mexico poe affirmative table of contents (1/2)dallasurbandebate.wikispaces.com/file/view/poe aff-...

Points of Entry Affirmative DUDA 2013-14Varsity

Mexico POE Affirmative Table of Contents (1/2)

Summary........................................................................................................................................3Glossary.........................................................................................................................................4

1AC .......................................................................................................................................... 5-11

Trade AdvantageModernizing Points of Entry Boost Economy................................................................................12US Economic Decline Bad- Military Withdrawal...........................................................................13Answers to: Mexico Not Key to US Growth..................................................................................14Answers to: Mexican Economy is Broken....................................................................................15Answers to: Jobs Turn...............................................................................................................16-7Answers to: Maquiladora Turn- Alternate Causality.....................................................................18Maquiladoras Good- Economy.....................................................................................................19Maquiladora Good- Poverty..........................................................................................................20Answers to: Emissions Turn........................................................................................................21

Relations AdvantageUS-Mexico Relations Add-On 1/2.............................................................................................22-3Mexico Relations Impact: Growth.................................................................................................24US- Mexico Relations Hegemony Impact .................................................................................25-6Answers to: US- Mexico Relations are Resilient..........................................................................27Answers to: Drug trade hurts relations.........................................................................................28

Terrorism AdvantageTerrorism Add-On 1/2...................................................................................................................29Terrorism Add-On 2/2...................................................................................................................30Answers to: Border Secure Now..................................................................................................31

SolvencyAnswers to: No Solvency – Coordination.....................................................................................32Regan, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, 2011............................................................................32Answers to: No Solvency- Regulatory Issues...............................................................................33Answers to: No Solvency- Infrastructure Investment Fails...........................................................34

1


Mexico POE Affirmative Table of Contents (2/2)

Off Case Answers

Answers to: Corporate Tax CounterplanCorporate Tax cuts do not create jobs.........................................................................................35Corporate Tax cuts do not create jobs - Extension.......................................................................36Trade policy more important than tax policy.................................................................................37Corporate Tax Breaks Bad- Inequity ........................................................................................38-9Corporate Tax Breaks Bad- Revenue..........................................................................................40Corporate Tax Breaks Bad- Social Policy....................................................................................41

Answers to: China DisadvantageUnited States engagement in Latin America is durable................................................................42US Economic Engagement with Mexico now...............................................................................43United States won’t crowd out China............................................................................................44United States won’t crowd out China- Extensions........................................................................45Turn- Chinese Influence Bad- Latin America growth and stability...............................................46Chinese Influence Bad- US leadership.........................................................................................47Chinese Soft Power Fails.............................................................................................................48Chinese Soft Power Fails- Extension...........................................................................................49

Answers to Immigration DisadvantageMexico’s Economy Growing/Immigration Rates Declining...........................................................50Mexico’s Economy Growing/Immigration Rates Declining – Fewer Farm Workers......................51Plan Wouldn’t Stop all Migration...................................................................................................52US Farms Will Adapt to Labor Shortages.....................................................................................53US Agriculture Stable Without Immigrant Labor...........................................................................54US Farms Exploit Immigrants.......................................................................................................55Immigrants Hurt the US Economy – General...............................................................................56Immigrants Hurt the US Economy – Lower Wages......................................................................57Immigrants Hurt the US Economy – Drain Welfare......................................................................58Immigrants Hurt the US Economy – Remittances........................................................................59

2


Summary

This affirmative argues that the United States should work with Mexico to modernize points of entry along the US-Mexico border.

The file supports three separate arguments for modernization:

First, , it will increase trade between the United States and Mexico by allowing goods to travel more swiftly between each country. This trade is necessary for economic growth and job creation, improving the quality of life for residents in both countries.

Second, cooperation on modernizing the border will improve relations with Mexico. Strong relations are critical for the US and Mexico to cooperate on solving issues that face both countries like terrorism, global warming and immigration. In addition, strong relations with Mexico are necessary to help the Unites States retain its geographic location as an asset in its efforts to be a global leader. US leadership helps to maintain a stable global order that promotes peace.

Third, more efficient borders will allow border patrol to secure the border and stop illegal crossings. Terrorist groups are looking for ways to piggyback on illegal immigration networks to sneak a weapon of mass destruction into the United States. Modernized border crossings allow border patrol to more easily secure the border and prevent a terrorist attack.

3


Glossary

Competitiveness- the ability of a country to sell goods in a given market

“Gang of Eight”- a bipartisan group of 8 Senators working together in Congress to craft an immigration bill that can gain enough Democratic and Republican support to pass

Hegemony- leadership exercised by one nation over others

Illicit- another word for illegal or against the law

Life expectancy- how long a member of a community is predicted to live based on their likelihood of dying from various causes like disease or other factors

Membranes- A thin, pliable layer of tissue covering surfaces or separating or connecting regions, structures, or organs of an animal or a plant.

Petroleum- a naturally occurring thick black substance that can be distilled into gasoline, motor oil, jet fuel and many other uses

Points of entry- A place where people and goods can legally cross from one country to another

Regulatory- a system of rules set up by the government to guide operations of a specific industry or activity

4

Points of Entry Affirmative DUDA 2013-141AC Varsity

1AC (1/7)

Contention 1 is Inherency:

The United States’ focus on security along the entire border leads to neglecting points of entry along the Mexican border. These low resource crossing points cause delays for goods traveling and slowdowns in the economy on both sides of the border.

Bloomberg News May 2013“Border Delays Cost U.S. $7.8 Billion as Fence Is Focus” By Amanda J. Crawford 5/14/13 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/border-delays-cost-u-s-7-8-billion-as-fence-is-focus.html

U.S. investment has remained focused on controlling the rest of the border between the crossings, including remote areas such as the Arizona desert. In the past decade, the number of Border Patrol agents more than doubled while the number of Customs and Border Protection officers, who staff the ports of entry, has remained at about the same level, according to a report by the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute and partner institutions. Congressional funding for the areas between the ports has eclipsed that for the authorized entry points since 2007, even though the crossings have faced enhanced security requirements, increasing trade and evidence that drugs and dangerous individuals are more likely to cross there, according to the Mexico Institute report. That focus continues in the current immigration debate in the Senate. The plan crafted by the so-called Gang of Eight bipartisan senators, which is being considered by the Judiciary Committee today, aims to secure Republican support by tying immigrants’ path to citizenship to the ability of the U.S. Border Patrol to stop 90 percent of illegal traffic across the southern border between the official ports of entry. There is no similar metric for the efficiency or security of the land ports. ‘Less Attention ’ “The way the border is currently run is costing the U.S. a lot in terms of jobs and the economy,” said Christopher Wilson, an associate with the Mexico Institute and co-author of his group’s report on border trade. “In the context of the current immigration debate, we are very focused on what is going on between the ports of entry while this major issue, which is about security but also about jobs and the economy, is getting a lot less attention.” Focusing politically on the rest of the border is easier than facing the challenges of running effective ports of entry, said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based group critical of increased immigration. While the land ports probably do need more investment in infrastructure, there also should be much more stringent security, including entry and exit checks to catch those who overstay legal visits, he said. “It seems to some extent we put too much emphasis on the ease of movement across the border,” Camarota said. “The border is not simply an obstacle to be overcome by businesses and travelers. It is the part where our country begins, and it is vitally important for security and immigration control.”

5

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/border-delays-cost-u-s-7-8-billion-as-fence-is-focus.html


1AC (2/7)

Growing traffic at US-Mexico points of entry will cause a crippling slowdown in North American trade.

Ramos, New Democracy Network’s Policy Director of the 21st Century Border Initiative, 2013 Kristian Ramos is New Democracy Network’s Policy Director of the 21st Century Border Initiative, “Realizing the Strategic National Value of our Trade, Tourism and Ports of Entry with Mexico” The New Policy Institute is the educational affiliate of the NDN, a think tank based in Washington, DC. May 2013 http://ndn.org/sites/default/files/blog_files/NPI%20U%20S%20-Mexico%20Trade%20Tourism%20POE%20Report_0.pdf

Investment in ports of entry is key Key policies and infrastructure can either help or hinder this enormous economic exchange. Forty-seven U.S.-Mexico land ports of entry facilitate several hundreds of billions dollars in U.S.-Mexico trade every year. Ideally, ports of entry should act as membranes, facilitating healthy interactions (such as legitimate trade and travel) and preventing unhealthy ones (such as illicit drugs, firearms and human smuggling). And ideally much of the actual inspection and clearance should occur “upstream” from the ports. Broad bipartisan agreement has developed on the need to improve our land ports of entry with Mexico. This is because over seventy percent of NAFTA trade flows through these ports of entry as well as an enormous flow of visitors who have a major economic impact on the United States. Twenty-three states have Mexico as their number one or number two trading partner, multiplying jobs in both countries. Significant investments of various types are badly needed for our shared land ports of entry with Mexico. Greatly increased security at the ports of entry since September 11, 2001 coupled with inadequate staffing and infrastructure have significantly increased border wait times. And with continued Congressional gridlock on funding and U.S. Customs and Border Protection projecting a $6 billion shortfall in infrastructure investment on both our southern and northern borders, we may be headed for a debilitating slowdown in North American trade. The regional border infrastructure master planning process is a step in the right direction of formally recognizing the vast bottom-up nature of interaction at the border by thousands of key stakeholders. But this more inclusive infrastructure planning system has not been met with increased funding for ports of entry staffing or infrastructure. The North American Development Bank may offer a model for funding border infrastructure projects.

6


1AC (3/7)

Effective and efficient border crossings are necessary to expand US exports to Mexico – these are a crucial drive renewed US job growth.

O’Neil, Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2013(Shannon, “U.S. Exports Depend on Mexico ” Latin America’s Moment January 11 http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2013/01/11/u-s-exports-depend-on-mexico/)

Surprising to many Americans is the importance of the United States’ trade with Mexico. While Asia captures the headlines, U.S. exports to Mexico are double those to China, and second only to Canada. And while many of these goods come from border states—Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California—Mexico matters for much more of the union. Seventeen states send more than 10 percent of their exports to Mexico , and it is the number one or two destination for U.S. goods for nearly half the country. The graph below shows those states most economically dependent on our southern neighbor–notice that South Dakota and Nebraska outpace New Mexico and California. These flows are only accelerating. During the first ten months of 2012 exports heading south grew by $17 billion dollars (or 10 percent) compared to 2011, reaching a total of $181 billion. They include petroleum products (some $17 billion worth) and intermediate goods such as vehicle parts, electrical apparatuses, industrial supplies, metals, and chemicals (over $40 billion combined). Spurred on by deep supply chains, these pieces and parts move fluidly back and forth across the border (often quite a few times) before ending up as finished goods on store shelves in both countries. The uptick should be seen as a good thing. According to economic studies, these exports support some six million American jobs (directly and indirectly). But to continue this dynamism, the United States and Mexico need to improve border infrastructure and facilitate flows. This means expanding border crossings and highways, and harmonizing regulations and customs to make the process easier and faster. Prioritizing and investing in bilateral trade will provide greater opportunity and security–for U.S. companies and workers alike.

7

http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2013/01/11/u-s-exports-depend-on-mexico/


1AC (4/7)

US-Mexico economic cooperation is the only hope for sustaining the global economic recovery – growth in Europe, China, and Japan are too soft to keep the world economy afloat Schiffer 2013 Michael Schiffer President of the Inter-American Dialogue “A More Ambitious Agenda: A Report of the Inter-American Dialogue’s commission on Mexico-US relations.” February http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf

The first is to reinforce and deepen economic cooperation. That includes increasing the productivity and international competitiveness of both nations, opening opportunities for longterm growth and job creation, and setting the stage for further economic integration. In a world of persistent, widespread economic insecurity, the more the United States and Mexico coordinate and integrate their economies, the more ably they can compete for global markets. Their economic cooperation is more vital than ever as drivers of the global economy falter—as the European financial crisis persists, as China enters a period of slower growth, as Japan remains stalled, and as many emerging markets appear increasingly vulnerable. Among the concrete objectives the two countries should consider are development of a framework to make their shared labor markets more efficient and equitable; formation of a coherent North American energy market (which could help meet the needs of energy-poor Central America); and coordination among the United States, Mexico, and Canada in negotiations toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

8


1AC (5/7)

Economic growth is good for everyone. Growth increases life expectancy, education and quality of life while allowing the government to fund programs for the public good.

Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, 2013(Diana, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, “Only Growth Can Sustain Us” New York Times, February 14, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/16/when-growth-is-not-a-good-goal/only-growth-can-sustain-us)

Economic growth raises standards of living for rich and poor countries alike. The more growth, the better.

In developing countries, higher G.D.P. growth results in lower infant mortality, running water, sewer systems, electricity, better schools and education for children, as can be seen from comparative World Bank data. As electric power plants replace wood stoves, the air is cleared of smog. As girls receive more education, birth rates naturally decline as women choose to make use of their human capital by entering the labor force.

In developed countries, economic growth gives us the tax revenue for cleaner air and water, for missile defense, for health and education programs. Stringent Environmental Protection Agency regulations do not come cheap. Republicans and Democrats both have extensive wish lists for favorite government programs, and the only way to pay for these is from the tax revenue from economic growth.

Here in America, we have all the food we can eat, and more clothes than we can fit in our closets. At the same time, we’re seeing deteriorating family structures that reduce educational performance. About three-quarters of poor families with children are headed by a single parent. Poor children may have cellphones, but they need competitive schools (like KIPP) to make sure they do not fall behind.

Our parents and grandparents are requiring more support as their life expectancies increase. People who live into their 80s and 90s need not just more medical services, but more technology and health aides to be comfortable at home. This also takes economic growth.

Henry Thoreau may be right that we can find God in nature. But it takes economic growth to keep nature pristine and all of us healthy enough to enjoy it.

Thus, we propose the following plan:

The United States federal government should cooperate with the government of Mexico to modernize points of entry along the US-Mexico border.

9

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/16/when-growth-is-not-a-good-goal/only-growth-can-sustain-us

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/16/when-growth-is-not-a-good-goal/only-growth-can-sustain-us


1AC (6/7)

Contention 3 is Solvency:

Mexico is a ready and willing partner for border infrastructure improvements, but the United States has to be the first mover – plan would catalyze growth in legal trade

O’Neil, Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations , 2013 (Shannon, “Mexico Makes It: A Transformed Society, Economy, and Government” March/April 2013 Foreign Affairs http://www.cfr.org/mexico/mexico-makes/p30098)

. Admittedly, this process has sent some U.S. jobs south, but overall, cross-border production is good for U.S. employment. There is evidence that U.S. companies with overseas operations are more likely to create domestic jobs than those based solely in the United States. Using data collected confidentially from thousands of large U.S. manufacturing firms, the scholars Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley, and James Hines upended the conventional wisdom in a 2008 study, which found that when companies ramp up their investment and employment internationally, they invest more and hire more people at home, too. Overseas operations make companies more productive and competitive, and with improved products, lower prices, and higher sales, they are able to create new jobs everywhere. Washington should welcome the expansion of U.S. companies in Mexico because increasing cross-border production and trade between the two countries would boost U.S. employment and growth. Mexico is a ready, willing, and able economic partner, with which the United States has closer ties than it does with any other emerging-market country. Familial and communal ties also unite the United States and Mexico. The number of Mexican immigrants in the United States doubled in the 1980s and then doubled again in the 1990s. Fleeing poor economic and employment conditions in Mexico and attracted by labor demand and family and community members already in the United States, an estimated ten million Mexicans have come north over the past three decades. This flow has recently slowed, thanks to changing demographics and economic improvements in Mexico and a weakening U.S. economy. Still, some 12 million Mexicans and over 30 million Mexican Americans call the United States home. For all these reasons, the United States should strengthen its relationship with its neighbor, starting with immigration laws that support the binational individuals and communities that already exist in the United States and encourage the legal immigration of Mexican workers and their families. U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to send such legislation to Congress, but a strong anti-immigrant wing within the Republican Party and the slow U.S. economic recovery pose significant barriers to a comprehensive and far-reaching deal. Nevertheless, the United States and Mexico urgently need to invest in border infrastructure, standardize their customs forms, and work to better facilitate legal trade between them. Furthermore, getting Americans to recognize the benefits of cross-border production will be an uphill battle, but it is one worth fighting in order to boost the United States' exports, jobs, and overall economic growth.

10


1AC (7/7)

Modernizing border crossing would fix these problems. Minor investments on speeding up border crossing would reap massive economic returns

Bonner & Rozental, Former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico, 2009 Robert C., Former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Andrés, Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico; Former President and Founder Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI) “Managing the United States-Mexico Border: Cooperative Solutions to Common Challenges “ Report of the Binational Task Force on the United States-Mexico Border http://www.pacificcouncil.org/document.doc?id=30

Congestion at crossing points imposes considerable costs on tourists, commuters, consumers, business owners, and border communities; the financial price alone of delays at the border reaches billions of dollars per year. In some areas along the border, including the San Diego-Tijuana corridor, expediting cross-border commerce is the single most important measure that the governments could take to promote economic development. Although facilitation is often viewed as the flip side of security, there are ways to simultaneously expedite trade and improve security. For instance, new detection technologies and intelligent risk management strategies enhance public safety while facilitating cross-border travel and commerce. One crucial barrier to trade facilitation is the deficit in border infrastructure, which simply has not kept pace with massive increases in trade and transit since ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Federal spending on ports of entry would have a very high rate of return; for this reason, both countries should make a long-term commitment to fund border infrastructure and (in the short run) disproportionately direct stimulus money toward the ports of entry. Even with additional stimulus spending, however, federal funding will remain insufficient to address the infrastructure deficit; both countries must find other sources of financing for border crossing points and the roads that feed into them. This money can come in part from the private sector, with the market rather than the state determining the magnitude of private investment in border infrastructure. Beyond infrastructure, better exploitation of technology, refined risk-based segmentation of traffic, and operational changes at the ports of entry (including staffing) can all reduce transit time. Because the marginal cost of operating an existing port of entry is extremely low compared to both the cost of building a new port of entry and the marginal benefit of more rapid transit, inadequate staffing of the ports of entry should never become a bottleneck So far neither government has articulated a goal for wait times. The Task Force believes that average wait times at the border should not exceed 20 minutes in either direction, at any port of entry, with minimal variation about this average.

11

Points of Entry Affirmative DUDA 2013-14Trade Advantage Varsity

Modernizing Points of Entry Boost Economy

[ ] Infrastructure related POE delays cause billions of economic losses across all economic sectors

Immigration Policy Center 5/12/13 “A border fence will hurt the economic relationship of Mexico and U.S.” Posted on VOXXI http://www.voxxi.com/border-fence-economic-relation-mexico-us/#ixzz2TJmDyq16

Longer wait times at land ports of entry, due in part to heightened security along the border, can have a number of economic effects. Longer border crossing wait times may deter people from choosing to cross the border in terms of shopping trips or other optional crossings (particularly the case for the busiest crossing areas in bi-national metropolitan regions such as San Ysidro and Otay Mesa, both near San Diego/Tijuana, El Paso/Ciudad Juarez, Laredo/Nuevo Laredo and McAllen/Hidalgo/Reynosa). Longer wait times equate to fewer border crossings, less spending in cross-border communities and potentially fewer job opportunities in service industries in those communities. Manufacturers and production facilities in the United States who rely upon a just-in-time delivery model of inventory management can be significantly impacted by delays their cargo carriers encounter at the border. In some cases, severe delays of needed components can cause production-line shutdowns and a subsequent backlog of orders. Long wait times also lead to more congestion, and more air pollution, at border stations. Such outcomes have significant social, economic and environmental health concerns for border crossers, port of entry employees and border residents. 47 land ports of entry facilitate hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S.-Mexico trade every year. Improved infrastructure at the land ports of entry along the southern border, including additional traffic lanes and processing personnel, would allow more efficient border crossing. These improvements translate into direct economic benefits to border communities and states.

12

http://www.voxxi.com/border-fence-economic-relation-mexico-us/#ixzz2TJmDyq16


US Economic Decline Bad- Military Withdrawal

[ ] US economic decline undermines our ability to maintain global peace – it would force US military withdrawal.

Duncan, Chief Economist at Blackhorse Asset Management and analyst for Bloomberg, 2012 (Richard, The New Depression, pg. 129)

The political battle over America’s future would be bitter, and quite possibly bloody. It cannot be guaranteed that the U.S. Constitution would survive. Foreign affairs would also confront the United States with enormous challenges. During the Great Depression, the United States did not have a global empire. Now it does. The United States maintains hundreds of military bases across dozens of countries around the world. Added to this is a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers and 18 nuclear-armed submarines. The country spends more than $650 billion a year on its military. If the U.S. economy collapses into a New Great Depression, the United States could not afford to maintain its worldwide military presence or to continue in its role as global peacekeeper. Or, at least, it could not finance its military in the same way it does at present. Therefore, either the United States would have to find an alternative funding method for its global military presence or else it would have to radically scale it back. Historically, empires were financed with plunder and territorial expropriation. The estates of the vanquished ruling classes were given to the conquering generals, while the rest of the population was forced to pay imperial taxes. The U.S. model of empire has been unique. It has financed its global military presence by issuing government debt, thereby taxing future generations of Americans to pay for this generation’s global supremacy. That would no longer be possible if the economy collapsed. Cost–benefit analysis would quickly reveal that much of America’s global presence was simply no longer affordable. Many—or even most—of the outposts that did not pay for themselves would have to be abandoned.

13


Answers to: Mexico Not Key to US Growth

[ ]

[ ] Opening up transport between the US and Mexico can help bring jobs back to America and increase manufacturing in the both countries

Hernandez, logistics expert and former central Mexico regional director at Autotransportes de Carga Tresguerras SA de CV 2012 (Enrique Almanza, “Mexican Logistics Expert Discusses NAFTA Roadblocks and Cross-Border Trucking Restrictions”, June 26, http://www.supplychainbrain.com/content/world-regions/latin-america/single-article-page/article/director-of-mexican-carrier-discusses-nafta-roadblocks-and-cross-border-trucking-restrictions/)

SLATON: Your company is a Mexican nationwide less-than-truckload and full truckload carrier. You maintain interchange freight agreements with U.S carriers and offer border crossing and full service coverage throughout the United States and Canada. What are your thoughts on how NAFTA or other U.S. or Mexican transportation legislation might affect your long-term opportunities and prospects? HERNANDEZ: Ground transportation is of significant economic and strategic importance to North American trade - especially as reshoring and nearshoring start to take hold. In 1995, NAFTA was set up to liberalize freight transport across Mexico, the United States and Canada; encourage infrastructure investment; and secure speedy, efficient flow of goods across North America. But NAFTA's limited success has led to a partial and inadequate integration of the supply chains between Mexico and the rest of North America, where goods do circulate, but without the necessary speed or efficiency. Today, transporting a product amongst the NAFTA countries can easily involve freight handling or information exchange between three to four different stakeholders (carriers, brokers, custom-house agents, etc.), each of which adds to delays and higher supply chain costs. This ultimately increases overall inventory levels and the final product prices. These repercussions affect both the competitiveness of the products transported between NAFTA regions and the transportation services; impede opportunities to reach new markets; and eliminate the incentives for transport companies to be more efficient, innovative and competitive - a goal any company should strive towards if they want to excel in a larger market with tougher competition.

14


Answers to: Mexican Economy is Broken

[ ]

[ ] Sustained growth opportunities can transform the Mexican economy.Rubio, director general of CIDAC (Center of Research for Development) 2013(Luis, “Mexico Matters: Change in Mexico and Its Impact Upon the United States”, Wilson Center April 12 http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/rubio_mexico_matters.pdf)

Thoughts about how to overturn the status quo often end up with proposals for reform that do not solve the problems but nonetheless have the effect of raising expectations to untenable levels. Many of the proposed economic reforms do not address the relevant problems. The same is true in the political arena: most reform proposals are not designed to give access to citizenship but to redistribute power among those who are already powerful and in control of key levers of power or wealth. There is a direct link between democracy and markets but, as Carlos Heredia argues, “In Mexico we have something, but not a free market.”2 The country is stuck between the remains of the old political system and a protected industrial sector next to a highly modern, productive and successful forward-looking export sector oriented toward the global economy. This cohabitation has not been a happy one and the government has been incapable of creating a competitive environment where all companies, as well as citizens and their organizations, have a reasonable chance of success. Mexico’s true challenge dwells in stopping contesting the past and moving on to the future. An improved economic outlook would help move the country away from endless ideological bickering and, as Einstein would have it, once one starts riding a bicycle, “to keep your balance you must keep moving”. The key to the future lies in breaking the inertia and creating a momentum. The recipe for success lies not in specific changes, but in creating conditions that make it not only possible, but inevitable. All successful nations share three common denominators: effective leadership within proper counterweights, clarity of purpose, and continuity. A new administration is always an opportunity to break away from both the real and the mental hindrances to change. Peña-Nieto has before him a huge challenge, but also an immense opportunity.

15


Answers to: Jobs Turn

[ ]

[ ] Increased border efficiency stimulates manufacturing growth in the USO’Neil, Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), 2013(Shannon, “Economic Change on Mexico’s Horizon”, Latin America’s Moment, http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2013/03/26/economic-change-on-mexicos-horizon/)

And we’ve already seen a lot of investment, particularly with U.S. manufacturers in Mexico, despite many of the country’s problems. Many factories in the United States depend on those in Mexico—there are pieces and parts that are crossing the border every day that allow a company, in the end, to create a globally competitive product. This is already the reality, but the question going forward is: Can the United States make the most of this and make it even easier for these companies to grow by facilitating trade with Mexico? Rather than thinking about cutting back this trade, we should recognize that Mexico helps support U.S. workers because trade grows the overall pie for these companies. A rising tide on both sides of the border lifts all boats.

16

http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2013/03/26/economic-change-on-mexicos-horizon/


Answers to: Jobs Turn

[ ] Border improvements would have a multiplier effect – they could stimulate economic growth across multiple sectorsWilson & Lee 2013 Erik, Associate Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS) at Arizona State University, Christopher E, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars “INTRODUCTION” The State of The Border report: A Comprehensive Analysis of the U.S.-Mexico Border Border Research Partnership May 2013 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/mexico_state_of_border.pdf

Though far from easy to achieve, success in managing the intense interaction and incredible diversity that make up the border is invaluable. It ripples outward. Of course, the 15 million people that live in the counties and municipalities along the border benefit enormously when the border is working. So do the 91 million residents of the border states who depend on the air, water and commerce that flow across the border. But far beyond the border, the six million people throughout the United States and many millions more in Mexico with jobs supported by bilateral trade depend in a very real way on the border’s ability to safely facilitate binational flows of people and goods. For them, an efficient border means a steady job, and an even more efficient border can lead to greater employment opportunities. Indeed, the competitiveness of the entire North American economy depends on the border. Should major advances in border management take root, the benefits of a better border have the potential to ripple out even further. Cross-border cooperation could send a signal that the complex transnational challenges that characterize the 21st century are better met in a context of mutual respect and shared responsibility than one of conflict and nationalism. Border management is difficult, but it is worth the effort.

17

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/mexico_state_of_border.pdf


Answers to: Maquiladora Turn- Alternate Causality

[ ]

[ ] Companies are relocating due to cheaper labor costs, not production costs.Ruelas-Gossi, Professor of Strategy and Director of Adolfo Ibañez School of Management , 2010(Alejandro, “Mexico's Maquiladora Syndrome”, Harvard Business Review Blog Network, 10-15, http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/10/mexicos_maquiladora_syndrome.html)

In recent times, Mexico's maquiladora industry has started losing out to countries with even cheaper labor forces such as China, Malaysia, India, and Vietnam. Policy-makers in those nations may want to remember Mexico's experience, but the change may not be a bad thing if it forces Mexican companies to increase the numerator by becoming more innovative and strategic for the next 200 years.

18

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/10/mexicos_maquiladora_syndrome.html


Maquiladoras Good- Economy

[ ] Maquiladoras boost economies and provide jobs for Mexican growing work force.Beck, Proferssor of International Business at UT- Pan American, 2012 (Allan, “Forces Driving Maquiladoras Along The Border Of Mexico And The United States: A Short Communication, December”, http://www.cluteonline.com/journals/index.php/IBER/article/view/7415/7483, date accessed 7/2/13,)

By 1965, the Bracero, or guest worker, program ended in the United States and the Border Industrialization Program was established by Mexico as a means of replacing lost jobs by attracting investments and creating opportunities by setting up a process that allowed temporary import duty free and only taxing the value of added portion of transactions (Eldenberg, Roman, & Teruya, 2007). The Border Industrialization Program laid the groundwork for the maquiladora program, which was legally established in 1971. Many U.S. companies started manufacturing on the northern border of Mexico because the arrangement allowed companies to take advantage of the lower Mexico wage rate.¶ The arrangement worked well and manufacturing became an important part of the Mexican economy. The maquiladoras represent a good source of foreign direct investment and earnings for many Mexican citizens (Truett and Truett, 2007). Recent downturns in maquiladora employment has hurt the economy because the continual growth experienced until 2000 was creating the required one million jobs a year to keep up with the new young worker additions from population growth (Walkkirch, Nunnenkamp, & Alatorre Bremont, 2009). The border area also had an abundance of workers as it attracted laborers from well within the interior (Mendoza, 2010).

[ ] Manufacturing jobs lift Mexican workers out of poverty.Sterman, investment analyst, 2012(David, “Forget China: Mexico Is A Better Investment”, Seeking Alpha, February 12, http://seekingalpha.com/article/359721-forget-china-mexico-is-a-better-investment)

Rising exports are creating myriad benefits from Mexico. First, thousands of workers are finding jobs in factories each year, pushing them from subsistence living into the lower middle class. That boosts demand for all consumer-facing businesses. Second, the firms that transport goods are seeing a rise in business. Lastly, the government is able to secure rising tax receipts, which is crucial when you consider that government-owned energy giant Pemex is seeing falling output in key energy fields, leading to reduced remittances to the government.

19

http://seekingalpha.com/article/359721-forget-china-mexico-is-a-better-investment

http://www.cluteonline.com/journals/index.php/IBER/article/view/7415/7483


Maquiladora Good- Poverty

[ ] Maquiladora’s help raise wage levels for entire region, overall improvement for workers in border region.

Coleman, Department of Geography at UCLA, 2005(M., “U.S. statecraft and the U.S.–Mexico border as security/economy nexus”, Political Geography, Vol. 24, Issue 2, February, p. 185-209, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096262980400126X)

Our analysis has demonstrated that foreign investment and export production have a positive effect on wages in Mexico: Not only do foreign and export-oriented firms pay workers significantly more than other firms even after controlling for other relevant firm and worker characteristics, but they also appear to raise regional wage levels.15 It might at first seem difficult to reconcile these positive effects of foreign and export firms on workers’ wages in Mexico with the harmful effects of foreign investment and export production found by researchers using cross-national research methods. Over the past two decades, researchers in the dependency theory tradition and many others have found foreign direct investment and export production to be associated with increasing levels of inequality at the national level (Bornschier and Chase-Dunn, 1985 and Alderson and Nielsen, 1999). However, the results of our statistical analysis are actually consistent with those of researchers using cross-national research methods. As we noted earlier, foreign firms may increase income inequality even while they raise wages. They may increase inequality in three different ways: First, by paying higher wages, foreign firms create a gap between workers employed in the foreign and domestic sectors. Second, our analysis further revealed higher wage premiums for workers in higher occupational groups. By raising the wages of white-collar workers and managers more than those of blue-collar workers, foreign firms may therefore be worsening an already unequal income distribution. Finally, the results of our spillover models suggest that workers in regions of the country with a greater presence of foreign investment receive higher wages. Since foreign firms are more likely to operate in certain states such as those located near the US border, foreign investment flows may also be increasing inequality across regions. All these findings are highly suggestive of a positive association between foreign investment and income inequality in Mexico. However, a proper test of the effect that foreign firms have on the income distribution requires more detailed information than currently available in our surveys. Our study does, however, demonstrate that foreign investment may simultaneously raise average wage levels and increase inequality, thereby reconciling findings from previous studies.

20

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096262980400126X


Answers to: Emissions Turn

[ ]

[ ] Decreasing wait times and efficiency measures will reduce emissions outputs.Federal Highway Administration, 2012(“United States-Mexico Land Ports of Entry Emissions and Border Wait-Time White Paper and Analysis Template”, January, p. 1-5 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/border_planning/us_mexico/publications/emissions_and_border/emsbrdr.pdf)

Recommended best management practices focus on minimizing queue delay and congestion at the border. Minimize the number of booths and combine inspections. Each point where a vehicle needs to stop for a specific check has stop-and-go queuing leading up to the booth and idling at the booth itself. Emissions from each of these processes may be as much as five percent of the controllable emissions at the port of entry. Minimize queue vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and/or minimize delay. For queued vehicles, gram-per-mile emission rates are generally on the order of two times the emission rate for uncongested VMT. Minimizing delay is analogous to minimizing queue VMT; but time spent parked should not be included in the tabulation of delay. Park rather than stack vehicles. Some new border crossing designs include a storage parking lot where vehicles can be parked rather than idle/creep while waiting for cargo inspections. For commercial vehicles, the amount of creeping VMT inside of the cargo inspection areas may be similar to the queue lengths approaching the border. Combining redundant cargo and vehicle inspections (i.e., Mexican-, U.S.-, and statelevel cargo inspections and safety checks).

21

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/border_planning/us_mexico/publications/emissions_and_border/emsbrdr.pdf

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/border_planning/us_mexico/publications/emissions_and_border/emsbrdr.pdf

Points of Entry Affirmative DUDA 2013-14Relations Advantage Varsity

US-Mexico Relations Add-On 1/2

Successful cooperation on border crossing for goods spills over into other areas of relations – it’s the best opportunity to improve relations.

Bonner & Rozental, Former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico, 2009 Robert C. Bonner Former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Andrés Rozental Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico; Former President and Founder Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI) “Managing the United States-Mexico Border: Cooperative Solutions to Common Challenges “ Report of the Binational Task Force on the United States-Mexico Border http://www.pacificcouncil.org/document.doc?id=30

The 1,952-mile land boundary between the United States and Mexico is the place where the most contentious and difficult issues in the bilateral relationship play out – from undocumented migration and contraband trafficking to the allocation of water in a thirsty region. Nevertheless, the border region remains poorly understood – both by policymakers in distant federal capitals and by the public at large. Most people who do not live along the border or cross it frequently are unaware of the challenges of border management or of the ways in which Mexico and the United States are attempting to meet those challenges. Changes on the ground – and local responses to them – frequently outpace both national policies and public perceptions. The conjunction of a technologically advanced, capital-rich society and a modernizing, labor-exporting country creates the potential for both synergy and strife. The challenge confronting Mexico and the United States is to mitigate the conflicts that inevitably arise from this dichotomy while seizing all potential opportunities the differences generate. We envision a system of border management that moves people and goods between the United States and Mexico far more quickly and efficiently than the present arrangement but that also enhances the security of both nations. This new system would facilitate trade, encourage the emergence of regional economic clusters, promote wise stewardship of shared natural resources, and enhance efforts to preserve ecosystems that cross the national boundary. Perhaps most importantly, it would invite communities that dot and span the frontier to exploit opportunities for mutual benefit. Ultimately, the border should be as “thin” and transparent as technologically and politically possible for those engaged in legitimate travel or commerce but difficult to penetrate for those engaged in criminal activity or unauthorized transit. Management of this shared boundary should serve as a model for binational collaboration in confronting shared challenges.

22


US Mexico Relations Add-On 2/2

Strong US Mexico relations are essential to solving a host of issues – immigration, the drug trade, the environment and terrorism.

Storrs, Specialist in Latin American Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, 2006 (K. Larry, , “Mexico’s Importance and Multiple Relationships with the United States,” Congressional Research Service, Jan 18 http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl33244.pdf]

Sharing a 2,000-mile border and extensive interconnections through the Gulf of Mexico, the United States and Mexico are so intricately linked together in an enormous multiplicity of ways that President George W. Bush and other U.S. officials have stated that no country is more important to the United States than Mexico. At the same time, Mexican President Vicente Fox (2000-2006), the first president to be elected from an opposition party in 71 years, has sought to strengthen the relationship with the United States through what some have called a “grand bargain.” Under this proposed bargain, the United States would regularize the status of undocumented Mexican workers in the United States and economically assist the less developed partner in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), while Mexico would be more cooperative in efforts to control the illegal traffic of drugs, people, and goods into the United States. The southern neighbor is linked with the United States through trade and investment, migration and tourism, environment and health concerns, and family and cultural relationships. It is the second most important trading partner of the United States, and this trade is critical to many U.S. industries and border communities. It is a major source of undocumented migrants and illicit drugs and a possible avenue for the entry of terrorists into the United States. As a result, cooperation with Mexico is essential to deal effectively with migration, drug trafficking, and border, terrorism, health, environment, and energy issues. The United States and Mexico have developed a wide variety of mechanisms for consultation and cooperation on the range of issues in which the countries interact. These include (1) periodical presidential meetings; (2) annual cabinet-level Binational Commission meetings with 10 Working Groups on major issues; (3) annual meetings of congressional delegations in the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group Conferences; (4) NAFTA-related trilateral trade meetings under various groups; (5) regular meetings of the Attorneys General and the Senior Law Enforcement Plenary to deal with law enforcement and counter-narcotics matters; (6) a wide variety of bilateral border area cooperation meetings dealing with environment, health, transportation, and border crossing issues; and (7) trilateral meetings under the “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America” launched in Waco, Texas, in March 2005.

23


Mexico Relations Impact: Growth

[ ] Strong Mexican exports are key to US-Mexico economic relations – solves US economy long-term

Roseman, Research Associate, Council On Hemispheric Affairs, 2012 [Ethan, , “Enhanced Reciprocity for the U.S.-Mexico Relationship?” 12-17-12, http://www.coha.org/enhanced-reciprocity-for-the-u-s-mexico-relationship/]

The economy in the United States is currently in turmoil, as evident by the “fiscal cliff” negotiations that may result in an overall tax adjustment. As such, a stronger bi-lateral trade relationship with Mexico might turn out to be a vital factor in the restoration of the U.S. economy in the months to come. President Obama’s relentless efforts to find a solution to the deficit problem may be more productively directed towards a collaborative relationship with newly elected Mexican President, Enrique Peña Nieto. This revived North American relationship between the two leaders, tied together by increasing cross-border trade, has the potential to mutually stimulate both the United States and Mexican economies. However, as the Mexican economy continues to rise, it is likely that powerful Mexican drug cartels, along with perpetuated violence and corrupt public officials associated with these criminal organizations, could witness a concurrent expansion as well. On December 2, Enrique Peña Nieto assumed office as the President of Mexico and began the tedious process of reestablishing Mexico as a country of economic distinction and global importance, rather than continue to bear its current stigma as a narco-state that has seen nearly 60,000 drug related deaths since 2006.[1] In an attempt to redirect international focus away from the bloodshed, President Peña Nieto has been showcasing the brighter side of Mexico while on a recent White House visit in which President Obama praised him for his “ambitious reform agenda”. Domestically, Peña Nieto has been promoting this own 13-point plan that emphasizes his party’s focus on optimistic economic growth in Mexico’s future, rather than one in the hands of corrupt agencies and drug cartels.

[ ] US Mexico relations crucial to continued growth of both nations and solving international crises.

O’neal, Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at Council on Foreign Relations , 2011(Shannon, “A Crucial U.S.-Mexico Summit”, Feb 28, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/crucial-us-mexico-summit/p24249)

There is a real possibility that U.S.-Mexico relations could fall into a downward spiral. That would be dire for both nations. Much more than security cooperation hangs in the balance. Mexico is the second largest U.S. export market, the largest source of U.S.-bound migrants, the ancestral home of over thirty million Mexican Americans, and an important partner in multilateral negotiations ranging from world financial markets to climate change. With economies, societies, and communities indelibly intertwined, whether it likes it or not, the United States' future is tied to Mexico's.

24


US- Mexico Relations Hegemony Impact 1/2

Growing a strong US-Mexican relationship is a prerequisite to national security and continued US power projection.

Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, 2012 (Robert, “Beyond the Continental Divide”, July/August , The American Interest http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269)

From the perspective of U.S. national security, too, recall for a moment that Mexico and Canada made an historic gamble in signing NAFTA. Already dependent on the behemoth next door and wary of the imbalance of power, both countries feared that NAFTA could make them more vulnerable. Still, they hoped that the United States would be obligated to treat them on an equal and reciprocal basis and that they would prosper from the agreement. Canadians and Mexicans have begun to question whether they made the right choice. There are, of course, a wealth of ways to measure the direct and indirect impact of NAFTA, but political attention, not without justification, tends to focus on violations of the agreement. The U.S. government violated NAFTA by denying Mexican trucks the right to enter the United States for 16 years, relenting in the most timid way, and only after Mexico was permitted by the World Trade Organization to retaliate in October 2011. And for more than a decade, Washington failed to comply with decisions made by a dispute-settlement mechanism regarding imports of soft-wood lumber from Canada. More recently, the United States decided to build a huge wall to keep out Mexicans, and after a three-year process of reviewing the environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline from western Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, this past December 2011 President Obama decided to postpone the decision for another year. This is the sort of treatment likely to drive both Canada and Mexico to conclude that depending on the United States was the wrong decision. Imagine for a moment what might happen if Canada and Mexico came to such a conclusion. Canada might divert its energy exports to China, especially if China guaranteed a long-term relationship at a good price. Mexico would diversify with South America and China and might be less inclined to keep America’s rivals, like Iran, at arm’s length. Is there anyone who thinks these developments would not set off national security alarms? A very old truth would quickly reassert itself: The United States can project its power into Asia, Europe and the Middle East in part because it need not worry about its neighbors. A new corollary of that truth would not be far behind: Canada and Mexico are far more important to the national security of the United States than Iraq and Afghanistan. Beyond the economy and national security, our two neighbors have societal ties to the United States that make all other ethnic connections seem lean in comparison. By 2015, there will be about 35 million people in the United States who were either born in Mexico or whose parents were born in Mexico; that number exceeds the total population of Canada. Canadians in the United States don’t stand out as much as do Mexicans, but nearly a million Canadians live in the United States. And more Americans live in Mexico than in any other foreign country. In sum, the economy, national security and society of the United States, Mexico and Canada are far more intertwined than most U.S., Canadian and Mexican citizens realize. Most Americans haven’t worried about Mexico in strategic terms since the days of Pancho Villa, or about Canada since the 1814 Battle of Plattsburgh. That’s unwise. Bad relations with either country, let alone both, would be disastrous. On the other hand, deeper relations could be vastly beneficial. We don’t seem ready to recognize that truth either.

25


US- Mexico Relations Hegemony Impact 2/2

US hegemony solves global conflict and prevents mass violence across the globe.

Barnett, Former Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor at U.S. Naval War College, 2011(Thomas P.M,. Former Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, U.S. Naval War College American military geostrategist and Chief Analyst at Wikistrat., worked as the Assistant for Strategic Futures in the Office of Force Transformation in the Department of Defense, “The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S., and Globalization, at Crossroads,” March 7 http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-s-and-globalization-at-crossroads)

It is worth first examining the larger picture: We live in a time of arguably the greatest structural change in the global order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing feature being its relative and absolute lack of mass violence. That is something to consider when Americans contemplate military intervention in Libya, because if we do take the step to prevent larger-scale killing by engaging in some killing of our own, we will not be adding to some fantastically imagined global death count stemming from the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American "empire." We'll be engaging in the same sort of system-administering activity that has marked our stunningly successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more blunt: As the guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the world has ever known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th century, the mass murder never would have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be no identifiable human civilization left, once nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the world did not keep sliding down that path of perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by ushering in our now-perpetual great-power peace. We introduced the international liberal trade order known as globalization and played loyal Leviathan over its spread. What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of democracy, the persistent spread of human rights, the liberation of women, the doubling of life expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP and a profound and persistent reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts. That is what American "hubris" actually delivered. Please remember that the next time some TV pundit sells you the image of "unbridled" American military power as the cause of global disorder instead of its cure. With self-deprecation bordering on self-loathing, we now imagine a post-American world that is anything but. Just watch who scatters and who steps up as the Facebook revolutions erupt across the Arab world. While we might imagine ourselves the status quo power, we remain the world's most vigorously revisionist force.

26


Answers to: US- Mexico Relations are Resilient

[ ]

[ ] Cooperation and government interactions necessary to capitalize on these natural links between countries.

Hakim and Litan, senior fellow of the Inter-American Dialogue and Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, 2002(Peter and Robert, “Introduction”, Future of North American Integration. Brookings Institution Press, 2002. p 28)

Even if the three governments take no further steps, the economies, societies, cultures, and institutions of three countries should continue to integrate on their own accord. The three countries now face a decision of whether and how they should seek to accelerate, smooth, and institutionalize this integration process. This will not be a simple challenge. Much more dialogue between the three governments and their citizens will be required to reach consensus on the broad goals and specific policies that any such further integration may entail. The major objective of this volume and of the North American project is to begin this dialogue and the search for ways to develop “win-win-win” strategies for all three countries and their citizens.

27


Answers to: Drug trade hurts relations

[ ]

[ ] Too much focus on security issues actually weakens relations, trade issues like points of entry offer a chance for long term cooperation to overcome other issues.

Olson & Lee, Associate Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center and Associate Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS) at Arizona State University, 2012 Eric L. & Erik, serves as Associate Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS) at Arizona State University. “The State of Security in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region” Working Paper Series on the State of the U.S.-Mexico Border August 2012 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Security_Olson_Lee.pdf

Lasting progress in U.S.-Mexico border security can only come from increased bilateral collaboration and independent domestic progress on key issues affecting security in the United States and Mexico. Significant progress has been made in increasing and improving bilateral security collaboration between federal agencies on both sides of the border. While a welcome development, these advances can, in some cases, weakened the long-standing cooperation between local U.S. and Mexican law enforcement agencies. While it is important to continue strong federal coordination, encouraging local collaboration can also yield significant and important dividends in fighting crime affecting cross-border cities. Improved border management, a challenge during normal fiscal times, is particularly difficult in the United States’ constrained fiscal environment and thus requires increased attention and creative solutions. For example, the two governments—in close collaboration with border communities—should focus their efforts on making the land ports of entry from San Diego to Brownsville as safe and efficient as possible to enhance both our physical and economic security. One such effort has been the highly controversial experimental deployment of the SBInet system on the Arizona-Sonora border. While this technology has been deployed on the border between the ports of entry, the governments have not deployed technology in a game-changing way that could convert the ports of entry themselves into true platforms for economic security rather than highly congested and bureaucratized nodes in our North American commercial network.

28

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Security_Olson_Lee.pdf

Points of Entry Affirmative DUDA 2013-14Terrorism Advantage Varsity

Terrorism Add-On 1/2

Terrorists are looking for weak spots on the US Mexico border to smuggle a dirty bomb and attack the United States..

McCaul, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, 2012(Michael Thomas, . “A LINE IN THE SAND: COUNTERING CRIME, VIOLENCE AND TERROR AT THE SOUTHWEST BORDER A MAJORITY REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL T. McCAUL, CHAIRMAN ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION NOVEMBER 2012” http://mccaul.house.gov/uploads/Final%20PDF%20Line%20in%20the%20Sand.pdf)

During the period of May 2009 through July 2011, federal law enforcement made 29 arrests for violent terrorist plots against the United States, most with ties to terror networks or Muslim extremist groups in the Middle East. The vast majority of the suspects had either connections to special interest countries, including those deemed as state sponsors of terrorism or were radicalized by terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. American-born al Qaeda Imam Anwar al Awlaki, killed in 2011, was personally responsible for radicalizing scores of Muslim extremists around the world. The list includes American-born U.S. Army Major Nidal Hassan, the accused Fort Hood gunman; “underwear bomber” Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab; and Barry Bujol of Hempstead, TX, convicted of providing material support to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In several documented cases, al Awlaki moved his followers to commit “jihad” against the United States. These instances, combined with recent events involving the Qods Forces, the terrorist arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Hezbollah, serve as a stark reminder the United States remains in the crosshairs of terrorist organizations and their associates. In May of 2012, the Los Angeles Times reported that intelligence gleaned from the 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound indicated the world’s most wanted terrorist sought to use operatives with valid Mexican passports who could illegally cross into the United States to conduct terror operations.3 The story elaborated that bin Laden recognized the importance of al Qaeda operatives blending in with American society but felt that those with U.S. citizenship who then attacked the United States would be violating Islamic law. Of equal concern is the possibility to smuggle materials, including uranium, which can be safely assembled on U.S. soil into a weapon of mass destruction. Further, the standoff with Iran over its nuclear program, and the uncertainty of whether Israel might attack Iran drawing the United States into a confrontation, only heightens concern that Iran or its agents would attempt to exploit the porous Southwest border for retaliation. Confronting the threat at the Southwest border has a broader meaning today than it did six years ago. As this report explains, the United States tightened security at airports and land ports of entry in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but the U.S.-Mexico border is an obvious weak link in the chain. Criminal elements could migrate down this path of least resistance, and with them the terrorists who continue to seek our destruction. The federal government must meet the challenge to secure America’s unlocked back door from the dual threat of drug cartels and terrorist organizations who are lined up, and working together, to enter.

29


Terrorism Add-On 2/2

Plan solves border security – the majority of illegal immigration and illicit trafficking happens at legitimate POEs

Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2013(Christopher E,.. “Focus immigration security on official border crossings” Dallas Morning News April 11 http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20130411-christopher-wilson-focus-immigration-security-on-official-border-crossings.ece?action=reregister)

Statistics about drug smuggling, aspiring terrorists and unauthorized immigrants are naturally difficult to collect. In the absence of clear metrics to guide our border strategy and funding, we have given ever more resources to the Border Patrol, which operates in the areas between official border crossings. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the staffing, infrastructure and technology needs of ports of entry themselves, both leaving them less secure and undermining America’s economic competitiveness in the process.¶ A close reading of the senators’ framework gives the impression that the next round of strengthening border security might look a lot like previous rounds. That would be a mistake. Staffing and budgets for areas between the ports of entry have doubled since 2004 and are now at a level where even major increases would produce only marginal security gains.¶ Instead, greater attention should be placed on improving security and efficiency at official border crossings, where the greatest security risks actually are. Almost half of all unauthorized immigrants in the United States entered through official ports of entry with visas, only to lose legal status when their visas expired. Intelligence reports suggest that most hard drugs, like cocaine and methamphetamine, are trafficked through, rather than around, the official border crossings. While it is hard to predict the future strategies of terrorists, it is worth noting that all of the 9/11 attackers entered the U.S. through official ports of entry — though none at the U.S.-Mexico border.¶ One way to make ports of entry better at blocking dangerous traffic while letting legitimate travelers and commerce through quickly would be to increase participation in trusted traveler and trusted shipper programs. It is a problem of needles and haystacks. With over a half-million people and a billion dollars’ worth of goods crossing the border with Mexico each day, there is a whole lot of haystack in which dangerous individuals and shipments can hide.¶ Trusted programs (SENTRI for individuals, FAST for commercial vehicles) expedite the passage of vetted, low-risk travelers and shippers so that law enforcement can focus its limited resources on the unknown and suspicious traffic. Despite the fact that the vast majority of border crossers do so regularly, only 18 percent of individuals use the express lanes available to vetted trusted travelers, suggesting the potential for such programs is much greater than their current level of use.¶ Investments in port of entry infrastructure and technology are also needed. Strengthening the capacity to identify crossers with certainty using biometrics like fingerprints, iris scans or facial recognition would prevent lookalikes from fraudulently using someone else’s passport or visa. Inadequate infrastructure currently causes long lineups at the border, which encourages officials to rush the screening process and possibly miss suspicious crossers while increasing the risk that drugs or other illegal goods could be planted in idled vehicles

30


Answers to: Border Secure Now

[ ]

[ ] Land POEs are the key weak link in border enforcement – long wait times cause inspectors to flush traffic, ignoring inspections

Meissner, et al , Senior Fellow and Director, MPI US Immigration Policy Program , 2013(Doris, “Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery” Migration Policy Institute http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/enforcementpillars.pdf)

Meeting the physical infrastructure needs at POEs has not kept pace with advances in documentation and screening developments. Communities such as Nogales, AZ, for example, have two ports that typically handle 15,000 pedestrian and 20,000 vehicle crossings daily (3.5 million pedestrians and 4.7 million vehicles annually). The POEs are equipped with technology that permits 100 percent license plate reading and document scanning. However, when traffic wait times exceed 60 minutes, inspectors typically “flush” traffic through, pulling aside only obvious high-risk crossers, in an effort to reconcile their facilitation and enforcement missions under trying conditions. Despite significant advances, land ports have not experienced improvements on par with those realized between ports. As a result, the potential for land POE inspections to be a weak link remains a critical enforcement challenge.

31

Points of Entry Affirmative DUDA 2013-14Solvency Varsity

Answers to: No Solvency – Coordination

[ ]

[ ] Cooperation on border crossing can overcome coordination issues.

Regan, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, 2011 (Sean, Commander, “U.S. – MEXICO POLICY COORDINATION AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY BORDER POLICY COORDINATION EFFORT” A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the Department of Joint Military Operations, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555536.pdf)

Each department and agency has distinct purposes and authorities that span issues ranging from law enforcement to commerce management. Sporadic and disjointed efforts result in departments working toward common end-states (i.e. improved POE development) but doing so in an uncoordinated and non-supporting manner. National efforts to synchronize a whole-of-government approach have been haphazard. Across the border, the GoM has its own bureaucratic structure but suffers from the same challenges. These federal-level challenges are both independent of and repeated within, the numerous state and local agencies that have their own policies and processes. Enhancing coordination among the stakeholders involved in the crossing process provides an opportunity to achieve many benefits including increased security, and reduced system costs through a predictable and coordinated policy structure.

32


Answers to: No Solvency- Regulatory Issues

[ ]

[ ] Border delays impose a higher cost on business than truck regulations.

United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, 2011(“U.S.-MEXICO TRUCKING ISSUE WHITE PAPER”, http://www.usmcoc.org/papers-current/4-Trucking-Issue-White-Paper.pdf)

The U.S.-México Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the passage and implementation of the 2011 Trucking Pilot Program. We believe that any barriers to trade are harmful to the economic well-being of both countries and thus should be removed. This pilot program, however, is just one piece of the puzzle for making the border more efficient and agile. There are still severe wait times for cargo trucks crossing from México into the United States, costing both countries billions of dollars every year. Some ideas for addressing this issue include, but are not limited to: • Opening up more border crossings for both people and goods; • Extending the already existing crossings’ operating times to include evening hours;• Requiring customs brokers on both sides to be open for business and to carry out the export and import procedures at all times when the border is open;• Altering the trusted shipper (such as C-TPAT) lanes so that they are completely separate from the rest of the crossings, thus truly making them express lanes;• Increasing the number of pre-border inspection and clearance sites, where cargo destined for the United States is inspected in Mexico.Finally, we would stress that border security should not be compromised by the implementation of any of these next steps.

33

http://www.usmcoc.org/papers-current/4-Trucking-Issue-White-Paper.pdf

http://www.usmcoc.org/papers-current/4-Trucking-Issue-White-Paper.pdf


Answers to: No Solvency- Infrastructure Investment Fails

[ ]

[ ] Increasing resources for border infrastructure will allow effective transit and security.

Pacheco, Executive Director of the International Business Accelerator, 2012(Jerry “Efficient border crossings crucial to trade” ABQ Journal http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/08/06/biz/outlook/efficient-border-crossings-crucial-to-trade.html)

The U.S., Mexico and Canada are trade partners under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has helped create a trade bloc of 460 million people with a combined output of more than $17 trillion. Since its implementation in 1994, trade among the NAFTA partners has grown by 460 percent, making North America one of the most successful and dynamic trade blocs in the world. However, wait times to cross the U.S.-Mexico border result in billions of dollars of lost revenues and time every year, impinging on our region’s competitiveness. This happens both at the commercial and retail level, as millions of Mexicans cross the border into the U.S. for shopping, entertainment and visiting family. Excessive crossing delays dissuade these trips. The Port of Santa Teresa has traditionally been a port known for rapid crossings, but as trade volume and the number of people crossing increases, it is becoming as congested as other busy ports along the U.S.-Mexico border. A renovation is currently taking place at this port to add two more private vehicle lanes and one more commercial crossing lane, which should help alleviate waits in the future. Expediting trade and border crossings is an issue discussed by politicians less than the hot-button issue of security. However, for the economic future of all three NAFTA countries this is an issue that merits more focus. It behooves the U.S. government to provide CBP with the tools, personnel and infrastructure it needs to continue guarding our nation’s borders, while working with this group to develop quicker ways of moving people and merchandise.

34

Points of Entry Affirmative DUDA 2013-14AT: Corporate Tax CP Varsity

Corporate Tax cuts do not create jobs

[ ] Corporate tax cuts won’t lead to new jobs, companies invest based on market conditions not tax rates.

Foroohar, assistant managing editor for Time magazine, 2012(Rana, “Why Lower Corporate Taxes Won’t Create More Jobs” Time, The Curious Capitalist, February 23http://business.time.com/2012/02/23/will-a-lower-corporate-tax-rate-lure-jobs-back-to-america/

What’s being missed in all this is that the corporate tax debate and the jobs debate are two separate things. Here’s why.America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the rich world. But most American businesses don’t pay it. The President is suggesting that the corporate tax rate drop from 35% to 28%. But as my colleague Fareed Zakaria wrote a few months back in Time, few of the biggest U.S. businesses are paying that rate right now; indeed, most are paying much less – 115 of the companies in the S & P 500 paid less than 20% in tax over the last five years. And 39 firms paid less than 10%.That gets at the key issue: Fundamentally, lower taxes aren’t the reason that businesses choose to invest, or not, in a certain country. As Warren Buffett told me when I interviewed him late last year, “The idea that American business is at a big disadvantage against the rest of the world because of corporate taxes is baloney in my view. In the 50s and 60s, corporate taxes were 52%, and we were making all kinds of [job] gains.”True enough. In fact, you can see more and more evidence for the fact that business doesn’t locate in a particular country just because it’s cheaper to do so. Consider the recently released Harvard Business School study looking at insourcing and outsourcing decisions among 10,000 alumnae who are running American businesses. The key reason for outsourcing wasn’t labor cost, but a combination of cost, proximity to market, and (most importantly) better worker skill sets abroad. In order for America to create jobs at home, we need to do the heavy lifting to reform education and develop workers who can do the sort of jobs businesses need them to do. (On that score, I applaud the way the President is trying to link educational reform with the bolstering of American manufacturing.)This goes to the final point, which is why companies are holding such a huge wad of foreign profits abroad to begin with – $1.5 trillion by some estimates. You can make a case that they simply don’t want to be taxed at 35%. But there’s no reason to think that under our current complicated tax structure, they couldn’t find ways around that, as they do with U.S. earnings.Even more to the point: As Buffett says, nobody ever stopped investing because of high taxes. Companies stop investing because they don’t fundamentally believe in the growth opportunities in a market. I agree with Buffett that you can’t allow U.S. firms to repatriate foreign profits tax-free; it creates moral hazard. But it would be interesting to see how much of that money would flow back into the U.S. if the rate was 20%, or 12.5%, as it is in Ireland. It would tell us a lot, not only about corporate America’s belief (or lack thereof) in shared sacrifice, but also about their belief (or lack thereof) in the U.S. economy.

35


Corporate Tax cuts do not create jobs - Extension

[ ]

[ ] No link between tax reform and job creation.

Wolverson, writer at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2011(Roya, “Outsourcing jobs and taxes”, Feb 11, Council on Foreign Relations Backgrounder, http://www.cfr.org/united-states/outsourcing-jobs-taxes/p21777#p6)

But many economists and tax experts see no direct link (PDF) between these issues. "The connection between tax policy and jobs is pretty tenuous. The proposals are more political," says director of New York University's International Tax Program David Rosenbloom. While foreign direct investment may create jobs abroad that substitute for jobs at home, that investment may in turn create more domestic jobs. A 2009 study (PDF) by economists Desai, C. Fritz Foley, and James Hines found that a 10 percent increase in foreign investment was associated with 2.6 percent of additional domestic investment. In a February 2010 Wall Street Journal op-ed, CFR's Slaughter argues that successful foreign operations by U.S. multinationals expand both foreign and domestic employment, since more activity abroad leads companies to provide more domestically based research, development, and management. Slaughter adds that "insourcing" companies (WSJ)--the U.S. operations of multinational firms based abroad--now employ more than twice the number of Americans they employed in 1987, accounting for 4.7 percent of total private-sector employment in 2008.

36


Trade policy more important than tax policy

[ ] Trade policy more important than tax policy for US companies.

Gandel, Senior Editor CNNMoney, 2012(Stephen, “Why lower corporate tax rates won't help the U.S.”, Term Sheet, CNN Money, February 23,http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/23/why-lower-corporate-tax-rates-wont-help-the-u-s/)

Even some companies think the emphasis on taxes is misplaced. Alan Tonelson, a research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, says that while the members of his organization would welcome a tax cut, there are other things that are more important to boosting American business. He thinks a better trade policy with China, for one, would help U.S. companies more than lower taxes. "Tax law changes are often seen as a panacea for manufacturing and indeed the entire economy, but there are many more factors that have a much larger affect," says Tonelson.

37

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/23/why-lower-corporate-tax-rates-wont-help-the-u-s/


Corporate Tax Breaks Bad- Inequity (1/2)

Corporate tax reform fails it locks the government into an unsustainable revenue stream and accentuates income inequality in the country.

Fieldhouse, fellow at the Century Foundation, 2013(Andrew, “3 Dangerous Myths About 'Revenue-Neutral' Tax Reform”, The Fiscal Times, 6-21http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/06/21/3-Dangerous-Myths-About-Revenue-Neutral-Tax-Reform.aspx#BX52rK4sUlyQGWtb.99 “)

So, misconceptions about behavioral responses to lower tax rates have vastly overhyped the benefit of revenue-neutral tax reform, and 1986-style tax reform is a flawed template running contrary to modern economic theory and research. But the opportunity cost of revenue neutrality and political allure of distributional neutrality also imprudently disregard economic context.The dual challenges of addressing long-term fiscal sustainability and marked income inequality growth necessitate that reforms raise more revenue and restore diminished progressivity of the tax code, rendering 1986-style reform unviable. Short of reneging on the nation’s commitments to ensuring health care for the elderly, poor, and disabled, Congress must realistically raise substantially more revenue than projected under current policy — an outlook largely shaped by the Bush-era tax cuts and essentially unchanged by the lame-duck budget deal. Beyond improving the fiscal outlook, higher top marginal tax rates and a more progressive tax code would push back against pre-tax and post-tax income inequality growth, respectively.The debate over revenue targets remains so contentious that it may preclude a modern comprehensive tax overhaul. But should it advance, Washington’s overarching tax reform blueprint would only lock in inadequate revenue levels and exacerbate inequality while failing to spur recovery or substantially accelerate long-run economic growth.

38


Corporate Tax Breaks Bad- Inequity (2/2)

Income inequality increases the risk of early death for impoverished – the poor are nearly twice as likely to die.

Kavoussi, economics reporter at Huffington Post, 2012(Bonnie, “Income Inequality Has Increased The Number Of U.S. Deaths: Report,” Huffington Post, May 9, Online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/income-inequality-deaths-us_n_1502586.html)

The pain of inequity appears to have a tangible effect on a country's health. That's because rising income inequality has caused some people to die earlier, leading to more total deaths in the United States, according to a new study by Hui Zheng, a sociology professor at Ohio State University. A percentage point increase in the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, more than doubles the odds of death over the next 12 years. In America, the Gini coefficient has risen by 6.6 percentage points since 1980. "This finding is striking and it supports the argument that income inequality is a public health concern," Zheng said in a release accompanying the findings. Indeed, the study adds weight to a 2008 Congressional Budget Office report that found the life-expectancy gap between the rich and poor in the United States has grown alongside spiking income inequality since the 1980s. The boost in deaths likely hurts the poor more than the wealthy precisely because the rich are largely shielded from the public health dangers of income inequality. An extra $10,000 of family income reduces the odds of death by 16 percent, according to the study. Each year of additional education also led to a 3 percent decrease in the odds of death. Having a job reduces the odds of death by 37 percent.

39

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/income-inequality-deaths-us_n_1502586.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/income-inequality-deaths-us_n_1502586.html


Corporate Tax Breaks Bad- Revenue

[ ] Removing corporate deductions would end up costing the government billions in revenue over the long haul.

Huang, tax policy analyst with the Center’s Federal Fiscal Policy Team, 2013(Chye-Ching, “New Study from Treasury Analysts Highlights Risk of Corporate Tax Reform Trap” May 7,http://www.offthechartsblog.org/new-study-from-treasury -analysts-highlights-risk-of-corporate-tax-reform-trap/)

We explained recently that corporate tax reform could become a trap if policymakers start by setting a tax rate so low that they have trouble scaling back deductions and other preferences enough to offset the costs. If so, that reform not only could fail the key test of reducing long-term deficits, but it actually could expand them. A new paper by Treasury Department analysts on the biggest business subsidy in the tax code, “accelerated depreciation,” highlights the danger.

This tax break, which cost $22.5 billion in 2012, allows businesses to deduct over time the cost of investments like new equipment more quickly than those assets actually lose value. The analysis confirms that ending accelerated depreciation (so that businesses’ deductions had to more closely reflect the rate at which assets deteriorate) saves much less revenue in the second ten years (and even less in the ten years after that) than in the first ten years — the timeframe that Congress uses to assess legislation. (See graph.)

In other words, a corporate rate cut that policymakers could pay for in the first ten years by ending accelerated depreciation would add billions to deficits over the long run.

Policymakers should resist the temptation to rely on just such timing gimmicks to enact corporate tax reform that includes costly new cuts in tax rates. Like ending accelerated depreciation, many other corporate tax reforms would raise more revenue in the first ten years than they would continue to deliver in subsequent decades.

That’s why in corporate tax reform, as with tax reform generally, policymakers should prioritize fiscal responsibility and not make rash promises to slash rates that they can’t keep when faced with the political difficulty of cutting specific corporate tax breaks.

40

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/new-study-from-treasury%20-analysts-highlights-risk-of-corporate-tax-reform-trap/

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/new-study-from-treasury%20-analysts-highlights-risk-of-corporate-tax-reform-trap/


Corporate Tax Breaks Bad- Social Policy

[ ] Tax reform destroys programs that support vital public policy like environmental protections while giving corporations a lower tax bill.

Eskew, Campaign for America’s Future, 2013(Richard, “Thirteen Facts About America's Tax-Dodging Corporations”, Truthout, 6-29-13, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17279-thirteen-facts-about-americas-tax-dodging-corporations)

Similarly, corporate-backed politicians are pushing a formula for permanent corporate tax breaks and calling it “tax reform.” They insist their “reform” be “revenue neutral” and say it will “broaden the base while lowering the rate.”Here’s an English translation: The current, unsustainably low rates for corporations would be made permanent, while eliminating many tax deductions in the name of “simplification.”Here’s what that really means: The domestic tax credit for creating jobs? Gone. Tax breaks for protecting the environment with clean energy, rather than harming other people’s health and leaving a mess for the rest of us to clean up? Gone.All in all we’d lose dozens of important policies that make our lives better, while permanently fixing corporate taxes at today’s cushy giveaway rates.“Reform”? Ripoff is more like it.

[ ] Revenue neutral tax reforms like the counterplan should be rejected, they short change the government from collected necessary funds to support valuable programs.

Citizens for Tax Justice, 2012(“President Obama's "Framework" for Corporate Tax Reform Would Not Raise Revenue, Leaves Key Questions Unanswered”, February 23, http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/02/president_obamas_framework_for_corporate_tax_reform_would_not_raise_revenue_leaves_key_questions_una.php#.UeRlstIsmSo)

A “revenue-neutral” corporate tax reform should not be enacted.[1] The first goal of corporate tax reform should be to increase the overall amount of tax revenue collected from U.S. corporations, which today pay very low effective tax rates.[2] (Effective tax rates are the percentage of profits that corporations actually pay in corporate income taxes.)

CTJ recently studied most of the Fortune 500 companies that have been profitable in each of the last three years and found that their average effective tax rate during that period was just 18.5 percent.[3] Thirty of the corporations had net negative tax rates (meaning they received money from the Treasury) over the three-year period.

Corporations claim that they are overly burdened by the U.S. corporate income tax, which has a statutory rate of 35 percent. But CTJ’s data demonstrate that most profitable corporations have effective tax rates that are far lower because of the tax loopholes they enjoy.

41

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/02/president_obamas_framework_for_corporate_tax_reform_would_not_raise_revenue_leaves_key_questions_una.php#.UeRlstIsmSo

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/02/president_obamas_framework_for_corporate_tax_reform_would_not_raise_revenue_leaves_key_questions_una.php#.UeRlstIsmSo

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17279-thirteen-facts-about-americas-tax-dodging-corporations

Points of Entry Affirmative DUDA 2013-14AT: China DA Varsity

United States engagement in Latin America is durable

[ ] US influence in Latin America’s resilient and the theory of their argument is wrong

Duddy and Mora, Former US Ambassador to Venezuela and former Assistant Secretary of Defense,Western Hemisphere, 2013[Patrick and Frank, “Latin America: Is U.S. influence waning?” Miami Herald, 5/1/13 http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/01/3375160/latin-america-is-us-influence.html#storylink=cpy]

Finally, one should not underestimate the resiliency of U.S. soft power in the region. The power of national reputation, popular culture, values and institutions continues to contribute to U.S. influence in ways that are difficult to measure and impossible to quantify. Example: Despite 14 years of strident anti-American rhetoric during the Chávez government, tens of thousand of Venezuelans apply for U.S. nonimmigrant visas every year, including many thousands of Chávez loyalists.¶ Does this mean we can feel comfortable relegating U.S. relations with the hemisphere to the second or third tier of our international concerns? Certainly not. We have real and proliferating interests in the region. As the president and his team head to Mexico and Costa Rica, it is important to recognize the importance of our ties to the region.¶ We have many individual national partners in the Americas. We don’t need a new template for relations with the hemisphere as a whole or another grand U.S.-Latin America strategy. A greater commitment to work more intensely with the individual countries on the issues most relevant to them would be appropriate. The United States still has the economic and cultural heft in the region to play a fundamental role and to advance its own interests.

42

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/01/3375160/latin-america-is-us-influence.html#storylink=cpy


US Economic Engagement with Mexico now

[ ] Economic with Mexico engagement now

Valencia, contributing writer for Global Voices Online, 2013(Robert, “U.S. and Latin America – Economic Cooperation Without Militarization?”, 5/20/13 www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/05/20/us-and-latin-america-economic-cooperation-without-militarization)¶

President Obama’s meeting with Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto centered on the historic economic relationship between the two countries, and furthered their conversation on economic and commercial initiatives as well as immigration issues. Additionally, Peña Nieto highlighted Mexico’s economic growth and the necessity for bolstering student exchange. Both leaders agreed to create an economic team led by Vice President Joe Biden and Mexican Secretary of the Treasury Luis Videgaray. They resolved to create projects to improve infrastructure and security along the 3,000 kilometer-long border, one of the world’s largest.

[ ] Trans Pacific Partnership makes increased economic engagement inevitable

Sarukhan, Mexican Ambassador to the U.S, 2012(Arturo, “Viewpoints: What Should the Top Priority Be for U.S. – Mexican Relations?” American Society/Council of the Americas, 12/3/12, www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-be-us-mexican-relations)¶ Over the past two decades, NAFTA has dramatically altered the way Mexico and the United States engage with one another. However, much more can and should be done to bring North American competitiveness back to a starring role on the global stage. This is why the participation of all three North American countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will be so important. The TPP will enable us to discuss measures that meet the needs and challenges of twenty-first-century free and fair trade, such as compatibility of regulatory systems, new environmental provisions, strong protection for intellectual property rights, and emerging areas such as digital technologies and e-commerce. The TPP will further deepen and strengthen the integrated supply and production chains between our two countries. And as a true coalition of the free-trade willing in the Americas and across the Pacific Rim, the TPP therefore represents the next step in a North American Grand Strategy. In addition to the TPP, we need to continue strengthening the participation and commitment of civil society and the private sector across our common border, as they are true co-stakeholders in our bilateral efforts toward economic progress.

43

http://www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-be-us-mexican-relations

http://www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-be-us-mexican-relations

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/05/20/us-and-latin-america-economic-cooperation-without-militarization

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/05/20/us-and-latin-america-economic-cooperation-without-militarization


United States won’t crowd out China

[ ] No trade-off – the plan facilitates a three way relationship – that helps all countries.

Shaiken et al, Professor in the Center for Latin American Studies at UC-Berkeley, 2013[Harley, and Enrique Peters – Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Miami. And Adrian Hearn – Centro de Estudios China-Mexixo at Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. China and the New Triangular Relationships in the Americas: China and the Future of US-Mexico Relations, 2013. Pg 7-8]

The analysis of Ping Wang highlights that in the Mexico-US-China triangular trade relationship, the United States is the key player. While China’s presence has increased, the United States remains a critical influence on both Mexico and China. Furthermore, the author suggests that China’s rise and emergence in terms of trade and investments in LAC, and specifically in regards to this triangular relationship, will slow increasingly in the future, considering its specialization in industrial commodities and products, rising wages in China, and the high number of multinational corporations involved in Chinese exports. For Ping Wang, the politically and historically subordinated role of Mexico with the United States, in contrast to China’s increasing regional and global status, is a basis for understanding future scenarios in which the Mexico-United States relationship is more stable in comparison to that of China and the United States (where the US, for example, views China as a threat).

44


United States won’t crowd out China- Extensions

[ ]

[ ]US and China influences do not trade off in Mexico.

Xiaoxia, Staff Writer for the Economic Observer, 5-6[Wang.. “In America's Backyard: China's Rising Influence In Latin America” The Economic Observer, 5/6/13 http://worldcrunch.com/china-2.0/in-america-039-s-backyard-china-039-s-rising-influence-in-latin-america/foreign-policy-trade-economy-investments-energy/c9s11647/ ]

For South America, China and the United States, this is not a zero-sum game, but a multiple choice of mutual benefits and synergies. Even if China has become the Latin American economy’s new upstart, it is still not in a position to challenge the strong and diverse influence that the United States has accumulated over two centuries in the region.

[ ] No competition for regional influence Xiaoxia, reporter, 2013(Wang, Translated by Laura Lin, “In America’s Backyard: China in Latin America”, Economic Observer Oneline, 4/27, http://www.eeo.com.cn/ens/2013/0507/243704.shtml, CMR)

China's involvement in Latin America doesn’t constitute a threat to the United States, but brings benefits. It is precisely because China has reached "loans-for-oil" swap agreements with Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador and other countries that it brings much-needed funds to these oil-producing countries in South America. Not only have these funds been used in the field of oil production, but they have also safeguarded the energy supply of the United States, as well as stabilized these countries' livelihood; and to a certain extent reduced the impact of illegal immigration and the drug trade on the U.S.¶ For South America, China and the United States, this is not a zero-sum game, but a multiple choice of mutual benefits and synergies. Even if China has become the Latin American economy’s new upstart, it is still not in a position to challenge the strong and diverse influence that the United States has accumulated over two centuries in the region.

45

http://www.eeo.com.cn/ens/2013/0507/243704.shtml


Turn- Chinese Influence Bad- Latin America growth and stability

[ ] Chinese influence in Latin America is bad – trade deficits, income inequality and political instability would spread across the region.

Shaiken et al, Professor in the Center for Latin American Studies at UC-Berkeley, 2013[Harley, and Enrique Peters – Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Miami. And Adrian Hearn – Centro de Estudios China-Mexixo at Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. China and the New Triangular Relationships in the Americas: China and the Future of US-Mexico Relations, 2013. Pg 7-8]

However, closer ties to China also have signifi cant disadvantages for both Latin America and the United States:¶ Growing trade deficits. Latin American lead ers who sign trade and investment deals with the PRC have noticed that China's exports are more affordable than their own goods, which contributes to trade deficits. Chinese goods are made by laborers who work for one-third of the wages of Latin American counterparts and who tolerate worse working conditions. Officials in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico have signaled their unease about trade with such a hot competitor. In September 2005, Mexican President Vicente Fox made it clear to visiting President Hu Jintao that dumping electronics and clothing was unacceptable. For every dollar that Mexico makes from exports to China, the PRC makes $31 from exports to Mexico.[9]¶ Disinterest in economic reform. Some analysts believe that the commodities-based trade model used by China will undermine the progress that Latin America has made toward industrialization. While countries like Chile and Brazil have moved beyond raw materials exports, others with powerful presidents or ruling oligarchies may be tempted to fall back on plantation economics. Income gaps between the rich and poor may widen as a result. Moreover, such narrowly focused economies are vul nerable to downturns in commodity prices. Some 44 percent of Latin Americans already live below the poverty line. If these countries fail to adopt reforms, social inequality and political instability could depress U.S. exports to the region and increase migration problems

46


Chinese Influence Bad- US leadership

[ ] Increased Chinese influence in Mexico would be disastrous; it would cause the decline of American power by eliminating America’s geographic buffer.

Clarkson and Mildenberger, professor of political economy, University of Toronto and Ph.D. student, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies 2011 (Stephen and Matto, Dependent America?: How Canada and Mexico Construct Us Power p. 272)

The United States’ relationship with Canada and Mexico thus presents a paradox. Does North America Exist? showed that globalization was reducing the salience of North America as an economic entity, whether in the steel sector ‘s global restructuring or in the international consolidation of banking regulations. However, even as North American regionalism falters, the United States’ immediate periphery is becoming a more important partner in sustaining its material power. Constrained by its global partners’ superior growth rates, the United States can still count on the unusually beneficial economic relationship it quietly maintains with its continental periphery. Although it normally ignores its neighbours’ interests when dealing with other countries, its gradual decline no longer affords Washington this luxury without having to pay a price. That price is its two neighbours expanding their strategic gaze from the continent to the world. Canada and Mexico are endeavouring to strengthen their economic links with other countries. Indian capital is already investing in iron-ore extraction in Quebec, while Chinese firms are staking out Alberta’s tar sands. Even with disputes over Newfound land’s seal industry and its visa restrictions on Czech visitors, Canada has busily negotiated a comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. Hosting the G-20 Economic Summit in 2012, Mexico is positioning itself as the champion of emerging economies and the developing world. This economic internationalization could mitigate Canada’s and Mexico’s lopsided dependencies on a US market to which their access has been curtailed since 9/11. Should they succeed in diversifying their economic links by attracting more FDI from overseas and should their extra-regional imports and exports abroad begin to expand more than their intra-regional trade, the United States’ economic perimeter in North America will contract, and their construction of US material strength will ipso facto diminish. The North American periphery has been Uncle Sam’s gold-laying goose for as long as most can remember. It would make an ironic epitaph for the United States’ hegemonic decline if alienating its most valuable and easily cultivated foreign asset accelerated its self-induced fall.

47


Chinese Soft Power Fails

[ ] Chinese soft power fails, seen as an international bully not facilitator.

Boot, Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations, 2001(Max, “The Rising Dragon and ‘Smart’ Diplomacy”, 27 September 2010, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions?author_name=boot)

For years we have been hearing about how effective Chinese diplomacy is — a supposed contrast with a ham-handed, distracted Uncle Sam who was letting the rising dragon take over East Asia while we weren’t paying attention. No one should underestimate the rising military challenge posed by China. As Robert Kaplan notes in this Washington Post op-ed: China has the world’s second-largest naval service, after only the United States. Rather than purchase warships across the board, it is developing niche capacities in sub-surface warfare and missile technology designed to hit moving targets at sea. At some point, the U.S. Navy is likely to be denied unimpeded access to the waters off East Asia. China’s 66 submarines constitute roughly twice as many warships as the entire British Royal Navy. But a funny thing happened on the way to Chinese hegemony: its rise has alarmed pretty much all its neighbors, ranging from India and Australia to Japan and South Korea. The latest sign of how Chinese hectoring and bullying is souring other countries is the flap over a Chinese fishing trawler that collided with Japanese coast-guard vessels near a disputed island in the East China Sea that is claimed by both countries. The Japanese agreed to release the fishing captain on Friday after what the New York Times described as “a furious diplomatic assault from China,” which included the cut-off of “ministerial-level talks on issues like joint energy development, and curtailed visits to Japan by Chinese tourists.” In the short term, this is a victory for China. But for the long term, it leaves hard feelings behind and convinces many more Japanese — and other Asians — that China’s rise poses a threat to them. Keep in mind that the Democrats, the current Japanese ruling party, came to power talking about weakening the U.S.-Japanese alliance and strengthening ties with China. If China were better behaved, that might have come to pass. But Chinese assertiveness is rubbing the Japanese the wrong way. The same is true with South Koreans, Australians, and other key Chinese trade partners. In those countries, too, hopes of a closer relationship with China have been frustrated; instead, they are drawing closer to the U.S. The fundamental problem is that China’s ruling oligarchy has no Marxist legitimacy left; its only claim to power is to foster an aggressive Chinese nationalism. That may do wonders for support on the home front, but it is doomed to antagonize its neighbors and possibly bring into being a de facto coalition to contain Beijing. That, at least, should be the goal of American policy. Even as we continue to trade with China, we should make sure to curb its geo-political ambitions. That is a goal in which we should be able to get the cooperation of many of China’s neighbors — if we actually practice the sort of “smart power” diplomacy that the Obama-ites came into office promising.

48


Chinese Soft Power Fails- Extension

[ ] Alternative causes to Chinese soft power loss and they won’t use it effectively

Walker, Senior Director of the Global Business Policy Council, 2011(Martin, Martin, “China's soft-power hurdle”, United Press International. 28 June 2011 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Walker/2011/06/28/Walkers-World-Chinas-soft-power-hurdle/UPI-39731309267283/)

It is far from clear that this will succeed. Three years ago, at the time of the Beijing Olympics, the goodwill for what China called its "peaceful rise" was widespread. The World Bank's Robert Zoellick was talking of China as a fellow stakeholder in the global economy, ready to play by the common rules of international commerce and behavior.That was then. This is now. Surging with self-confidence after navigating the global financial crisis, China has been throwing its weight around in the South China Sea, alarming Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia and Brunei with its insistence that the whole sea and its mineral wealth belong to China. Japan has been shaken by some minor clashes over other disputed islands, and India frets over China's apparent plans to start building dams in Tibet near the source of the Brahmaputra River, which supplies about a third of northern India's water.China's impressive investments in Africa have become controversial, since so many of the jobs in construction are going to imported Chinese workers rather than Africans. China's readiness to do business with unsavory regimes does not go down quite as well in the age of the democratic upsurge of the Arab Spring as it did before.China's latest clampdown on various dissidents and on the Internet (while also being blamed for many cyberattacks) has caused alarm. The United Nations startled Chinese diplomats with its recent press release expressing concerns over China's "recent wave of enforced disappearances."Doubtless China will learn from this, even as it navigates the preliminary phases of the transition of power to the next generation of leaders, a process that may help explain the latest crackdown on dissidents, human-rights lawyers and other activists. And doubtless China's astute deployment of its massive wealth to investments and various causes overseas will also pay dividends.But the fact remains that China may well be influencing people, and it has a highly impressive record of economic management to flaunt, but it is not exactly winning friends. Joseph Nye of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government invented the concept of soft power, as opposed to the hard power of coercion. He defined it as the ability to get other people and countries to want what you want . China has yet to show it understands the distinction . It is in Beijing's own interest -- as well as the world's -- that the Chinese leadership learns this quickly.

49

Points of Entry Affirmative DUDA 2013-14AT: Immigration DA Varsity

Mexico’s Economy Growing/Immigration Rates Declining

[ ]

[ ] Immigration from Mexico is at its lowest levels in 50 years.

Hull, former consultant to USAID and World Bank, 2012(Galen, “Immigration: Push and Pull Factors,” Feb 29, Online: http://www.atlantadarpan.com/article-detail/immigration-push-and-pull-factors.htm)

According to a lengthy article in the New York Times (July 6, 2011) the Mexican emigration to U.S. that over the past three decades contributed to the vast majority of illegal immigrants has slowed to trickle in recent years. It turns out that domestic changes in Mexico are such that staying home is becoming more attractive. A mix of developments - such as expanding economic and educational opportunities at home, rising border crime, and shrinking families - are suppressing illegal traffic as much as economic slowdowns or immigrant crackdowns on the U.S. border. The Mexican Migration Project at Princeton - an extensive, long-term survey in Mexican emigration hubs - reports that interest in coming to the U.S. for the first time has fallen to its lowest level since the 1950s. The Pew Hispanic Center indicates that the illegal Mexican population in the U.S. shrank to fewer than 100,000 border-crossers and visa-violators in 2010, down from about 525,000 annually from 2000 to 2004. But Mexican immigration has always been defined by both the push (from Mexico) and the pull (of the U.S). The decision to leave home involves a wrenching cost-benefit analysis. Just as a Mexican baby boom and economic crises provoked the emigration waves in the 1980s and ’90s, the easing of demographic and economic pressures in Mexico is helping keep emigration in check.

50

http://www.atlantadarpan.com/article-detail/immigration-push-and-pull-factors.htm

http://www.atlantadarpan.com/article-detail/immigration-push-and-pull-factors.htm


Mexico’s Economy Growing/Immigration Rates Declining – Fewer Farm Workers

[ ]

[ ] Farm worker shortages are already occurring.

Plumer, Washington Post Staff Writer, 2013(Brad, We’re running out of farm workers. Immigration reform won’t help, January 29, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/)

But looser immigration laws may not be able to keep our food cheap forever. A recent study suggests that U.S. farms could well face a shortage of low-cost labor in the years ahead no matter what Congress does on immigration. That’s because Mexico is getting richer and can no longer supply as many rural farm workers to the United States. And it won’t be nearly as easy to import low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere.

51

http://aepp.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/4/587.abstract


Plan Wouldn’t Stop all Migration

[ ]

[ ] The plan wouldn’t eliminate all immigration, just eliminate the desire to come illegally

Wainer, immigration policy analyst for Bread for the World Institute, 11(Andrew, Rural development and migration in Mexico, Development in Practice, 23:2, 232-248)

So while the USA has not yet implemented an integrated development and migration agenda, it has certainly been part of discussions and could be revived, particularly when security concerns in Mexico ease. A reorientation of US development priorities to include migration could also appeal to businesses in the USA by linking this development to new avenues of legal migration that would ensure that US businesses’ labour needs would not be endangered. Over the long- term, development would reduce the need for Mexicans to migrate to USA illegally but some level of legal migration between the two countries would be preserved.

52


US Farms Will Adapt to Labor Shortages

[ ]

[ ] Farmers will adapt to labor shortages.

Plumer, Washington Post Staff Writer, 2013(Brad, We’re running out of farm workers. Immigration reform won’t help, January 29, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/)

So the labor shortages will keep getting worse. And that leaves several choices. American farmers could simply stop growing crops that need a lot of workers to harvest, such as fruits and vegetables. Given the demand for fresh produce, that seems unlikely.¶ Alternatively, U.S. farms could continue to invest in new labor-saving technologies, such as “shake-and-catch” machines to harvest fruits and nuts. “Under this option,” the authors write, “capital improvements in farm production would increase the marginal product of farm labor; U.S. farms would hire fewer workers and pay higher wages.” That could be a boon to domestic workers — studies have found that 23 percent of U.S. farm worker families are below the poverty line.

53


US Agriculture Stable Without Immigrant Labor

[ ]

[ ] Congressional studies prove that the agricultural sector would remain more than profitable without immigrant labor – fluid labor pool and high profit margins protect the industry.

Walshe, Staff writer and Columnist for CBS and the Gaurdian, 2013(Sadhbh, "Field work's dirty secret: agribusiness exploitation of undocumented labor," The Guardian, Jan 31, Online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/31/agribusiness-exploitation-undocumented-labor)

The agribusiness sector has gotten away with exploitative and illegal practices because of ridiculous threats, like the suggestion that should the supply of cheap labor dry up in the US, they will outsource our food production to China. This idle threat is based on the absurd notion that if they have to pay workers higher wages, somehow there will be fewer people willing to do the jobs. The other scare tactic is spreading talk that if they have to increase their expenditure on labor, those costs will have to be passed on to the American consumer. Several studies have been conducted, however, that expose these hollow threats for the nonsense that they are. A report by the Congressional Research Service (pdf) found no evidence of a labor shortage in the agricultural sector. On the contrary, it found that between 1994 and 2008, the unemployment rate for farm workers was consistently higher than for all other occupations. In other words, agriculture has had a surplus of available workers for decades. During this period, the agricultural industry has recorded a nearly 80% average annual increase in profits – more than all other major industries. No doubt, these record profits have something to do with the fact that real wages for farm workers have remained stagnant throughout this time. Finally, a 2011 report by the Economic Policy Institute found that an increase in farm workers' wages of 40% would result in an annual rise in household spending by the American consumer of just $16. Clearly, the economic argument for allowing one industry a workforce of virtually indentured labor does not hold water. But there is a humanitarian argument to be made, as well, that should be enough to put an end to this exploitative practice immediately. In 2009, the New York Times' Bob Herbert wrote an article about the horrible treatment of farm workers in upstate New York – in this case, hired to feed and care for ducks farmed to be slaughtered for foie gras.

54

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/31/agribusiness-exploitation-undocumented-labor



US Farms Exploit Immigrants

[ ]

[ ] The agriculture industry sustains absurd profits by exploiting millions of immigrants – their labor conditions are deplorable.

Walshe, Staff writer and Columnist for CBS and the Gaurdian, 2013(Sadhbh, "Field work's dirty secret: agribusiness exploitation of undocumented labor," The Guardian, Jan 31, Online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/31/agribusiness-exploitation-undocumented-labor)

Most farm work in America is performed by immigrants, most of whom are undocumented and therefore exploitable. The big agribusinesses that hire these immigrants will tell you that they need an unfettered supply of cheap foreign labor, because they cannot find Americans willing to do these jobs. When you consider what these jobs entail – hours of backbreaking work in terrible and often dangerous conditions, subsistence wages with little or no time off, and none of the protections or perks that most of us enjoy (like paid sick days, for instance) – it's hard to see why anyone with other options would subject themselves to a life that is barely a step above slavery. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan signed a bill into law which introduced some protections for these imported serfs, under what has become known as the guest-worker program. These protections include a minimum wage guarantee, housing that meets an acceptable standard for the duration of the contract, and a guarantee that the worker be paid three-quarters of their full pay should should a season end early. Most employers would be delighted to get away with all this: being able to hire low-wage workers at will, without the hassle of paying disability insurance or other niceties. But agribusinesses find the guest-worker program's pitiful protections such a burden that they have mounted a relentless campaign to undermine them, and for the most part, work around them anyway; they hire undocumented workers instead. According to a report compiled by Eric Ruark (pdf), the director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (Fair), as of 2006, only 27% of workers hired by agribusinesses are American citizens, 21% are green card holders, around 1% are part of the guest worker program … and a whopping 51% are unauthorized immigrants. It's agriculture's worst kept secret that farm owners routinely break the law by hiring undocumented workers, but the crime receives tacit approval from lawmakers sympathetic to the plight of major agribusinesses, which seem to consider cheap labor their right. In South Carolina, for instance, lawmakers passed their version of Arizona's draconian bill, and have mandated that employers use an e-verify system to check the immigration status of employees. Farm workers, however, were exempted from verification.

55




Immigrants Hurt the US Economy – General

[ ]

[ ] Illegal immigrants drain the US economy – in spite of filling job openings, they are a burden on the welfare system – which they don’t add money to.

Barnes, FOX News Reporter, 2010(Ed, “Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds,” FOX, July 6, Online: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/)

The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S. FAIR's opponents in the bitter immigration debate describe the organization as "extremist," though it is regularly called upon to testify before Congress. Groups that support immigration reform immediately attacked FAIR's report and pointed out that it is the polar opposite of the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to the American economy. It estimated that illegal immigrants add $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs. The FAIR report comes as President Obama moves immigration reform to the top of his agenda, and it is likely to be a rallying point for those who oppose the president. At a speech Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., Obama argued that the entire immigration system is broken and needs sweeping reforms. Among the changes he said are needed is "a path for [farm] workers to earn legal status," which the president's critics called an opening for a new amnesty program. FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.” The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes. The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states. Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.

56

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/


Immigrants Hurt the US Economy – Lower Wages

[ ]

[ ] Immigration drives down wages for American jobs – the most comprehensive studies prove.

Borjas, Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard, 2003(George, “THE LABOR DEMAND CURVE IS DOWNWARD SLOPING: REEXAMINING THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE LABOR MARKET,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, November, Lexis)

In contrast to the confusing array of results that now permeate the literature, the evidence consistently suggests that immigration has indeed harmed the employment opportunities of competing native workers. II. MEASURING THE LABOR MARKET IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION The laws of supply and demand have unambiguous implications for how immigration should affect labor market conditions in the short run. The shift in supply lowers the real wage of competing native workers. Further, as long as the native supply curve is upward sloping, immigration should also reduce the amount of labor supplied by the native workforce. If one could observe a number of closed labor markets that immigrants penetrate randomly, one could then relate the change in the wage of workers in a particular skill group to the immigrant share in the relevant population. A negative correlation (i.e., native wages are lower in those markets penetrated by immigrants) would indicate that immigrants worsen the employment opportunities of competing native workers. In the United States, immigrants cluster in a small number of geographic areas. In 1990, for example, 32.5 percent of the immigrant population lived in only three metropolitan areas (Los Angeles, New York, and Miami). In contrast, only 11.6 percent of the native population clustered in the three largest metropolitan areas housing natives (New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago). Practically all empirical studies in the literature, beginning with Grossman [1982], exploit this demographic feature to identify the labor market impact of immigration. The typical study defines a metropolitan area as the labor market that is being penetrated by immigrants. The study then goes on to calculate a "spatial correlation" measuring the relation between the native wage in a locality and the relative number of immigrants in that locality. These correlations are usually negative, but very weak. n2 The best known spatial correlations are reported in Card's [1990] influential study of the Mariel flow. Card compared labor market conditions in Miami and in other cities before and after the Marielitos increased Miami's workforce by 7 percent. Card's difference-indifferences estimate of the spatial correlation indicated that this sudden and unexpected immigrant influx did not have a discernible effect on employment and wages in Miami's labor market. n3 Recent studies have raised two questions about the validity of interpreting weak spatial correlations as evidence that immigration has no labor market impact. First, immigrants may not be randomly distributed across labor markets. If immigrants endogenously cluster in cities with thriving economies, there would be a spurious positive correlation between immigration and wages. n4 Second, natives may respond to the wage impact of immigration on a local labor market by moving their labor or capital to other cities. These factor flows would reequilibrate the market. As a result, a comparison of the economic opportunities facing native workers in different cities would show little or no difference because, in the end, immigration affected every city, not just the ones that actually received immigrants. n5

57


Immigrants Hurt the US Economy – Drain Welfare

[ ]

[ ] Immigrants are a burden on taxpayers – the don’t pay as much in taxes as citizens do, but take out even more than the average American.

Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2004(Steven, “The High Cost of Cheap Labor,” Center for Immigration Studies, August, Online: http://www.cis.org/High-Cost-of-Cheap-Labor)

It is often suggested that "matching a willing worker with a willing employer" is all that matters when it comes to immigration policy. The fiscal costs of illegal immigration indicate that focusing only on workers and employers is grossly inadequate. If the presence of large numbers of unskilled workers lowers prices for some goods and services, but at the same time increases the burden on taxpayers, then this may not be a good deal for the country. Put simply, the mere fact that employers want more workers, and foreigners wish to work in this country, does not mean that Americans necessarily benefit from their coming. This fact must be considered when formulating policy. Low Levels of Education Create Deficit. The findings of this study show that the primary reason illegal households create a fiscal deficit at the federal level is that their much lower levels of education result in low incomes and tax payments that are only 28 percent that of other households. Thus, even though the costs they impose are estimated to be only 46 percent those of other households on average, there remains a significant net deficit. Whether one considers their use of services low is a matter of perspective. Because illegals are not even supposed to be in the country, many Americans are angered by the fact that they receive any services at all. This is especially true of transfers to households like food stamps or cash payments from the Child Tax Credit. Although many Americans are upset about their use of public services, there is little evidence that illegals come to America to take advantage of public benefits. Most illegal aliens come for jobs, and the vast majority are in fact employed. But low levels of education mean they unavoidably create large costs for taxpayers. As Long as Illegals Remain, So Will Costs. The relatively low receipt of services by illegals is important from a policy perspective because it means that the amount of money that can be saved by further efforts to curtail their use of public services is probably very limited. As already discussed, the average illegal household is estimated to receives less than half as much in services from the federal government as do other households, even though their households are 17 percent larger on average. This, coupled with the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded citizenship at birth under current law, means that it is very difficult to avoid many of the costs as long as the illegal aliens remain in the country. In addition, if they are allowed to stay, most of the costs they impose will be for programs whose use is difficult to prevent politically or as a practical matter. For example, denying illegals benefits such as the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program might encounter significant political opposition. And incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes is an unavoidable cost of having a large illegal population. Thus, if we want to avoid the costs, we must look to alternatives other than trying to cut them off from public services.

58

http://www.cis.org/High-Cost-of-Cheap-Labor


Immigrants Hurt the US Economy – Remittances

[ ]

[ ] Immigrants send the money they make back to Mexico instead of to the government.

Hanson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institute of Stanford University, 2006(Victor, “Are remittances as bad as oil?,” Chicago Tribune, May 12, Online: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-05-12/news/0605120296_1_remittances-exporting-illegal-immigrants)

It may be counterintuitive to think that checks from hard-working expatriates are pernicious. But for a developing nation, remittances can prove as problematic as the proverbial plight of the lottery winner--sudden winnings that were not earned. In short, remittances, along with oil and tourism--not agriculture, engineering, education, manufacturing or finance--prop up an otherwise ailing Mexican economy. This helps explain why half of the country's 106 million citizens still live in poverty. The billions of dollars Mexicans in the U.S. send back to their country pose another economic and ethical dilemma. Many illegal immigrants in the U.S. allot nearly half their weekly paychecks to relatives in Mexico. But such deductions come right out of the workers' food, housing and transportation budgets here. So to survive, illegal immigrants in the U.S. must endure cheap, substandard and often overcrowded housing. They cannot easily purchase their own health care or invest in safe and reliable cars. Because the United States is a caring nation, the state often intervenes to offer illegal immigrants costly entitlements--emergency-room medicine, legal help and subsidized housing and food--that provide some sort of parity to all its residents. And when immigrants are often paid in cash--that is off the books--the problem of remittances only worsens: The beneficiary Mexico still gets help from workers' pay, while the benefactor United States does not collect taxes.

59

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-05-12/news/0605120296_1_remittances-exporting-illegal-immigrants

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-05-12/news/0605120296_1_remittances-exporting-illegal-immigrants

mexico poe affirmative table of contents (1/2)dallasurbandebate.wikispaces.com/file/view/poe aff-...

Documents