jordan, or Lebanon for one year. At present, the UN reports a $2.5 billion funding gap between what it needs to care for some four million Syrian refugees in the Middle East and what it has received from donor nations. This is equal to the five-year costs of resettling just 39,000 Middle Eastern refugees in the United States. Wealthy countries like the United States that have costly refugee resettlement programs face a choice: They can help a relatively tiny number of refugees who in effect win what might be called the "migration lottery" and are resettled here, or they can devote the limited resources available to helping many more refugees in the region for the same amount of money. If the goal is to help as many people as possible, then assisting Middle Eastern refugees in their home region gives a far greater return on public money. To be sure, the material life of refugees in the United States will, with few exceptions, be better than if they remain in the region. However, providing for them a neighboring country has two additional advantages other than being more cost-effective. First, other countries in the region have similar cultures, while adapting to the United States can be challenging for people who have already suffered from war and deprivation. Second, if refugees remain in the region, they will be much more likely to return home once the war is over. If, on the other hand, they are resettled on the other side of the world in this country, it is much less likely they will ever return to their home country.

71

https://cis.org/Report/High-Cost-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees

https://cis.org/Report/High-Cost-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees


Terrorism Disadvantage

Inability to properly vet TPS recipients for permanent stay creates real terrorism concerns Enos, Inserra, and Meservey 2017Olivia, David, and Joshua, The Heritage Foundation, The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: A Roadmap for Reform. July 5, 2017. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-us-refugee-admissions-program-roadmap-reformNonetheless, there are concerns that the next terrorist may come to the U.S. on a refugee visa. According to the National Counterterrorism Center, individuals with ties to Syrian terrorist groups have already attempted to infiltrate the refugee system, and in the past USRAP resettled several terrorists to the U.S. There is no way to design a foolproof vetting system, and the one used for refugees has a number of limitations. The array of security checks run on applicants consists of feeding their biographic and biometric information into security databases to see if they are included on terror watch lists, in criminal databases, or raise other red flags. The obvious limitation is that the security databases do not—and cannot—contain information on every bad actor in the world. The vetting system will only catch someone bent on violence—whether a refugee or any other immigrant—if his information has already been collected and entered into the database. As senior U.S. government officials acknowledged is the case with Syria, it is even harder to check people from war-torn or adversarial countries. States wracked by violence are unlikely to have thorough, if any, terrorism and criminal databases. Similarly, refugees fleeing violence are understandably less likely to have documents verifying their identities or flight stories, and people can sometimes easily acquire forged identity documents in unstable countries.

This terrorism threat turns the aff’s moral obligation claims – we need to care for U.S. citizens firstEnos, Inserra, and Meservey 2017Olivia, David, and Joshua, The Heritage Foundation, The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: A Roadmap for Reform. July 5, 2017. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-us-refugee-admissions-program-roadmap-reformThird, U.S. policymakers have a moral and constitutional duty to care for American interests first—above those of non-Americans’ needs. Doing otherwise would be a violation of the trust Americans have placed in them. Because of this, U.S. policymakers have a responsibility to ensure that the United States takes in only as many refugees as it can safely vet and assimilate.

72






Even if vetting procedures are good, USCIS officers are routinely bad at following themEnos, Inserra, and Meservey 2017Olivia, David, and Joshua, The Heritage Foundation, The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: A Roadmap for Reform. July 5, 2017. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-us-refugee-admissions-program-roadmap-reformOther levels of the vetting program have limitations as well. The USCIS trains its officers in interview techniques, yet in many cases officers have little data with which to verify a refugee’s claim beyond checking that the refugee has consistently told the same story throughout the multiple required interviews. Applicants can also sometimes explain away any inconsistencies as translation or clerical errors, leaving the USCIS officer with little to gauge the refugee’s veracity. Furthermore, many USCIS officers travel throughout the world and interview refugees from a broad range of contexts, making it difficult to develop a deep knowledge of the culture, history, and conflicts of a specific region. Officers receive support from other elements of DHS and the intelligence community, and receive regional briefings ahead of time, but deeper regional experience would help officers determine the authenticity of refugees’ claims.

We have empirical evidence – ISIS used the Syrian refugee program to send fighters hereHattem 2015. Jullian Hattem. Extremists have targeted refugee program to enter US, McCaul says. December 7, 2015. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/262316-isis-has-targeted-refugee-program-to-enter-us-chairman-saysIntelligence officials have determined that Islamic extremists have explored using the refugee program to enter the United States, they told the head of the Homeland Security Committee. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) revealed portions of a classified letter from the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) on Monday, which offered new claims not previously disclosed by the Obama administration. The disclosure could give ammunition to critics of the White House’s refugee plans who have warned that the program is vulnerable to infiltration by adherents of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The NCTC has identified “individuals with ties to terrorist groups in Syria attempting to gain entry to the U.S. through the U.S. refugee program,” the intelligence agency told McCaul in a letter. “The refugee system, like all immigration programs, is vulnerable to exploitation from extremist groups seeking to send operatives to the West,” the agency added, noting that a small number of Iraqi refugees were arrested on terror charges in 2010. McCaul disclosed the NCTC’s analysis during a speech at the National Defense University. He initially claimed that ISIS, in particular, had considered taking advantage of the refugee program, though his office later called that a “misstatement.”

73




Vetting refugees is almost impossible – we will let terrorists through and their children may become radicalized Enos, Inserra, and Meservey 2017Olivia, David, and Joshua, The Heritage Foundation, The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: A Roadmap for Reform. July 5, 2017. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-us-refugee-admissions-program-roadmap-reformHowever, policymakers should not discount the challenges associated with resettling refugees from countries with conflicts involving Islamist terrorists. As with other types of immigration, it is impossible to vet in a foolproof way all refugees who apply for resettlement. Radicalized individuals have already entered the United States through the resettlement program. The larger security challenge associated with resettling refugees is the heightened chance of Muslims in the “one-point-five” generation (those resettled to the U.S. at a young age) or the second generation radicalizing. Biographic data on people involved in extremist activities in the U.S. is patchy, so it is difficult to know how pronounced this phenomenon is. It exists, however, and fits with trends in Europe.

Generation 1.5 is the most dangerousEnos, Inserra, and Meservey 2017Olivia, David, and Joshua, The Heritage Foundation, The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: A Roadmap for Reform. July 5, 2017. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-us-refugee-admissions-program-roadmap-reformThe most difficult radicalization challenge is with children who are resettled at a young age, or the children of resettled refugees. The experience of the Somali-American community is illustrative of the problem. Seventy-four Somali-Americans or Somali residents of the U.S. have been credibly implicated in terror-related activity since 1997. Incomplete biographic information makes it difficult to determine when most of the 74 radicalized. Nevertheless, t here is enough data for 18 of the 74 radicalized individuals to determine that most of the 18 likely radicalized in the United States. The young immigration ages and histories of extremist Somali residents of the U.S. is in keeping with the challenge that Europe has experienced with its own 1.5 generation. The 1.5 generation may feel isolated and caught between two worlds, not fully at home either in their parents’ or in their adopted country, which may heighten the appeal of radical messages promising purpose and identity. This seems to be one of the dynamics driving radicalization in the Moroccan-Belgian community, which produced Abdeslam Salah and Abdelhamid Abaaoud, key players in the Paris terror attacks. Most of those involved in the recent spate of French terrorism are the children of first-generation immigrants, arrived in France at a young age, or are “native” converts to Islam.

74






Wage Deflation Disad – Link

Making TPS permanent floods the high-skill jobs marketHallet and Abrego 2017Miranda Cady, University of Dayton, and Leisy J. UCLA, Seeking a Permanent Protected Status. November 16, 2017 https://nacla.org/news/2017/11/16/seeking-permanent-protected-statusThe precarious nature of TPS workers’ permits is already harmful to immigrant families and the communities where they live. It curtails relationships, aspirations, and opportunities. According to a University of Kansas study, TPS holders who have professional skills or credentials are often stuck in low-wage or entry-level positions since employers hesitate to invest in an employee without permanent residency. Moreover, if the violence of the detention and deportation regime is inflicted on TPS holders, the impact on their families will be devastating—especially for their children. The economic, emotional, and social damage caused by such an approach will undermine well-being and opportunities for the next generation of new U.S. citizens.

TPS holders do not generally work in occupations associated with their higher levels of education – making it permanent changes that and floods the high-paying jobs marketMenjívar 2017Cecilia, University of Kansas Temporary Protected Status in the United States:THE EXPERIENCESOF HONDURANAND SALVADORANIMMIGRANTS. May 2017. http://ipsr.ku.edu/migration/pdf/TPS_Report.pdfThe comparisons we have made to immigrants in other legal statuses as well as to the U.S. population also highlight two fundamental aspects of his status: its in-between and temporary nature. Thus, TPS holders’ in-between legal status is reflected in their in-between conditions, as they generally do better than undocumented immigrants on the various indicators discussed in this report but not as well as those immigrants who are authorized or perhaps naturalized, or the U.S. population in general. As such, TPS represents a step in the right direction. It positions its beneficiaries in a favorable starting point in the process of integration, but this process is truncated as these immigrants quickly encounter a legal ceiling that precludes them from advancing further. For instance, in further analyses conducted based on data collected for this survey, a critical bifurcation was identified: TPS holders with higher levels of education do not concentrate in occupations where they can earn commensurate earnings to their educational level; their earnings are similar to those of TPS holders with lower levels of education, other things being equal. In spite of this mismatch between education and occupation/earnings, TPS holders participate actively in civic society, which increases with time in the United States (Oh et al. n.d.). Thus, TPS holders are de facto members of society and active members of their communities but lack the full de jure recognition that they need to advance further.

75

https://nacla.org/news/2017/11/16/seeking-permanent-protected-status

https://nacla.org/news/2017/11/16/seeking-permanent-protected-status


Wage Deflation Disad – Answer to: TPS Repeal Hurts Economy

Any workplace turnover caused by leaving refugees will be filled in by US citizens and economic loss is lowMehlman 2017Ira, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Temporary status for immigrants shouldn't mean permanent residency. 10/26/2017. http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/357305-temporary-status-for-immigrants-shouldnt-mean-permanent-residencyAbsent any compelling circumstances in the home countries that would justify yet another extension of TPS, advocates have concocted a desperate new argument for keeping them here. Led by the Center for American Progress and America’s Voice (key players on immigration policy in the Obama White House), advocates now claim that it is the United States that would suffer from the departure of 300,000 TPS beneficiaries. Apparently counting on the fact that none of us knows how to divide by ten, and that we are unaware that current U.S. GDP is $18.57 trillion, CAP recently put out a report claiming that if TPS were terminated “the United States would lose $164 billion in GDP over the next decade … and would result in a $6.9 billion reduction to Social Security and Medicare contributions over a decade.” Aside from the fact that the economic output of TPS beneficiaries could be easily replaced by the millions of working age adults who are currently out of the labor force, the impact on our economy would be negligible. The $16.4 billion a year that CAP claims would be lost amounts to less than 1/100th of one percent of GDP. Likewise, the $690 million they pay into Social Security is also less than 1/100th of one percent of the system’s annual intake.

76




Topicality 1NC: Refugees are not “Immigrants”Interpretation: Refugees are not immigrants under the INAKandel 2017William A., Congressional Research Service, A Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy. November 14, 2017. http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P13904.pdfForeign-born populations with different legal statuses are referred to throughout this report. The term aliens refers to people who are not U.S. citizens, including those legally and not legally present. In this report, the terms “alien,” “foreign national,” and “noncitizen” are synonymous. The two basic types of legal aliens are (1) immigrants ( not including refugees and asylees ) and (2) nonimmigrants . Immigrants refers to foreign nationals lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence . In this report, the terms “immigrant,” “lawful permanent resident” (LPR), and “green card-holder” are synonymous. Nonimmigrants refers to foreign nationals temporarily and lawfully admitted to the United States for a specific purpose and period of time, including tourists, diplomats, students, temporary workers, and exchange visitors, among others. Refugees and asylees refer to persons fleeing their countries because of persecution, or a well-founded fear of persecution, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion (see “Refugees and Asylees”). Refugees and asylees are not classified as immigrants under the INA, but once admitted, they may adjust their status to lawful permanent resident (LPR).

Violation: The affirmative is expanding the topic to include refugees and all sorts of other temporary visitors

Standards:This explodes the negative research burden and is unpredictable, adding a whole new category of affirmatives. This dilutes the debates we will have and makes it even harder to be negative on this topic.

77

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P13904.pdf


Topicality Admission versus Entry2NC Interpretation:

Adjustment =/= AdmissionCicchini and Hassell 2012Daniel, Immigration Court “The Continuing Struggle To Define “Admission” and “Admitted” in the Immigration and Nationality Act” Immigration Law Advisor, June, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/07/vol6no6.pdfHowever, in the context of section 237(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Act, which provides, inter alia, that an alien is deportable if he or she is convicted of an offense committed within 5 years “after the date of admission,” the circuit courts have consistently held that an alien’s adjustment of status does not constitute an “admission.” More specifically, the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits have all held that the term “admission” in the phrase “date of admission” is governed by the plain, “unambiguous” meaning of “admission” in section 101(a)(13)(A), which requires physical entry after inspection. Zhang v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 313, 316 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding “that there is only one ‘first lawful admission,’ and it is based on physical, legal entry into the United States, not on the attainment of a particular legal status”); Aremu v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 450 F.3d 578, 581 (4th Cir. 2006)

78

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/07/vol6no6.pdf


Environment Disadvantage 2NC/1NR 2NC/1NR Uniqueness Debate

Immigration places US on the brink of overpopulationWarren 2016Robert, Senior Visiting Fellow, August 31, 2016, “Surge in Immigration in 2014 and 2015? The Evidence Remains Illusory”, Center for Migration Studieshttp://cmsny.org/publications/warren-immigration-surge-illusory/#_ftn1In June 2016, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released a report titled “New Data: Immigration Surged in 2014a nd 2015.” (Camarota, 2016) The report states that:“The number of legal and illegal immigrants settling in the country is now higher than before the 2007 recession and may match the level in 2000 and 2001[...]1 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country in 2014 and 2015, or more than 1.5 million annually, and 1[...]million (or 555,000 annually) were new illegal immigrants, a significant increase from the 700,000 illegal immigrants (350,000 annually) who entered in 2012 and 2013. The purported surge was attributed to multiple factors, including unspecified cutbacks in enforcement, an improved economy, increases in temporary visas, and “a significant increase” in undocumented arrivals. The CIS report concludes that “[t]he latest Census Bureau data shows that the scale of new immigration is clearly enormous” and argues that for the reason “immigration should be at the center of the current presidential election.”

Population growth via immigration has experienced stable growth over time Warren 2016Robert, Senior Visiting Fellow, August 31, 2016, “Surge in Immigration in 2014 and 2015? The Evidence Remains Illusory”, Center for Migration Studieshttp://cmsny.org/publications/warren-immigration-surge-illusory/#_ftn1The reported increases in arrivals and foreign-born population growth in 2014 and 2015 are well within the bounds of normal annual fluctuations observed in Census Bureau survey data over the past 15 years….Statistics derived from Figures 5 and 6 of the CIS report make it clear that the reported increases in arrivals, as well foreign-born population growth in 2014 and 2015 were consistent with normal annual fluctuations over the past 15 years. Figure 1 shows the annual level of change in the foreign-born population from 2001 to 2016 as measured by the ACS and the CPS. As noted, the green line shows the annual number of immigrants admitted for permanent residence by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over the same period. The trend lines in Figure 1 were intentionally left to be “choppy,” rather than being smoothed by averaging, to demonstrate an important point: the measurement of foreign-born population growth using Census Bureau survey data varies widely from year to year. This occurs not just because of sampling variability but because immigration to and from the United States is a far more complex and dynamic process than is usually recognized. As Figure 1 shows, annual changes in the foreign-born population, as measured by the Census Bureau, have fluctuated considerably over the past 15 years. Clearly, the increases observed in the ACS in 2014, as well as the

79

http://cmsny.org/publications/warren-immigration-surge-illusory/#_ftn1



increases in the CPS in 2015, are in line with past variations in population change.

80


Immigration growth primarily due to temporary visas and returning former immigrants Warren 2016Robert, Senior Visiting Fellow, August 31, 2016, “Surge in Immigration in 2014 and 2015? The Evidence Remains Illusory”, Center for Migration Studieshttp://cmsny.org/publications/warren-immigration-surge-illusory/#_ftn1As Figure 1 above shows, LPR admissions are fairly stable from year to year, so changes in that component could not have contributed very much to the increase in new arrivals…It is apparent from the figures shown in Table 1 that increased admissions of nonimmigrant residents in 2014- those likely to be included in the ACS- could account for essentially all the CIS’s projected increase in arrivals in 2014 (see Figure 2). That does not indicate that permanent immigration has increased. Even though some of the temporary workers and students might eventually become permanent residents, they would be admitted within well-established numerical limits. Until then, they will remain temporary residents who are expected to depart at the end of their authorized period of admission. In other words, whatever their role in helping to create a surge, that role is temporary. It is likely that a portion of all types of immigrants- naturalized, LPRs, undocumented, and nonimmigrants- establish residence here and then move back and forth between the US and their home (or other) countries. Some emigrate permanently and some eventually end up in the United States. Economic forces probably play a role in that migration, but other reasons could also be involved. Unfortunately, no statistical information about the return to the United States of former immigrants is collected; in fact, to our knowledge, no estimates of the numbers involved have been made before now[...]Presumably, when former immigrants return after a year or more abroad and are counted in the ACS, most of them report their “year of entry” as their initial year of arrival (otherwise, we would not obtain the results described above for Colombia). However, some who return probably report “year of entry” as the year in which they returned. In the latter case, the returning former immigrants would cause an increase in the ACS data for the most recent year of arrival.

81



Uniqueness: Current immigration policies promote growth that stabilizes US population growthVOA News 2009October 30, 2009, Voices of America, “US Population Stable Due to Higher Birth Rate and Immigration” https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2005-03-08-voa24/394807.htmlMost of the rich, developed countries in the world are facing an aging crisis, as their fertility rates fall to unprecedented lows. But analysts say that the United States is better equipped to deal with the challenges of aging than almost any other developed country--thanks to its relatively high birth rates and immigration. Jolene Ivey has always dreamed of having a large family. "Aaron, your big piece is ready to go, come over here and help David," says Jolene Ivey. Now, Ms. Ivey is living her childhood dream. She and her husband Glenn live in suburban Maryland with their five sons aged five to 15. "I did it all by myself!" says one of the boys. "Well, I just have one brother and it seemed like it would be fun to have a big family, and I read those books, you know, 'cheaper by the dozen' kind of thing. And it just seemed like fun to have a lot of siblings," says Ms. Ivey. American families like the Ivey’s are helping to drive U.S. fertility levels higher than those of almost every other developed country. The United Nations Population Division says that all around the world, fertility levels have fallen sharply since the 1970s. But the United States is almost unique among developed countries in defying this demographic trend. Bill Frey is a demographer at the Brookings Institution research group in Washington D.C. Mr. Frey says that the United States is the only large, developed country with a growing population. "The population of the U.S. is going to grow probably by another 100 million people over the next 50 years. And the major reason for that is the higher fertility rate than is the case in a lot of other developed countries," says Mr. Frey. The United Nations says that Americans have maintained their birth rate at an average of just above two children per woman, about the level needed to keep the population stable. In the 1970s, American birth rates dipped as women began to enter the workforce in larger numbers. In the late 1980s, however, American fertility began to rise again, just as European fertility kept declining to new lows. Mr. Frey says the American dream of having two or more children may have been sustained by the steady growth of suburban housing outside urban areas. In 2000, more than half of Americans lived in the suburbs, where Mr. Frey says the infrastructure is most supportive of family life. "Not all of them have families, not all of them are capable of having families. But if you don't have a family, and you don't have children, there's something in the back of your head I think for a lot of people that makes you feel a little bit left out in the United States," says Bill Frey. Mr. Frey says another reason for American population growth is immigration. The United States accepted some 11 million legal immigrants in the 1990s and immigration rates are expected to stay high. Immigrants to the United States also have higher birth rates than the native-born population. Richard Jackson, head of the global aging initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, in Washington D.C., says the United States will grow younger relative to Europe and Japan over the next few decades. "America is actually well positioned to confront the age wave. It has the youngest population in the developed world. And thanks to our higher rate of fertility and our substantial rate of net immigration, we'll have the youngest population by an

82

https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2005-03-08-voa24/394807.html


even wider margin 20 or 30 years from now," says Mr. Jackson. Still, some argue that the United States cannot afford to be optimistic about its demographic future.

83


2NC/1NR Link Debate

Immigrants are a threat to the environmentGiaritelli, 2016Anna, September 20, 2016, Washington Examiner, “Report: Immigrants A Threat to the Environment.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-immigrants-a-threat-to-the-environmentYears of progress on domestic energy and environmental issues are being eradicated by near record-high levels of immigration to the U.S., according to a report from a national immigration advocacy group Tuesday. The Federation for American Immigration Reform's "U.S. Immigration and the Environment" study, provided to the Washington Examiner, found the steady growth of the U.S. population, 100 million over the past century, has undermined efforts to minimize the nation's impact on the environment. The current 14 percent share of foreign-born in the country is within striking distance of the early 20th century's 15 percent, the highest rate ever seen. "All the gains the U.S. has made through our many conservation initiatives and improved efficiency are being wiped out by mass immigration," FAIR President Dan Stein said. "Immigration fueled more than half of U.S. population growth in the last 50 years, and will generate three-quarters of it in the next 50 years." The group, which opposed efforts by Democrats to reform immigration and supports elements of policy prescriptions typically backed by Republicans, noted that the U.S. has the largest ecological footprint in the world, making its ability to conserve resources even more critical as its population nears 450 to 600 million by the end of the 21st century. President Obama's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be even more challenging because a significant share of the population is coming from overseas. "Each immigrant who moves to the U.S. on average quadruples his or her global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Even this estimated quadrupling is very conservative because it counts only foreign-born immigrants, not their children born in the U.S.," the report stated."Immigrants in their countries of origin emit on average far less CO2 than the average American. This tends to be especially true if the sending countries have many poor. For example, average Mexicans in Mexico emit about 33 percent as much CO2 as Americans. Indians in India emit less than 4 percent as much CO2. When immigrants come to the U.S., their CO2 emissions tend to rise compared to their country of origin because they tend to travel more by car, eat more meat, buy products with higher embedded energy content, etc. As a result, immigration to the U.S. makes it more difficult for the U.S. to meet its GHG reduction goals." The report also cited the National Wildlife Federation, which has warned that "sprawl," or the spreading of human populations from urban areas to communities that rely on cars, will lead to a 30 percent decrease in the U.S. mainland's plant and animal species.Stein, who has led the Washington organization for 13 years, said the country must discuss the connection between immigration and the policies it affects rather than adhere to current thresholds and not considering the implications. FAIR criticized environmental groups and liberal organizations for putting partisan relationships over reducing immigration rates, which it said would be in the public's best interest. "In

84

http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/research-pub/FAIR_2016_Environmental_Report.pdf

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-immigrants-a-threat-to-the-environment

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-immigrants-a-threat-to-the-environment


recent years, many environmental groups that had previously taken strong, common-sense positions in favor of reducing immigration have abandoned their core principles in favor of other political agendas. Given the existential challenges posed by global warming and other threats to the survival of our planet, these groups need to support common-sense population policies now," Stein said.

85


Population growth via immigration is the biggest problem ecological challenge for the USKolankiewicz 2010Leon, March 1, 2010, Policy Briefs, Progressives for Immigration Reform, “From Big to Bigger, How Mass Immigration and Population Growth Have Exacerbated American’s Ecological Footprint.” http://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/publication/from- big-to-bigger-how-mass-immigration-and-population-growth-have-exacerbated-americas-ecological-footprint/Rapid population growth, driven primarily by a persistently high immigration rate, is aggravating this country’s ecological deficit. Over-consuming and overpopulated America is living beyond its ecological means. If environmentalists are serious about living up to their name and facing the challenge of environmental sustainability, they must address the threat of unsustainable U.S. population growth. Although changing technologies and challenging over-consumption and waste are crucial in our pursuit of sustainability, so is the need for population stabilization, nationally and globally. And nationally, population stabilization cannot happen without immigration reduction. As the Population and Consumption Task Force of President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development concluded in 1996: “reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States.”1

86

http://pfirtest.wpengine.com/publication/from-big-to-bigger-how-mass-immigration-and-population-growth-have-exacerbated-americas-ecological-footprint/#1





2NC/1NR Oil Link

Population growth via immigration links to increased oil consumptionKolankiewicz, 2015Leon, April 17, 2015, Center for Immigration Studies, “Immigration, Population Growth, and the Environment”https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Population-Growth-and-Environment[...]Thus, the rate of annual energy consumption is a key index of environmental stresses even when that energy is produced by renewable sources. Americans are heavy energy users, among the highest per capita users on Earth and second only to colossal China in aggregate energy consumption. Moreover, both domestic and global energy consumption rates can be seen as unsustainable in the long run because some 85 percent of primary energy derives from non-renewable fossil fuels, which, when burned, are used up irrevocably and not replaced, leading to their inexorable depletion. If per capita energy consumption were to remain unchanged, increasing America's population 36 percent by 2060 would increase energy consumption and its environmental impacts by roughly 36 percent as well[…] If U.S. population were to remain constant, a 12 percent decline in per capita energy use would result in a 12 percent reduction in aggregate energy use, not exactly a cause for celebration but at least a solid step in the right direction. However, because our population is projected to grow by 36 percent instead, the net result would be a 20 percent increase in the annual rate of aggregate energy use. How will we meet this demand for energy? A nuclear "renaissance" appears increasingly uncertain after the costly 2011 nuclear disaster and partial core meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, and there is very little scope for additional hydroelectric output from America's rivers, especially in light of the concerns about the impact dams have on the ecosystem. Capital-intensive and expensive renewable solar and wind projects are likely to expand exponentially with government support (such as feed-in tariffs and statewide renewable energy standards) — and, at the same time, face stiffer headwinds and opposition as sensitive and valued landscapes and "seascapes" like Nantucket Sound near Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts (where the battle over the Cape Wind project has been waged for a decade) are increasingly threatened with development. In order to meet this predicted 20 percent increase in demand, it is very likely that the country will look to expand production of oil and gas on both public and private lands over the next five decades, including the use of hydrofracking, which is controversial. Increasingly, the oil and gas industry is "scraping the bottom of the barrel" to get at the fossil energy resources that remain, running faster and faster to stay in the same place [...]

87

https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Population-Growth-and-Environment

https://cis.org/Leon-Kolankiewicz


Increased oil consumption poses a threat to the climate due to carbon emissionsKolankiewicz, 2015Leon, April 17, 2015, Center for Immigration Studies, “Immigration, Population Growth, and the Environment”https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Population-Growth-and-EnvironmentIn trying to obtain what remains, it seem very likely that it will cost us increasingly more both in our wallets and in terms of damage to cherished environments — fragmented wildlife habitat, threatened aquifers, loss of tranquility in the countryside for many rural residents, localized air and water pollution, blighted scenery, heavy truck traffic on erstwhile quiet country roads, and so forth. As America's growing energy needs — driven entirely now by population growth, not rising per capita consumption — become more difficult to meet in the face of depletion and greater global competition for remaining supplies of fossil fuels from developing countries, the political pressure to open up public lands such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northern Alaska will only grow. Just as there is considerable pressure now to construct the Keystone XL pipeline to carrying syncrude from the Athabasca tar sands in the Canadian province of Alberta to refineries in Port Arthur, Texas, there may also be a concerted push to finally exploit in earnest the hypothetically vast quantities of oil resources in the oil shale (actually kerogen) of the Green River Formation in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. An estimated three trillion barrels of oil resources are found here, more than the entire quantity of conventional oil left on earth. However, the operative word is "hypothetical," for while these resources have been known for well over a century, they have always been and may always be a resource of the "future". Their time may never come. Their EROEI (energy return on energy invested) appears to be very low. That is, producing a barrel of oil from kerogen may take almost an equivalent amount of energy in some form. Furthermore, processing would require large amounts of water in an arid region, and land surface reclamation would be difficult. Moreover, the low EROEI and the vast quantities of oil shale in combination would pose a serious threat to the climate due to enormous carbon dioxide emissions. These are just a few of the energy-environment issues raised by U.S. population growth, which, as we have seen, is driven by immigration policy. In sum, the environmental implications of the Census Bureau's population projections for the United States raise important concerns for the environment that cannot be ignored.

88




2NC/1NR Water Link

Increased population will cause a megadrought and trades off with our agricultural capacityKolankiewicz, 2015Leon, April 17, 2015, Center for Immigration Studies, “Immigration, Population Growth, and the Environment” https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Population-Growth-and-EnvironmentWith enough engineering and expense, we can literally cleanse our water "from toilet to tap". All of these methods and devices taken together are capable of reducing per capita water consumption to such an extent that many regions of the country could accommodate projected population growth and still have enough water both for humans and nature without major new water projects. However, in the driest and one of the most rapidly growing parts of the United States — the American Southwest – the same cannot be said. This arid region was formerly thinly populated, but it burst from just three million in 1900 to 45 million at present. The Southwest could soon be facing, in the words of New Mexico native Kathleene Parker, "twice the people, half the water". This region, served by two over-allocated, over-stressed rivers — the Colorado and the Rio Grande — is both extremely hot and dry, its large-scale settlement made possible only through the advent and spread of air conditioning. Witty cowboy humorist Will Rogers once quipped of the Rio Grande ("Big River" in Spanish) that it was "the only river I ever saw that needed irrigation." One of the largest municipal water districts in Texas is implementing state-of-art conservation-efficiency-reuse measures — reducing consumptive water use per capita by 20 percent or more — but because its population is projected to more than double in the coming 50 years, it has no choice but to embark on economically and ecologically expensive new dam, reservoir, and pipeline projects. After another disappointing 2014-2015 winter of anemic precipitation, California is now four years into the worst drought in its recorded history. Its Sierra snowpack and huge reservoirs are at unprecedented lows, and scientists are warning of the possibility of an incipient "megadrought" that could last decades. In March 2015, Governor Jerry Brown declared statewide mandatory water restrictions for the first time in California's history, ordering towns and cities to reduce their water use by 25 percent. Yet at the same time, California's governor is a gushing immigration enthusiast who eagerly welcomes any and all newcomers to his state, legal and illegal alike. Both in his earlier incarnation as "Governor Moonbeam" in the 1970s and his recent governorship, Brown enjoys prattling on about the imperative of embracing limits, except when it comes to population growth, about which he says nothing. But in the real world, the fact that California already has 39 million residents, and continues to add millions more every decade surely has some bearing on whether there is enough water to go around. For cornucopians of Brown's ilk, admitting that the problem may be more a "longage" of people than a shortage of water (in Garrett Hardin's memorable turn of phrase) is apparently beyond the pale. In a nutshell, water resources in America are already stressed in many parts of the country, and projected population growth will stress them further, though a commitment to good planning can buy time and alleviate some of that stress. One way stress will be relieved is buying farmers' water rights, which is happening in California and elsewhere. To

89





accommodate the water demands of a growing population, we are reducing our ability to feed that population, and overseas populations that depend on our food (especially grain) exports. It's called "robbing Peter to pay Paul" or a zero-sum game, as opposed to "win-win," which is what Americans and everyone else prefers.

90


2NC/1NR Meat Consumption LinkIncreased meat consumption expedites global warming Friedman, Pierre-Louis, and Sengupta, 2018Lisa, Kendra, and Somini, New York Times January 25, 2018, “The Meat Question, by the Numbers.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.htmlThe impact of agriculture, a category that includes everything from growing lettuce to raising livestock, is tricky to express because the gasses produced — mostly methane and nitrous oxide — have much more warming potential than carbon dioxide but also dissipate more quickly. According to the latest thinking, though, farming is responsible for the equivalent of 574 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States each year and 56 million metric tons in Canada. That’s about 8 percent of each country’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is increasingly drawing attention from researchers because its worldwide levels have doubled in less than 10 years after remaining flat since the 1990s. The reasons behind the increase are not well understood. In the United States, 42 percent of agricultural emissions come from animal agriculture. Two-thirds of those gases are directly emitted by ruminants: animals like cows, buffalo and sheep that use bacteria in their stomachs to ferment food. That allows them to eat foods, like grasses, that humans can’t. It also creates a lot of methane when they burp and pass gas. Some non-ruminants — like pigs, horses and mules — also release methane, but not as much. These calculations of livestock emissions exclude the fertilizers used to grow food for livestock and they typically don’t look at alternative-use scenarios, like what would happen if we removed cows from grasslands and let wild ruminants like bison and deer take over. Worldwide, livestock accounts for between 14.5 percent and 18 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. The percentage is lower in the United States in part because our overall greenhouse gas emissions are so much higher than other countries: In the United States we emit 16.5 metric tons per person per year compared to a worldwide average of about five metric tons. Most of America’s emissions come from power plants and transportation, with each accounting for a third of the total.

91

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/agriculture-and-climate/greenhouse-gases/measuring-emissions/?id=1329321977257

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2016-chapter-5-agriculture.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html


2NC/1NR Urban Sprawl LinkUrban Sprawl/Housing: Population growth via immigration exacerbates the urban sprawl problemKolankiewicz, 2015Leon, April 17, 2015, Center for Immigration Studies, “Immigration, Population Growth, and the Environment”https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Population-Growth-and-EnvironmentA series of studies conducted by Kolankiewicz, Beck, and Camarota in the early 2000s, and resumed by Kolankiewicz, Beck, and Manetas in 2014, has quantified the role of population growth in driving urban sprawl, and trends in this role over time. Using data and surveys compiled painstakingly over several decades by the Census Bureau and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the sprawl studies in the early 2000s — covering the last three decades of the 20th century (1970-2000) — documented that population growth accounted for about half of sprawl, with decreasing population density (or conversely, increasing per capita land consumption) accounting for the other half. The role of population growth in driving sprawl was highest in the urban and developed areas of the West, South, and Southwest, the regions of the country that are growing the fastest now and that are projected to continue growing the fastest for decades to come. The studies in the early 2000s revealed some ominous trends. In the 15 years from 1982 to 1997, America converted approximately 25 million acres (39,000 square miles) of rural land — forests, rangeland, pastures, and cropland — to developed land, that is, to subdivisions, freeways, factories, strip malls, airports, and the like. That was an area about equal to Maine and New Hampshire combined. These losses occurred at an average rate of 1.7 million acres per year, 17 million acres per decade. If this rate of 17 million acres per decade were to continue to 2060, which is consistent with the Census projections, the United States will have lost an additional 107 million acres of rural countryside. That's 167,000 square miles, about equal to the combined areas of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia. Added to the loss of an area equivalent to Maine and New Hampshire from 1982-1997, that amounts to much of the Eastern Seaboard. Anyone who has ever flown at night from New York to Florida and seen the galaxies of twinkling lights below sweeping to the horizon and beyond gets a feel for how far advanced this process of mass urbanization already is. The future will see more of the same if U.S. population grows by 36 percent, barring a marked change in where and how Americans choose (or are forced, as by higher gasoline/energy prices) to live. The 2014 national level study revealed that the role of population growth in driving urban sprawl has increased markedly over time, from about half (50 percent) in the last few decades of the 20th century (1970 to 2000), to approximately 70 percent in the first decade of the new century (2000 to 2010). (See Figure 6.) In some of the nation's most rapidly growing states, such as California, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado, population growth accounted for virtually all sprawl during the 2000-2010 decade.

92




Urban Sprawl Impacts BiodiversityPoon, 2018Linda, February 16, 2018, CityLab, “Mapping the 'Conflict Zones' Between Sprawl and Biodiversity”https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/02/mapping-the-conflict-zones-between-sprawl-and-biodiversity/553301/By 2030, the world is expected to add another billion people or so, bringing the total population to roughly 8.5 billion. And with humans becoming increasingly urban, sprawl will only get worse , taking up precious space that wild birds, mammals, plants, and the like can still call home. In fact, at least 423 large cities (that is, with more than 300,000 people) across the globe are nestled inside 36 biodiversity hotspots: regions that harbor a high diversity of animal and plant species found virtually nowhere else in the world. And considering the growth trajectory of these cities—as modeled by the Seto Lab at Yale University—a staggering 90 percent of them could end up destroying the natural habitats of endangered species over the next decade or so. That’s the conclusion of a study presented this week at the World Urban Forum in Kuala Lumpur by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania.

Urban Sprawl causes global warmingJeong, 2012Jack (Jin U), Spring 2012, Higher temperature effects of impervious surface due to urbanization in South Berkeley, California https://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2012final/JeongJ_2012.pdfAs cities sprawl outward, the heat island effect expands, both in geographic extent and in intensity. This is especially true if the pattern of development features extensive tree-cutting and road construction. Furthermore, dispersed metropolitan expansion involves a positive feedback loop that may aggravate the heat island effect. Sprawling metropolitan areas, with greater travel distances, generate a large amount of automobile travel. This, in turn, results in more fuel combustion, with more production of carbon dioxide, and consequential contributions to global climate change. Global climate change, in turn, may intensify the heat island effect in metropolitan areas. Thus, not only does the morphology of metropolitan areas contribute to warming, but so may the greenhouse gas production that results from increased driving. The number of [inhabitants] is a decisive factor conditioning the occurrence of urban heat island.

93

https://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2012final/JeongJ_2012.pdf

https://urban.yale.edu/research/theme-3

https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/10/global-density-is-decreasing/505139/

https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/02/mapping-the-conflict-zones-between-sprawl-and-biodiversity/553301/

https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/02/mapping-the-conflict-zones-between-sprawl-and-biodiversity/553301/


2NC/1NR Link Magnifier: Chain Migration

Chain Migration magnifies the linkGellner, Garling and Mehlman 2010Jeff, Scipio, and Ira, Federation for American Immigration Reform, April 2010https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/enviroguide_2010_rev2.pdfCHAIN MIGRATION IS TO BLAME. Because of changes made to the immigration laws in 1965, Congress has set off “chain migration” at a time when population growth worldwide is unprecedented. In chain migration, one immigrant sponsors several family members for admission, who then sponsor several others, and so on. In 2008, 43 years after the 1965 changes to immigration policy, the number of immigrants who are immediate relatives sponsored by U.S. citizens — many of whom were immigrants who became naturalized citizens — was 15 times higher than in 1965; and the number of secondary family members sponsored by immigrants residing in the United States was 17 times higher than in 1965.

Immigrants have children, expanding their impactGellner, Garling and Mehlman 2010Jeff, Scipio, and Ira, Federation for American Immigration Reform, April 2010https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/enviroguide_2010_rev2.pdfThe U.S.-born children of immigrants act as an invisible multiplier, greatly increasing the impact of immigration on the U.S. population. From 2010 to 2050, 79.5 million additional immigrants are projected to take up residence in the U.S. in the Census Bureau’s high-immigration scenario; yet the difference in projected population size in 2050 between the high-immigration scenario and net-zero immigration scenario is 135 million. Why the difference? Because the population is also growing from natural increase (births minus deaths) and that, too, is influenced by immigration. The additional 55.5 million increase in population by 2050 results from the excess of births over deaths. Thus, the higher fertility rate of the 79.5 additional immigrants mean that immigration’s impact on population growth is much greater than it might seem at first glance. Perspective Demographers tell us that if we would have had zero net immigration since 1995 the U.S. population would now be less than 290 million, would have peaked at 310 million in the year 2040, and stabilized around 307 million by 2050.12 The United Nations Human Development Report shows why America’s 1 percent annual growth rate is a more serious threat to the global environment than in less developed countries population growth rates that can exceed 3 percent annually. Americans comprise 5 percent of the world population but account for 30 percent of global consumption and waste.14 In the long run we must work to reduce Americans’ consumption and waste production, but we must also face the fact that the most expedient way to reduce the growth in our collective ecological footprint is to minimize population growth in the U.S.

94

https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/enviroguide_2010_rev2.pdf



2NC/1NR Impact Debate

Biodiversity Impact ScenarioLack of biodiversity causes loss of crops and vaccines as well as an overall diminished quality of lifeHarber, 2018Lauren, January 20, 2018, Earth Institute, Columbia University, “What Is Biodiversity and How Does Climate Change Affect It?”http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/15/biodiversity-climate-change/Healthy ecosystems require a vast assortment of plant and animal life, from soil microbes to top level predators like bears and wolves. If one or more species is removed from this environment, no longer serving its niche, it can harm the ecosystem. Introducing foreign or invasive species into a habitat can have similar results, as the invasive species can out-compete the native species for food or territory. Biodiversity affects our food, medicine, and environmental well-being. Dragonflies, ladybugs and beetles pollinate many of the crops we rely on for food, as well as plants in natural ecosystems. One type of pollinator cannot do it all, hence the importance of biodiversity. Loss of habitat—for example, when humans convert meadows into parking lots or backyards—is reducing pollinator populations. If pollinators were to disappear entirely, we would lose over one-third of all crop production . This would reduce or eliminate the availability of foods like honey, chocolate, berries, nuts and coffee. Many modern medicines , like aspirin, caffeine and morphine, are modeled after chemical compositions found in plants. If undiscovered or uninvestigated wildlife species disappear, it would disadvantage scientists trying to uncover new sources of inspiration for future vaccines and medications. Biodiversity also provides ecosystem services or benefits to people. These benefits include: hurricane storm surge protection, carbon sequestration, water filtration, fossil fuel generation, oxygen production and recreational opportunities. Without a myriad of unique ecosystems and their respective diverse plant and animal life, our quality of life may become threatened.

95

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/science/decline-of-species-that-pollinate-poses-a-threat-to-global-food-supply-report-warns.html?_r=0

https://www.nature.nps.gov/biology/invasivespecies/

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/15/biodiversity-climate-change/


Bio-diversity loss leads to cascading extinctions, including ours. Eco-systems are on the brink now, and losses will cause famine for humans as well. Geib 2018Claudia, Feb. 20th, 2018, Futurism, “Losing Biodiversity Could Lead to Extinction Cascades,” https://futurism.com/losing-biodiversity-extinction-cascades/New research shows that a loss of biodiversity puts the entire ecosystem at risk of a domino effect, where a single extinction could cause countless others. Human expansion, destruction of natural habitats , pollution, and climate change have all led to biodiversity levels that are considered below the “safe” threshold for global ecosystems. And the consequences of biodiversity loss aren’t just about the extinction of certain charismatic species. A new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that less biodiversity in an area increases the risk of a domino effect of extinctions, where one species’ disappearance can cause other species to follow suit. The research, conducted by ecologists at the University of Exeter, shows that losing a species in an area is dangerous in that it makes the surrounding ecological community simpler, and therefore less robust to change. It makes sense: the fewer species that exist in an area, the fewer that are available to “fill the gap” left by other extinctions. Other species in the ecosystem will have fewer alternatives to turn to. For example, if there are fewer insects left overall across a region, the bats and amphibians that eat them will feel the loss of just one species much more severely.“Interactions between species are important for ecosystem stability,” said Dirk Sanders, lead author and professor in Exeter’s Center for Ecology and Conservation, in a news release. “And because species are interconnected through multiple interactions, an impact on one species can affect others as well.” The Exeter team investigated this idea by removing a species of wasp from test ecosystems. In many of these systems, the wasp’s disappearance caused indirect extinctions of other species at the same level of the food web. In simple communities, the effect was even stronger. Sanders emphasized the biodiversity loss could cause “run-away extinction cascades.” This research sounds yet another dire warning bell at a time of biodiversity crisis. Even if you don’t care for poster-child species like polar bears, the crisis could also have ramifications for species that everyone cares about, like the crops that are the foundation of our global food supply . Studies that show how broadly single extinctions reverberate across ecosystems might buoy further efforts to protect global biodiversity.

96

https://futurism.com/world-food-supplies-threatened-by-sixth-mass-extinction/

https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_640529_en.html


https://futurism.com/scientists-say-ecological-armageddon-is-imminent-due-to-massive-insect-deaths/



https://futurism.com/research-shows-that-worlds-biodiversity-is-below-safe-levels/

https://futurism.com/research-shows-that-worlds-biodiversity-is-below-safe-levels/

https://futurism.com/companies-bring-end-deforestation/

https://futurism.com/losing-biodiversity-extinction-cascades/

https://futurism.com/losing-biodiversity-extinction-cascades/


2NC/1NR Global Warming Scenario Impact

Warming causes heat waves, sea level rise, loss of wetlands and reefs, ocean acidification, overfishing, disrupts agriculture, bio-diversity loss, air pollution and pandemic diseases. Our projections make it hard to know how soon warming will strike, and adaption is not possible. National Research Council, 2011National Academic Press, America’s Climate Choices, “Causes and Consequences of Climate Change” https://www.nap.edu/read/12781/chapter/4The impacts of climate change—on coasts, water resources, agriculture, ecosystems, transportation systems, and other human and natural systems—can generally be expected to intensify with warming.37 Some of these impacts are well understood and can be quantified with reasonable scientific confidence, while others are much less understood and can only be qualitatively described. A few examples of impacts that have been projected to occur across a range of future warming scenarios include: more intense, more frequent, and longer-lasting heat waves, both globally38 and in the United States (see Figure 2.5); global sea level rise 39 with potentially large effects on infrastructure, beach erosion, loss of wetlands, vulnerability to storm surge flooding in the Gulf Coast and other coastal regions,40 and irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth as many coastal and island features ultimately become submerged;41 widespread bleaching and stresses on coral reefs, globally42 and in the Florida Keys, Hawaii, and U.S. island possessions,43 due to the combined effects of heat stress, ocean acidification, 44 pollution, and overfishing; greater drying of the arid Southwest (putting additional pressure on water resources) and expansion of deserts in the United States;45 effects on agriculture due to elevated CO2 levels, temperature and precipitation changes, and also by possible increases in weeds, diseases, and insect pests;46 shifts in the ranges of forest tree-species (northward and upslope), increases in forest fire risk across much of the western United States,47and a potential increase in the number of species at risk of extinction;48and increased potential of public health risks, for instance, from heat stress; from elevated ozone air pollution; from certain diseases transmitted by food, water, and insects; and from direct injury and death due to extreme weather events.49 In addition to the potential impacts that we are able to identify today, there is a real possibility of impacts that have not been anticipated. This possibility, coupled with our limited ability to predict the timing and location of some climate-related impacts, and our incomplete understanding of the vulnerabilities of different populations and sectors will make adaptation to climate change especially challenging.

97

https://www.nap.edu/read/12781/chapter/8#notesx-q49











https://www.nap.edu/read/12781/chapter/4#chap2x-fig2_5



https://www.nap.edu/read/12781/chapter/4


Answers to 2AC Arguments

Just because the global population is growing doesn’t mean we should ignore US population trendsGellner, Garling and Mehlman 2010Jeff, Scipio, and Ira, Federation for American Immigration Reform, April 2010https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/enviroguide_2010_rev2.pdfWith each passing day forests are being felled to make way for shopping centers, green meadows plowed under for new subdivisions, and quiet meandering country lanes turned into eight-lane highways. Along both coasts, the outlying exurbs of one city run seamlessly into the creeping edges of the next. In the interior of the country, small farming towns suddenly find themselves turned into bedroom communities for big cities that, until recently, seemed light years removed both geographically and culturally. Rapid population growth is a worldwide phenomenon. Its effect on the environment is evident from the diminishing rain forests of South America, to the barren plains of Africa, to the desiccated river beds of China. We should do our utmost to promote conservation and family planning in countries suffering from overpopulation and ecological degradation. But the fact that some nations are experiencing intense population growth is no reason to ignore the overpopulation of the United States. We cannot rationalize America’s current immigration policy by pointing to overpopulation in India or Mexico. We cannot sacrifice our national security and local ecosystems in a misguided attempt to alleviate the problems of other nations. We must act responsibly and plan for the long term, while helping others to do the same. But we have not been acting responsibly. Instead we have surrendered to industry lobbyists who favor low wages, and to ethnic special interest groups who see the growth of their constituencies as a path to political power. As a result, the U.S. adds three million people to its population every year and ecosystems across the nation are feeling the pressure.1 Lifestyle changes are unlikely to happen quicklyGellner, Garling and Mehlman 2010Jeff, Scipio, and Ira, Federation for American Immigration Reform, April 2010https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/enviroguide_2010_rev2.pdfOn both a global and national scale, achieving U.S. population stability is an important environmental priority. As the most consumptive nation on earth, each addition to our population has a disproportionate impact on global ecology. U.S. population growth strains world resources, and is degrading the fragile ecosystems of our own country. Whether one’s environmental focus is global or local, reining in U.S. population growth is a prerequisite to achieving a healthier, more sustainable environment. Immigration is the key factor determining future population growth. Moreover, it is the sole factor determined by national policy. It is important to emphasize that the purpose of reducing immigration is not to sustain the overly consumptive American lifestyle. However, it is naïve to believe that the American public will quickly and radically alter its lifestyle habits. Thus, we must pursue an immigration policy that stabilizes our population, even as we promote efficiency and moderate consumption.

98




99


Overpopulation hype ignored technological advancementGellner, Garling and Mehlman 2010Jeff, Scipio, and Ira, Federation for American Immigration Reform, April 2010https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/enviroguide_2010_rev2.pdfOsborne was wrong. Global population has actually grown to twice the size in half the time that he predicted. Osborne would be astounded, not just by the speed with which human population has increased, but that a global population of 6.8 billion can be sustained, albeit with considerable consequence to the environment. Like Thomas Robert Malthus a century and a half earlier, Osborne did not anticipate advances in agricultural productivity and improvements in technology. The miscalculations of Malthus and Osborne have unfortunately given credence to those who recklessly argue that human population growth is limitless. Such a perspective is logically absurd. Immigration is the biggest population factor we can actually controlGellner, Garling and Mehlman 2010Jeff, Scipio, and Ira, Federation for American Immigration Reform, April 2010https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/enviroguide_2010_rev2.pdfImmigration is not only the largest contributor to U.S. population growth, it is also the most controllable because it is a discretionary policy. We could, by legislative action, dramatically cool this engine of population growth. However, many Americans have immigrant friends, coworkers and ancestors, and may not be comfortable supporting the actions necessary to stabilize the U.S. population. But if we avoid this responsibility we will leave a legacy of pollution, sprawl, congestion, and ecological degradation to our children and grandchildren. And, if we are not prepared to accept responsibility for a sensible immigration policy, we also lose the right to complain about the consequences.

100




Wages Disadvantage 2NC/1NR

2NC/1NR Uniqueness Extensions:Wages are rising due to low unemploymentKline 2018Daniel B, July 5th, 2018, USA Today, US Wage Growth in June was 2018’s strongest so far, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/07/05/us-wage-growth-in-june-was-2018s-strongest-so-far/36579285/With the official unemployment rate at an 18-year low, blue-collar workers are in high demand. Median base pay for workers in the United States climbed by 1.6 percent in June to $52,052, according to the latest edition of Glassdoor's Local Pay Report. That was the strongest growth in the wage statistic so far in 2018. "With unemployment hovering around historic lows, employers' need to fill roles climbs," said Glassdoor Chief Economist Andrew Chamberlain in a press release. "What results is that more workers, especially in high demand industries like healthcare, finance, and e-commerce, are in the driver's seat to negotiate for better pay in order to fill these roles." The Glassdoor data showed that traditional blue-collar jobs -- such as truck driver, warehouse associate, and materials handler -- posted large wage gains. The increases were tied to the increasing demand for manpower in those areas created by growth in e-commerce, and Chamberlain expects that wages for these positions will continue to climb throughout 2018.

Wage growth is slow now—employment rate is key. Adding workers slows wage growthShambaugh and Nunn 2017Jay and Ryan, Oct. 24th, 2017, Harvard Business Review, Why Wages Aren’t Growing in America, https://hbr.org/2017/10/why-wages-arent-growing-in-americaSince the global financial crisis, wage growth (without adjusting for inflation) has continued to be slow. In part, this represents low inflation — real wage growth in recent years has actually surpassed the rates in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, but is still low — and it may also represent the hangover from a severe recession. Labor market slack has been one reason for low wage growth earlier in the recovery and may still have some impact recently; the more available workers are out there, the less ability workers have to demand higher wages. The reintegration of unemployed or new workers into the workforce after a recession can also lead to slower wage growth, given that their wages are generally lower than those of already-employed workers. However, particularly slow productivity growth in the last decade, combined with the long-run forces mentioned above, is also crucial to explaining sluggish wage growth.

101

https://hbr.org/2017/10/why-wages-arent-growing-in-america

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/05/22/3-stocks-for-the-booming-e-commerce-market.aspx?&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=feed&referring_guid=83fdb18c-c5b4-4564-bb0b-f24b9175edfe&utm_source=usa-today

https://www.glassdoor.com/research/local-pay-reports/

https://www.glassdoor.com/research/local-pay-reports/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/07/05/us-wage-growth-in-june-was-2018s-strongest-so-far/36579285/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/07/05/us-wage-growth-in-june-was-2018s-strongest-so-far/36579285/


Limited labor pool is key to wage growthThe Economist 2018The Rich World Needs Higher Real Wage Growth, June 30th, https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/06/30/the-rich-world-needs-higher-real-wage-growthIn recent decades the share of GDP going to labour, rather than to capital, has fallen because real pay has increased more slowly than productivity. In advanced economies labour’s share fell from almost 55% to about 51% between 1970 and 2015, according to researchers at the IMF. A widely heard explanation is that a fall in union membership, combined with rising offshoring and outsourcing, has eroded workers’ bargaining power. More recently, economists have suggested that labour’s falling share could be linked to the rise of “superstar” firms such as Google that dominate their markets and have low labour costs relative to their enormous profits. Reversing the fall in labour’s share of GDP would require real wages to grow faster than productivity, weighing on firms’ profit margins. Continued tightening in labour markets might yet boost workers’ bargaining power enough for that to happen, as was the case during the late 1990s and late 2000s, two unusual periods in which labour’s share of GDP rose across the rich world. There is still room for improvement. For instance, even where unemployment rates are low, the number of part-time workers who want full-time jobs remains unusually high. This continues to weigh on wage growth, according to an analysis by the IMF late last year. Some countries, such as Italy, still suffer from unemployment rates that are far higher than they were before the financial crisis. Such pockets of slack might constrain wages everywhere now that goods are produced in international supply chains and sold on global markets. In a recent working paper, Kristin Forbes of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that the influence on inflation of global slack and commodity prices has grown in the past decade, while local economic conditions have become less important. Philip Lowe, the governor of Australia’s central bank, told the audience in Sintra that when he asks firms that are struggling to find workers why they do not pay more, they “look at me as if I’m completely mad” and deliver a lecture on how competitive the world has become. If slack were eliminated everywhere, pay might rise faster.

102

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/06/30/the-rich-world-needs-higher-real-wage-growth

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/06/30/the-rich-world-needs-higher-real-wage-growth


Wage growth is strong based on a limited labor pool---but, it’s fragileLowrey 2018Annie, 1-14-2018 The Atlantic, “Low-Wage Workers Finally Get a Raise,” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/low-wage-workers-finally-get-a-raise/550487/The labor market is near full employment. The jobless rate is low. The economy is adding tens of thousands of jobs each month, and —at last— wages and earnings are increasing for workers at or just above the minimum wage. Indeed, Walmart on Thursday announced that it would provide a wage hike to and expand benefits for employees across the country, with 85,000 workers with two decades of seniority at the big-box retailer getting a $1,000 bonus and a million workers in total benefitting. In addition, 18 states bumped up their minimum wages for the new year, providing an estimated $5 billion more a year to 4.5 million workers, the left-of-center Economic Policy Institute has calculated. “It has changed my life, and I have noticed the changes,” said Darryl Johnson, a home health worker based near Seattle, whose hourly rate has gone from $13.50 to nearly $15 over the past 18 months. “I have more food at the end of the month, and I’m not trying to stretch those groceries for a week and a half. I’m feeding myself better, and you need to work to eat and get out there.” Still, the recent improvements in the low-wage labor market underscore how slow the recovery has been for millions of families—how fragile they remain, and how much longer the expansion would have to continue to make up for lost decades of growth. Many rich Americans found that their fortunes bounced back fast after the Great Recession. Millions of poor Americans, by some measures, have still not seen their financial situations recover, let alone improve. But now that’s changing. Over the past few years, the unemployment rate has fallen precipitously for less-skilled and less-educated workers. The jobless rate for workers without a high-school diploma has dropped from 8 percent as of December 2016 to 6.8 percent last month, while it dropped from 2.3 percent to 2 percent for workers with a college degree over the same time period. Low-wage workers are also seeing big increases in their earnings, compared with middle-income workers, and the poverty rate is declining too. The long-term jobless, people with criminal records, individuals with a disability—they are getting hired, despite some economists’ fears that they would remain structurally unemployed even in a hot labor market.

Immigration has displaced native workers so much they aren’t even looking anymoreFrum 2015David, Jan 5th, The Atlantic, Does Immigration Harm Working Americans, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/does-immigration-harm-working-americans/384060/Last month, the Center for Immigration Studies released its latest jobs study . CIS, a research organization that tends to favor tight immigration policies, found that even now, almost seven years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans are working than in November 2007, the peak of the prior economic cycle. Balancing the 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans at work, there are 2 million more immigrants—legal and illegal—working in the United States today than in November 2007. All the net new jobs

103

http://cis.org/despite-recent-job-growth-native-employment-still-below-2007

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/does-immigration-harm-working-americans/384060/


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/low-wage-workers-finally-get-a-raise/550487/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/low-wage-workers-finally-get-a-raise/550487/


created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants. Meanwhile, millions of native-born Americans, especially men, have abandoned the job market altogether. The percentage of men aged 25 to 54 who are working or looking for work has dropped to the lowest point in recorded history.

104


Immigration forces native born workers out of the workforce and dependence on government services. Their departure from the labor market skews studies to look like immigration doesn’t harm the labor market. Frum 2015David, Jan 5th, The Atlantic, Does Immigration Harm Working Americans, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/does-immigration-harm-working-americans/384060/Economic popularizers passionately deny that immigration causes wage declines and job displacement. From the point of view of several actual economists, however, these reassurances are so much uninformed propaganda. As the technical economists understand, wage cuts and job displacement are the exact and only ways that immigration confers any benefits on native workers at all. It is wage decline and job displacement that drives natives to shift to higher-paid sectors. No wage cuts, no job displacement. No jobs displaced, no benefit to natives. Here’s Peri saying just that: "Large inflows of less educated immigrants may reduce wages paid to comparably-educated, native-born workers. However, if less educated foreign- and native-born workers specialize in different production tasks, because of different abilities, immigration will cause natives to reallocate their task supply, thereby reducing downward wage pressure.” When economists minimize the impact of immigration on wages, they aren’t denying that immigration pushes wages down in the jobs that immigrants take. They concede that immigration does do that. They celebrate that immigration does that. Instead, they join their celebration of immigration’s wage-cutting effects with a prediction about the way that the natives will respond. But what if the prediction is wrong? What if natives respond to immigrant competition by shifting out of the labor market entirely, by qualifying for disability pensions? The proportion of the population receiving disability pensions doubled between 1985 and 2005 and jumped by another 20 percent during the Great Recession. 14 million Americans now receive disability pensions. The evidence is compelling that disability applications rise when the job market weakens. Why? Economists talk too blithely about natives shifting to more skilled and remunerative work. Up-skilling costs time, effort, and money. It can oblige a worker to move away from family and friends. It forces older workers to begin again at a time in their lives when they felt settled, to risk failure at a time in life when risk is not appreciated. It’s not highly surprising that many displaced workers would opt to give up on work altogether instead. The exit of native-born men from the workforce—at least arguably because of immigration—has the curious side effect of tilting the immigration models in a pro-immigration direction. Remember, the models are based on ratios of hours worked and wages paid. If a native-born janitor earning $18 an hour is displaced by an immigrant and then shifts to a $12 an hour retail job, the models capture that change as a harm to native-born workers. But if the displaced native-born janitor exits the labor force, he disappears from the model altogether, and with him, the evidence of the harm. It may seem crazy, but it’s the way the model is built.

105

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-02/disability-Social-Security-recession/52940278/1

http://www.nber.org/bah/fall06/w12436.html

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.1.3.135




2NC/1NR Link Debate

Skilled Immigrtion Link: ‘STEM shortage’ is a myth created to reduce tech wages Charette 2013Robert, Risk Ecologist, “The STEM Crisis Is a Myth,” IEEE Spectrum, https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-mythSo why the persistent anxiety that a STEM crisis exists? Michael S. Teitelbaum, a Wertheim Fellow at Harvard Law School and a senior advisor to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, has studied the phenomenon, and he says that in the United States the anxiety dates back to World War II. Ever since then it has tended to run in cycles that he calls “alarm, boom, and bust.” He says the cycle usually starts when “someone or some group sounds the alarm that there is a critical crisis of insufficient numbers of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians” and as a result the country “is in jeopardy of either a national security risk or of falling behind economically.” In the 1950s, he notes, Americans worried that the Soviet Union was producing 95 000 scientists and engineers a year while the United States was producing only about 57 000. In the 1980s, it was the perceived Japanese economic juggernaut that was the threat, and now it is China and India. You’ll hear similar arguments made elsewhere. In India, the director general of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Vijay Kumar Saraswat, recently noted that in his country, “a meagre four persons out of every 1000 are choosing S&T or research, as compared to 110 in Japan, 76 in Germany and Israel, 55 in USA, 46 in Korea and 8 in China.” Leaders in South Africa and Brazil cite similar statistics to show how they are likewise falling behind in the STEM race. “The government responds either with money [for research] or, more recently, with visas to increase the number of STEM workers,” Teitelbaum says. “This continues for a number of years until the claims of a shortage turn out not to be true and a bust ensues.” Students who graduate during the bust, he says, are shocked to discover that “they can’t find jobs, or they find jobs but not stable ones.” At the moment, we’re in the alarm-heading-toward-boom part of the cycle. According to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government spends more than US $3 billion each year on 209 STEM-related initiatives overseen by 13 federal agencies. That’s about $100 for every U.S. student beyond primary school. In addition, major corporations are collectively spending millions to support STEM educational programs. And every U.S. state, along with a host of public and private universities, high schools, middle schools, and even primary schools, has its own STEM initiatives. The result is that many people’s fortunes are now tied to the STEM crisis, real or manufactured. Clearly, powerful forces must be at work to perpetuate the cycle. One is obvious: the bottom line. Companies would rather not pay STEM professionals high salaries with lavish benefits, offer them training on the job, or guarantee them decades of stable employment. So having an oversupply of workers, whether domestically educated or imported, is to their benefit. It gives employers a larger pool from which they can pick the “best and the brightest,” and it helps keep wages in check. No less an authority than Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said as much when in 2007 he advocated boosting the number of skilled immigrants entering the United States so as to “suppress” the wages of their U.S. counterparts, which he considered too high.

106

https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth


107


Wage suppression has been empirically provenTurner 2017Patrick, University of Colorado, “High-Skilled Immigration and the Labor Market: Evidence from the H-1B Visa Program,” https://economics.nd.edu/assets/263109/jmp_turner.pdfI find that workers who are most exposed to increased competition from high-skilled immigration , STEM majors, have lower wages than you would expect given their age and college major. Specifically, I measure immigrant competition as the immigrant-native ratio in a major-experience group. My results suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in the immigrant-native ratio within a major-experience group lowers relative wages by 1.2 percent. Computer Science majors experienced the largest changes in this variable across experience cohorts, a 50 percentage point increase between the 1990 and 2000 cohorts. Because immigrants arrive and stay in the U.S. when returns to their skills are high, OLS is upward biased. Notably, a negative effect only appears after correcting for the endogeneity of immigration. This finding is consistent with an endogeneity bias, and the IV reveals the negative effect predicted by the theoretical model. Further, I present evidence that the adverse wage effect occurs alongside occupational switching of native-born workers . Using data on occupation-specific tasks from the O*NET database, I find that natives are more likely to work in occupations where interactive tasks relative to quantitative tasks are more important for their job. I also address the broader question of how immigration from 1990 to 2010 has affected the STEM wage premium. My empirical strategy is not well suited to answer this question because of the reduction of sample size when focusing on STEM and non-STEM majors in the aggregate. The theoretical model, however, provides a simple relationship between immigration-based increases in the labor supply of STEM and non-STEM workers and the wage gap between them. Crucially, this relationship depends on the elasticity of substitution between these workers. To my knowledge, this elasticity has not been estimated in the literature. I provide estimates that fall within the theoretical bounds of this parameter set by the elasticities nested above and below college major. Using my estimates, I simulate changes in the STEM wage premium and find that STEM wages fell 4–12 percent relative to non-STEM wages because of immigration over the period.

Increased ‘high skilled’ immigration collapses wagesHuang 2010Serena, Kentucky University THE IMPACT OF HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRATION ON WAGES OF U.S. NATIVES http://www2.ku.edu/~econ/people/documents/JMP_HuangOt2010.pdfDespite the large amount of research on immigration, there is no consensus regarding its wage consequences. This study sheds new light on the effect of immigration in the United States by focusing on the high-skilled labor market, using a rich data set on scientists and engineers, exploiting cross-occupation variation in immigration, and incorporating a new instrumental variable. I find a negative and significant impact of immigrants on the wages of high-skilled native workers between 1993 and 2006. This analysis begins with the widely-accepted general equilibrium model and estimates the elasticity of substitution between

108

http://www2.ku.edu/~econ/people/documents/JMP_HuangOt2010.pdf

https://economics.nd.edu/assets/263109/jmp_turner.pdf


immigrants and natives. Assuming a multi-level nested CES production function, empirical results fail to reject the null hypothesis that high-skilled immigrants and natives are perfect substitutes within the same education-experience group.

109


Refugees Link: Refugees can drive down wages if they aren’t high skilled workersSachs and Solomon 2016Jeffrey, Earth Institute, and Paul, PBS NewsHour, April 7th, 2016, What is the economic impact of refugees in America, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/whats-the-economic-impact-of-refugees-in-americaThe distributional consequences come in two kinds. First, some workers face increased job competition, and their wages can be driven down. If lower skilled immigrants come, then lower skilled American workers may see a decline in their wages, whereas business owners may see more workers at lower cost for them. The second kind of distributional consequence is that migrants get social services. And if they pay less in taxes and receive social services, that’s kind of a tax on the rest of the society. So economists point to both the labor market impacts and to the fiscal impacts. Paul Solman: If refugees come and go to work, aren’t they paying in more than they’re getting out? Jeffrey Sachs: What happens depends a lot on who the refugees are, their family structure, if they are lower skilled and in a place where there are lots of social services. If they are coming with large dependent families, maybe they are net recipients. If they are highly skilled workers and relatively young, they are almost surely net contributors. The more one studies this, the more one sees all different kinds of effects.

Agriculture Link: Immigration keeps farm wages lowRichwine 2015Jason, August 28th, National Review, Farm Lobby: Our Workers Don’t Deserve Higher Wages, https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/agriculture-immigration-low-wages/Imagine being told that real (inflation-adjusted) wages for field and crop workers have grown at an annual rate of 0.6 percent over the past twelve years. You may consider this good news, since most other workers have seen minimal raises over the same period. Still, it will probably strike you as a relatively small increase for such arduous work, especially given that the average field wage is still just $11 per hour. It may seem to you that low-skill labor is insufficiently rewarded in today’s economy. But your reaction is completely off-base, according to the farm lobby. In its view, these 0.6 percent raises are alarming increases in the cost of labor, and wages must be held down by bringing in more immigrants. That is the explicit message of a new report by the Partnership for a New American Economy , a coalition of business groups that advocates expanded immigration. Titled “A Vanishing Breed,” the report claims to document a decline in the supply of farm workers and the subsequent wage increases that farmers have been forced to offer. It concludes with a call for a more robust guest-worker program. The rise of indirect employment via labor contractors complicates the analysis, but let’s leave aside the data for now. More interesting is just how blunt —perhaps inadvertently blunt — the report is about immigration’s winners and losers. The report is clear about the farm lobby’s desire to keep wages low by increasing the supply of labor. It describes wage increases as “a strain on many U.S. farms” that other industries have managed to avoid. It shows that real wages for food preparers, housekeepers, cashiers, and other low-skill workers outside farming have decreased since 2002. The reason, according to the report, is that “employers in non-agricultural industries have

110

http://www.renewoureconomy.org/research/vanishing-breed-decline-u-s-farm-laborers-last-decade-hurt-u-s-economy-slowed-production-american-farms/

http://www.renewoureconomy.org/research/vanishing-breed-decline-u-s-farm-laborers-last-decade-hurt-u-s-economy-slowed-production-american-farms/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/agriculture-immigration-low-wages/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/whats-the-economic-impact-of-refugees-in-america

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/whats-the-economic-impact-of-refugees-in-america


been able to find enough workers to fill job vacancies without upward pressure on wages.” Farm owners wish they had the same privilege.

111


Amnesty Aff Link: Open borders cause a race-to-the-bottom in wages, and circumvents limitations on inequalityEskow 2016Richard, Health Knowledge, Huffington Post, ““Open Borders”: A Gimmick, Not a Solution,” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/open-borders-a-gimmick-no_b_7945140.htmlProposals like “open borders” aren’t made in a vacuum. We already know how such programs lead to abuse — and the victims are likely to be immigrants themselves. The Downward Spiral Bier argues that workers from other countries should work for $2 or $3 per hour once they get here. That, in a nutshell, is why Sanders is right and the open-borders crowd is wrong. The open-borders idea is inextricably linked to an approach in which US wages, along with those of foreign workers, are trapped in a race to the bottom. This approach would lead to a downward spiral for the middle class, as powerful corporate forces impose their will on an inexhaustible supply of cheap and replaceable labor. Bier mocks the idea that an open borders policy means “doing away with the concept of the nation state.” But his policy prescription would leave a sovereign people unable to set its own minimum wage or determine its own employment policies. False Choice Perhaps the term “open border” should be replaced with the phrase “cheap lawnmowing,” since that is the essence of the argument as one writer presents it. In characteristically hyperbolic libertarian style, Jason Brennan’s “Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know” says this about the idea: “Most people on the progressive left actively try to restrain the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people from making life-saving and life-changing trades with willing employers. They thus condemn the world’s poor to death and misery. The progressive left is delighted with me when I donate money to the poor through OxFam. But the left forbids me from hiring the poor to mow my lawn, even though that helps them more than an OxFam donation.” This is a false choice. The world’s masses will not be forced to choose between perpetual poverty on the one hand or taking a weed whacker to Jason Brennan’s crabgrass on the other. That is where the thinking of Sanders and his colleagues is far more sophisticated and systems-based than that of Bier, Klein, or other open-borders advocates. An Ugly Misstatement One of those advocates is Dylan Matthews, who works for Klein at Vox. Matthews repeats many of the libertarians’ discredited arguments. He even accuses Sanders of “treating Americans’ lives as more valuable and worthy of concern than the lives of foreigners.” That is an ugly misstatement of Sanders’ position. Sanders, himself the son of an immigrant, is a strong supporter of immigration and immigrants’ rights who wants to ensure that we have fair and humane policies in this area. He supports the DREAM Act, and believes the Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) should be expanded to include the parents of citizens, the parents of legal permanent residents and the parents of DREAMers. The issue isn’t immigration. The issue is fair play for all working people. Principled opposition to “open borders” can and should be based on the recognition that the rights of all workers — immigrant and native-born, in the US and overseas — are eroded when workplace protections are weakened anywhere, and when human lives are subjected to the global flow of capital. Changing the System Sanders, unlike his open-borders opponents, recognizes that the global workforce faces a systemic problem. The concentration of wealth and political

112

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/open-borders-a-gimmick-no_b_7945140.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/open-borders-a-gimmick-no_b_7945140.html


power, both in the US and globally, is diminishing workers’ wages and making them less able to improve their own working conditions.

113


Link Defense: EpistemologyThis assessment is based on the best available dataBorjas 2016George, Harvard University “We Wanted Workers,” p. 129But it is also the case that markets react both to the presence of immigrants and to their absence. And this reaction may be the one that common sense suggests and that Crider pursued: firms will pay less when there is excess labor, and more when they need to attract workers. So, what is the labor market impact of immigration? And are the commonsense implications of the laws of supply and demand actually observed in real-world labor markets? Hundreds of published studies examine these questions. Some claim that immigration has little impact on native wages, while others argue that the effect is sizable. It is very instructive to expose the nature of the disagreements by showing what researchers actually do to get an answer. Much of what we think we know about the labor market impact is driven by assumptions. In some cases, amazing as it may seem, the numerical answer has been assumed, regardless of what the data actually say. The most credible evidence—based solely on the data—suggests that a 10 percent increase in the size of a skill group probably reduces the wage of that group by at least 3 percent.

114


Pro Immigration economists are stretching the truth and are ideologically motivatedBorjas 2016George, Harvard “We Wanted Workers,” p. 20-21Times have certainly changed. Immigration has now become perhaps the most divisive political issue of our time. And immigration research has become a central focus of interest among labor economists (those of us who specialize in examining how labor markets work). Hundreds of published academic studies examine various aspects of the immigration puzzle. These two threads of interest feed off each other. As the political debate heated up, there was increasing demand for information that could be used to frame the discussion and, particularly, to support specific policy positions. Obviously, where there is demand—and especially where there are funds for researchers to conduct such studies—there will be supply, and a rapidly growing number of economists now work on immigration-related issues. The number of research studies is now so large that it would take a few months of careful reading to become familiar with the various themes. It probably would take even longer to fully appreciate the subtleties built into the theories and statistical methods that are commonly used to frame and answer the questions. Paul Collier, a renowned British public intellectual and a professor at Oxford University, published a book in 2013 entitled Exodus: How Migration Is Changing Our World. Collier himself had never conducted research on immigration issues in his academic work; instead, he had written a number of influential books on such diverse topics as the impact of government aid to poor countries and the politics of global warming. The main point of Exodus is that the presumed large benefits that immigration can impart to receiving countries may be greatly reduced as the number of immigrants increases substantially and the migration flow continues indefinitely. Large and persistent flows, Collier argued, could have many other (sometimes harmful) unintended consequences. Regardless of how one feels about this conclusion, I found it particularly insightful to read Collier's overall perception of the many social science studies that he reviewed as he prepared to write the book: A rabid collection of xenophobes and racists who are hostile to immigrants lose no opportunity to argue that migration is bad for indigenous populations. Understandably, this has triggered a reaction: desperate not to give succor to these groups, social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone. This is as damning a statement about the value of social science research on immigration as one can find. As far as I know, Collier is the first distinguished academic to state publicly that social scientists have attempted to construct an intricate narrative that shows the measured impact of immigration to be "good for everyone." I have never made such an assertion in public. But I have long suspected that a lot of the research (particularly, but not exclusively, outside economics) was ideologically motivated, and was being censored or filtered to spin the evidence in a way that would exaggerate the benefits from immigration and downplay the costs.

115


2NC/1NR Impact Extensions

Populism Internal Link: Wage stagnation is the biggest driver of populism—people only care about immigration because of its impact (real or perceived) on wages. McMillan 2017Brad, Commonwealth Financial, Forbes, Economic Policies and Political Populism, What’s the connection? https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradmcmillan/2017/05/25/economic-policies-and-political-populism-whats-the-connection/#78c4085b2b63The current rise in political populism is often seen as connected to conventional economic policies. But what does this connection mean for politics and policies in the future, and what’s the potential impact for our investments? 1) Job creation and wage growth This is a good place to start. One of the key complaints during this recovery has been that, while job creation has been strong, wage growth has lagged. On a real basis, after accounting for inflation, wages have stagnated for decades. This is the core problem—the one that gives rise to all of the others. Looking forward, it’s possible that this problem will get worse, as many current jobs may be replaced by automation. Driverless cars, for all of the excitement they generate, could destroy millions of current jobs, including taxi drivers, truck drivers, and others. 2) Access to health care While the media has focused primarily on health care insurance, the bigger concern is health care access. Regardless of whether one is insured, when care is really needed, it’s usually provided at an emergency room, and the system absorbs the costs. With the stagnation in wage growth, health care systems have been dialing back on providing public care, not to mention the number of medical professionals they make available. This has contributed to reduced access to care. The Affordable Care Act has papered over the problem for the past several years, but if proposed reforms result in large groups of people losing health care, we can certainly expect this to turn into a populist driver as well. 3) Globalization and immigration Globalization and immigration come next. And those hardest hit by points #1 and #2 are most affected here. Even while the economic argument for immigration remains strong, the facts on the ground elicit a reaction that will continue to drive populism.

116

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradmcmillan/2017/05/25/economic-policies-and-political-populism-whats-the-connection/#78c4085b2b63

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradmcmillan/2017/05/25/economic-policies-and-political-populism-whats-the-connection/#78c4085b2b63


Populism Internal Link: Wage stagnation leads to populismWolf 2016Martin, Financial Times, July 19th, 2016, Global Elites must heed the warnings of populist rage, https://www.ft.com/content/54f0f5c6-4d05-11e6-88c5-db83e98a590aFor every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” HL Mencken could have been thinking of today’s politics. The western world undoubtedly confronts complex problems, notably, the dissatisfaction of so many citizens. Equally, aspirants to power, such as Donald Trump in the US and Marine Le Pen in France, offer clear, simple and wrong solutions — notably, nationalism, nativism and protectionism. The remedies they offer are bogus. But the illnesses are real. If governing elites continue to fail to offer convincing cures, they might soon be swept away and, with them, the effort to marry democratic self-government with an open and co-operative world order. What is the explanation for this backlash? A large part of the answer must be economic. Rising prosperity is a good in itself. But it also creates the possibility of positive-sum politics. This underpins democracy because it is then feasible for everybody to become better off at the same time. Rising prosperity reconciles people to economic and social disruption. Its absence foments rage. The McKinsey Global Institute sheds powerful light on what has been happening in a report entitled, tellingly, Poorer than their Parents?, which demonstrates how many households have been suffering from stagnant or falling real incomes. On average between 65 and 70 per cent of households in 25 high-income economies experienced this between 2005 and 2014. In the period between 1993 and 2005, however, only 2 per cent of households suffered stagnant or declining real incomes. This applies to market income. Because of fiscal redistribution, the proportion suffering from stagnant real disposable incomes was between 20 and 25 per cent. (See charts.) McKinsey has examined personal satisfaction through a survey of 6,000 French, British and Americans. The consultants found that satisfaction depended more on whether people were advancing relative to others like them in the past than whether they were improving relative to those better off than themselves today. Thus people preferred becoming better off, even if they were not catching up with contemporaries better off still. Stagnant incomes bother people more than rising inequality. The main explanation for the prolonged stagnation in real incomes is the financial crises and subsequent weak recovery. These experiences have destroyed popular confidence in the competence and probity of business, administrative and political elites. But other shifts have also been adverse. Among these are ageing (particularly important in Italy) and declining shares of wages in national income (particularly important in the US, UK and Netherlands). Real income stagnation over a far longer period than any since the second world war is a fundamental political fact.

117

https://www.ft.com/content/54f0f5c6-4d05-11e6-88c5-db83e98a590a


Populism Impact: Populism emboldens oppression, torture, and chemical weapon attacks against civilians worldwideRoth 2016Kenneth, Nov. 6th 2016, Human Rights Watch, The Dangerous Rise of Populism, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/dangerous-rise-of-populismA similar trend can be found outside the West. Indeed, the rise of Western populists seems to have emboldened several leaders to intensify their flouting of human rights. The Kremlin, for example, has eagerly defended President Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian rule as no worse than the West’s increasingly troubled human rights record. China's Xi Jinping, like Putin, has pursued the toughest crackdown on critical voices in two decades. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey took advantage of a coup attempt to crush opposition voices. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt intensified the crackdown begun after his own coup. President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines has openly called for summary executions of suspected drug dealers and users—and even of human rights activists who defend them. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India tried to shut down critical civic groups as he closed his eyes to intimidation and hate crimes by Hindu nationalist groups against religious and ethnic minorities. Meanwhile, confident that there is little to fear in the West’s occasional protests, Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, backed by Russia, Iran, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, has shredded the international laws of war, ruthlessly attacking civilians in opposition-held parts of the country including eastern Aleppo. Several African leaders, feeling vulnerable to domestic or international prosecution themselves, have harshly criticized the International Criminal Court and, in three cases, announced their intention to withdraw from it.

118

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/dangerous-rise-of-populism


Economic Conflict Internal Link: High wages are the single most important factor for growthBivens 2017Josh, The New School for Social Research, “Inequality is slowing US economic growth,” Economic Policy Institute, https://www.epi.org/publication/secular-stagnation/This new attention to the crisis of American pay is totally proper. The failure of wages of the vast majority of Americans to benefit from economy-wide growth in productivity (or income generated in an average hour of work) has been the root cause of the stratospheric rise in inequality and the concentration of economic growth at the very top of the income distribution. Had this upward redistribution not happened, incomes for the bottom 90 percent of Americans would be roughly 20 percent higher today.3 In short, the rise in inequality driven by anemic wage growth has imposed an “inequality tax” on American households that has robbed them of a fifth of their potential income. There would be huge benefits to American well-being from blocking or reversing this upward redistribution. This welfare gain stemming from blocking upward redistribution is the primary reason to champion policy measures to boost wage growth and lead to a more equal distribution of income gains. Put simply, a dollar is worth more to a family living paycheck to paycheck than it is to families comfortably in the top 1 percent of the income distribution. Proponents of increases in the minimum wage and other measures to boost American wages have often argued that there are benefits to these policies besides the welfare gains stemming from pure redistribution. These proponents have often argued that boosting wages would even benefit aggregate economic outcomes, like growth in gross domestic product (GDP) or employment. Recent evidence about developments in the American and global economies strongly indicate that these arguments are correct: boosting wages of the bottom 90 percent would not just raise these households’ incomes and welfare (a more-than-sufficient reason to do so), it would also boost overall growth. For the past decade (and maybe even longer), the primary constraint on American economic growth has been too-slow spending by households, businesses, and governments. In economists’ jargon, the constraint has been growth in aggregate demand lagging behind growth in the economy’s productive capacity (including growth of the labor force and the stock of productive capital, such as plants and equipment). Much research indicates that this shortfall of demand could become a chronic problem in the future, constantly pulling down growth unless macroeconomic policy changes dramatically.

119

https://www.epi.org/publication/secular-stagnation/


Economic Conflict Impact: Economic decline leads to nuclear war — rally around the flag and deterrence failures.Tønnesson 2015Stein, Peace Research Institute, “Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace,” International Area Studies Review, 18.3Several recent works on China and Sino–US relations have made substantial contributions to the current understanding of how and under what circumstances a combination of nuclear deterrence and economic interdependence may reduce the risk of war between major powers. At least four conclusions can be drawn from the review above: first, those who say that interdependence may both inhibit and drive conflict are right. Interdependence raises the cost of conflict for all sides but asymmetrical or unbalanced dependencies and negative trade expectations may generate tensions leading to trade wars among inter-dependent states that in turn increase the risk of military conflict (Copeland, 2015: 1, 14, 437; Roach, 2014). The risk may increase if one of the interdependent countries is governed by an inward-looking socio-economic coalition (Solingen, 2015); second, the risk of war between China and the US should not just be analysed bilaterally but include their allies and partners. Third party countries could drag China or the US into confrontation; third, in this context it is of some comfort that the three main economic powers in Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea) are all deeply integrated economically through production networks within a global system of trade and finance (Ravenhill, 2014; Yoshimatsu, 2014: 576); and fourth, decisions for war and peace are taken by very few people, who act on the basis of their future expectations. International relations theory must be supplemented by foreign policy analysis in order to assess the value attributed by national decision-makers to economic development and their assessments of risks and opportunities. If leaders on either side of the Atlantic begin to seriously fear or anticipate their own nation’s decline then they may blame this on external dependence, appeal to anti-foreign sentiments, contemplate the use of force to gain respect or credibility, adopt protectionist policies, and ultimately refuse to be deterred by either nuclear arms or prospects of socioeconomic calamities. Such a dangerous shift could happen abruptly, i.e. under the instigation of actions by a third party – or against a third party. Yet as long as there is both nuclear deterrence and interdependence, the tensions in East Asia are unlikely to escalate to war. As Chan (2013) says, all states in the region are aware that they cannot count on support from either China or the US if they make provocative moves. The greatest risk is not that a territorial dispute leads to war under present circumstances but that changes in the world economy alter those circumstances in ways that render inter-state peace more precarious. If China and the US fail to rebalance their financial and trading relations (Roach, 2014) then a trade war could result, interrupting transnational production networks, provoking social distress, and exacerbating nationalist emotions. This could have unforeseen consequences in the field of security, with nuclear deterrence remaining the only factor to protect the world from Armageddon, and unreliably so. Deterrence could lose its credibility: one of the two great powers might gamble that the other yield in a cyber-war or conventional limited war, or third party countries might engage in conflict with each other, with a view to obliging Washington or Beijing to intervene.

120


Economic Conflict Impact: Economic instability increases risk for conflictMann 2014Eric, Intelligence Officer, “AUSTERITY, ECONOMIC DECLINE, AND FINANCIAL WEAPONS OF WAR: A NEW PARADIGM FOR GLOBAL SECURITY,” May 2014, https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37262/MANN-THESIS-2014.pdfThe conclusions reached in this thesis demonstrate how economic considerations within states can figure prominently into the calculus for future conflicts. The findings also suggest that security issues with economic or financial underpinnings will transcend classical determinants of war and conflict, and change the manner by which rival states engage in hostile acts toward one another. The research shows that security concerns emanating from economic uncertainty and the inherent vulnerabilities within global financial markets will present new challenges for national security, and provide developing states new asymmetric options for balancing against stronger states.¶ The security areas, identified in the proceeding chapters, are likely to mature into global security threats in the immediate future. As the case study on South Korea suggest, the overlapping security issues associated with economic decline and reduced military spending by the United States will affect allied confidence in America’s security guarantees. The study shows that this outcome could cause regional instability or realignments of strategic partnerships in the Asia-pacific region with ramifications for U.S. national security. Rival states and non-state groups may also become emboldened to challenge America’s status in the unipolar international system.¶ The potential risks associated with stolen or loose WMD, resulting from poor security, can also pose a threat to U.S. national security. The case study on Pakistan, Syria and North Korea show how financial constraints affect weapons security making weapons vulnerable to theft, and how financial factors can influence WMD proliferation by contributing to the motivating factors behind a trusted insider’s decision to sell weapons technology. The inherent vulnerabilities within the global financial markets will provide terrorists’ organizations and other non-state groups, who object to the current international system or distribution of power, with opportunities to disrupt global finance and perhaps weaken America’s status. A more ominous threat originates from states intent on increasing diversification of foreign currency holdings, establishing alternatives to the dollar for international trade, or engaging financial warfare against the United States.

121

https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37262/MANN-THESIS-2014.pdf

https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37262/MANN-THESIS-2014.pdf


Economic Conflict Impact: Trump, in particular, will respond to economic threats with nuclear escalationStreet 2016Tim, King’s College “President Trump: Successor to the Nuclear Throne,” November 2016, http://www.css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/resources/docs/ORG-President%20Trump-Successor%20to%20the%20Nuclear%20Throne.pdfAs well as mapping out the US’s current nuclear weapons policies and its regional relationships, it is important to reflect upon how domestic political dynamics under a Trump presidency might drive Washington’s behaviour internationally, particularly given the nuclear shadow that always hangs over conflicts involving the US. For example, in the near-term, Trump’s economic plan and the great expectations amongst the American working class that have been generated, may have particularly dangerous consequences if, as seems likely, the primary beneficiaries are the very wealthy. Reviewing Trump’s economic plans, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times concludes that ‘the longer-term consequences are likely to be grim, not least for his angry, but fooled, supporters. Next time, they might be even angrier. Where that might lead is terrifying’. Gillian Tett has also highlighted the ‘real risks’ that Trump’s policies could ‘spark US social unrest or geopolitical uncertainty’. Elsewhere, George Monbiot in the Guardian, makes the stark assertion that the inability of the US and other governments to respond effectively to public anger means he now believes that ‘we will see war between the major powers within my lifetime’.

122


Turns Case: Economic decline causes unregulated crackdowns on immigrantsKlein 2017Naomi, London School of Economics “No is not enough: Resisting Trump’s shock politics and winning the world we need,” p. 4-6The main pillars of Trump’s political and economic project are: the deconstruction of the regulatory state; a full-bore attack on the welfare state and social services (rationalized in part through bellicose racial fearmongering and attacks on women for exercising their rights); the unleashing of a domestic fossil fuel frenzy (which requires the sweeping aside of climate science and the gagging of large parts of the government bureaucracy); and a civilizational war against immigrants and “radical Islamic terrorism” (with ever-expanding domestic and foreign theaters). In addition to the obvious threats this entire project poses to those who are already most vulnerable, it’s also a vision that can be counted on to generate wave after wave of crises and shocks. Economic shocks, as market bubbles—inflated thanks to deregulation—burst; security shocks, as blowback from anti-Islamic policies and foreign aggression comes home; weather shocks, as our climate is further destabilized; and industrial shocks, as oil pipelines spill and rigs collapse, which they tend to do when the safety and environmental regulations that prevent chaos are slashed. All this is dangerous. Even more so is the way the Trump administration can be relied upon to exploit these shocks to push through the more radical planks of its agenda. A large-scale crisis—whether a terrorist attack or a financial crash—would likely provide the pretext to declare some sort of state of exception or emergency, where the usual rules no longer apply. This, in turn, would provide the cover to push through aspects of the Trump agenda that require a further suspension of core democratic norms—such as his pledge to deny entry to all Muslims (not only those from selected countries), his Twitter threat to bring in “the feds” to quell street violence in Chicago, or his obvious desire to place restrictions on the press.

Turns Case: Economic decline turns off the magnet---empiricsSinger and Wilson 2010Audrey and Jill, University of Texas, Brookings Institution, “The Impact of the Great Recession on Metropolitan Immigration Trends,” https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-impact-of-the-great-recession-on-metropolitan-immigration-trends/0An analysis of national and metropolitan immigration trends surrounding the recession of 2007–2009 shows : Immigration slowed during the Great Recession following fast paced growth. While the U.S. foreign-born population grew considerably during the 2000s, the pace of growth slackened at the onset of the recession at the end of 2007. Slower growth was seen after 2007, as the share of the national population that is foreign born has remained constant at 12.5 percent. The recession’s impact on metropolitan immigrant settlement has been uneven. Two growth trajectories stand out among a handful of metropolitan areas: those that have “weathered” the recession and continued to receive immigrants such as Austin, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Seattle, and those that experienced a reversal from high growth to negative growth including Phoenix, Riverside-San Bernardino, and Tampa. Overall, 35 of the top 100 metros saw significant change in their foreign-born populations during the recession. Few impacts of the recession can be discerned in the characteristics of

123

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-impact-of-the-great-recession-on-metropolitan-immigration-trends/0

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-impact-of-the-great-recession-on-metropolitan-immigration-trends/0


immigrants, pre- and post-recession. There has been a drop in the number of immigrants from Mexico, a slight increase in those with less than a high school education, an increase in those who are naturalized U.S. citizens and, not surprisingly, a rise in poverty among immigrants. Following thirty years of unprecedented growth, immigration to the United States plateaued during the Great Recession. As the country moves into recovery mode, immigrant settlement patterns are likely to reflect economic growth across metropolitan areas.

124

Documents

· Web viewWelcome to the Novice Negative Evidence Set. In here, you’ll find all the research you need to construct winning negative arguments for the Visas and Refugees Affirmatives